Construction to begin soon on $200M Norwich sewage treatment plant
Claire Bessette
Norwich ― The biggest single construction project in Norwich
Public Utilities’ history is expected to begin this fall, and like building a
new school, the utility will need to ensure the existing obsolete sewage
treatment plant stays open while building its $200 million replacement on the
same site.
Utility officials and a project design consultant presented
the plans to the City Council on Monday.
This came in advance of a Sept. 18 public hearing and
council vote on a proposed ordinance authorizing $200 million in revenue bonds
for the project to be paid through sewer customer rates.
The current sewer plant was built in 1955 and upgraded in
1973 with equipment that was expected to last 20 years but is still in place,
said Craig Wagner, principal engineer for CDM Smith.
NPU General Manager Chris LaRose said the upgrade project
must be done now to avoid state fines for water contamination caused by the
outdated plant, which frequently sends untreated sewage into the Thames River
following major storms and nitrogen contamination.
“We’re basically looking at incorporating 50 years of new
technology that the plant doesn’t have today,” Wagner said.
Along with improvements in daily operations, more
automation, flood prevention upgrades and expanding the plant capacity from 15
million to 20 million gallons per day, the project also will place a modern cap
on the city’s old landfill at the far end of Hollyhock Island.
The landfill never was capped properly. Material excavated
to prepare for the plant construction will be spread on top of the landfill,
graded and capped. The site then could be used for a solar array to help power
the sewage treatment plant, LaRose said.
The entire project will be funded through the state Clean
Water Fund, with $72 million in grants and $128 million in a 2% interest loan
to be paid by the city’s 10,000 sewer customers over 20 years. The Board of
Public Utilities Commissioners is expected to vote Sept. 26 on proposed new utility rates, including a 12.1% sewer
rate increase to help pay for the new plant.
LaRose said NPU reached a regional agreement with
surrounding towns in the hopes of generating some $20 million in new revenue to
help pay for the plant, but new hookups in those towns has been slower than
expected. Expanded sewer lines are planned to stretch into Bozrah and Franklin
as well as Preston to serve development at the former Norwich Hospital
property, LaRose said.
The new plant construction is expected to break ground this
fall and take five years to complete. As with a new school construction
project, the old plant must continue to operate and remain in compliance with
state and federal environmental regulations during construction.
Once the sewer plant project is completed, NPU will pursue
other sewer system upgrades recommended by DEEP. One calls for installing a wet
weather treatment process adjacent to the existing sewer plant to treat higher
volumes of wet weather flows prior to discharging the material into Norwich
Harbor. DEEP also wants NPU to rebuild its main wastewater pumping station to
reduce combined sewage and stormwater overflows into the harbor, NPU officials
said.
“These two other projects will require additional,
significant investment by NPU ratepayers,” NPU wrote in a news release
providing an overview of the sewer system upgrade project. “We will continue to
balance the environmental and regulatory requirements from DEEP with our goal
of minimizing the impact on our wastewater customers.”
Proposed new Norwich police station goes to Nov. 7 referendum
Claire Bessette
Norwich ― Voters will be asked at the Nov. 7 election
whether the city should build a $44.75 million new police station at a site to
be determined.
The City Council onTuesday approved an ordinance to bond up
to $44.75 million for the new police station and passed a second resolution to
send the measure to the voters in a referendum during the Nov. 7 municipal
election. Most speakers favored the project during an Aug. 21 public hearing. The vote was delayed that night to
Tuesday so the wording could be changed to allow state or federal grant money
to be used to reduce local taxpayers’ share of the cost.
Mayor Peter Nystrom announced he was supporting the new
police station ordinance, saying he hopes it would help the city department
with recruitment and retention of police officers. Aldermen voted unanimously
to approve the ordinance without further comment.
The ordinance describes a police headquarters facility that
would include a community room, a community room, training classrooms,
emergency operations center, main desk, dispatch center, areas for the public,
prisoner processing, detention and transport, armory, parking and electric
vehicle charging stations.
The price would also include new equipment and furnishings,
property acquisition, demolition and environmental remediation.
No site has been identified yet for the proposed new
station. Police Chief Patrick Daley said city and police officials will review
top-rated sites from previous studies, especially sites owned by the city to
reduce property acquisition costs.
Voters in 2012 rejected a $33 million plan to convert the
former Sears building downtown into a police station. Three years later, city
leaders rejected bids from private developers for a leased police headquarters.
Now that the item has been placed on the official referendum
ballot, city officials are limited on how they can discuss the issue. City
officials are restricted from using city resources to advocate either for or
against the issue.
Daley said he would be willing to speak with city or civic
group to explain the proposal and answer questions.
The police station proposal is one of two referendum bond
questions on the Nov. 7 agenda. The City Council voted earlier this summer to
send a $6 million bond request to voters for road and bridge construction and
related drainage work on streets throughout the city. Voters have approved
similar road bonds five times since 2009, most recently for $5 million in 2019.
New London ready to replace more than 3,000 residential water lines
John Penney
New London ― The city is poised to begin a multi-million
project to eventually replace more than 3,000 lead-lined residential drinking
water lines with copper versions.
The nearly $32 million project, anticipated to be paid with a
combination of state subsidies and low-interest loans, represents a
“monumental” step toward providing residents with better quality water, Barry
Weiner, Water & Water Pollution Control Authority chairman, told the City
Council on Tuesday.
“This isn’t something we started thinking about just
yesterday,” Weiner said. “We’d be the first in Connecticut and probably one of
the first in New England and the country to do this.”
Residents will not be charged for the work.
In New London, the service lines that run from water mains
consist of sections owned by a customer and the city. The mains, not made of
lead, ferry drinking water to service lines — many of which do contain lead —
and into a dwelling where they feed sinks, shower heads and toilets.
The city service line portions end at a resident’s property
line, typically identified by a curb stop. Director of Public Utilities Joseph
Lanzafame said lead that leaches out through drinking water pipes and is
ingested can cause developmental issues for those who drink it, especially
youngsters.
The three-phase project is anticipated to cost $31.6 million
for the replacement of 3,279 lines, though that number could change. Lanzafame
said the number of replacements needed is based on an examination of 150
resident basements that was then extrapolated with statistical models.
Weiner said 75%, or nearly $24 million, of the overall
project cost will be covered by state and federal grant money with the
remaining $7.9 million paid for with a 2%, 20-year loan guaranteed by the
state.
“And there’s a chance for loan forgiveness, something we’ll
be pursuing,” Weiner said.
Bids open on Sept. 27 for the project’s $11.3 million first
phase which will replace 1,175 lines in the northern and downtown areas of the
city. The state subsidy will cover $8.5 million of the cost with the city
responsible for $2.8 million.
A program timeline for the initial phase calls for the
council on Oct. 16 to approve a bond appropriation resolution for the first
phase of work and construction to begin either in late fall or in early spring
2024.
Phase II and III would concentrate on 2,100 residences in
the city’s western and southern sections, though no schedule for that work has
been set.
Lanzafame acknowledged the street-by-street work will be
disruptive to residents at times, with water shut off for several hours as the
digging, construction, flushing and restoration work proceeds.
The city is currently engaging in several project outreach
efforts, including mailing project participation postcards to residents and
leaving information packets at residences. A project open house will be held
from 6 to 8 p.m. on Sept. 13 at the city’s senior center to give attendees an
overview of the project.
“This is a proactive project and not a reaction to any
requirements,” Lanzafame said. “When you’re forced to do this kind of work, its
usually too late, in my opinion.”
South Windsor will replace 62-year-old water main, fire hydrants by 2024 to improve water quality
Joseph Villanova
SOUTH WINDSOR — The Connecticut Water Company plans to
replace 7,200 feet of water main in town by the spring, a $3 million project
funded through customer bills.
The 62-year-old water main being replaced runs through High
Street, Steep Road, and Aroda, Greenfield, and Hillside drives. The new pipes,
along with 10 new fire hydrants, are intended to improve water quality for
residents and provide additional fire protection for public safety.
Connecticut Water said crews will work Monday through
Friday from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with construction beginning this week at the
Sullivan Avenue side of Hillside Drive.
The company said its customers in the area would be notified
in advance of any water service interruption related to the project.
Funding for the project comes through the Water
Infrastructure and Conservation Adjustment, a rate adjustment on water bills.
Connecticut Water aims to replace one percent of its 1,850-plus miles of
water main every year using the money collected through the semi-annual service
fee, with over $52 million in water investments planned throughout the year.
Connecticut Water is a public water utility that is
regulated by the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. The company
provides water service to more than 107,000 customers in 60 Connecticut towns,
including Bolton, East Windsor, Ellington, Enfield, Hebron, Manchester, Somers,
South Windsor, Stafford, Suffield, Tolland, Vernon, and Windsor Locks, as well
as wastewater services to 3,000 customers in Southbury.
Bridgeport City Council refuses to give up control of road paving decisions
BRIDGEPORT — Road paving and maintenance are basic public
services and also visible improvements politicians tout to voters during
election season.
In fact, in Bridgeport, per municipal regulations, the
elected members of the 20-person City Council have final say over which streets
get improved, a power their peers in Hartford, New Haven and Stamford lack.
And it will remain that way for the foreseeable future. The
council has shot down a proposal to instead give the public facilities director
authority over "pavement activities."
"The council needs to remain the decision making body
of this," Council President Aidee Nieves said in a recent interview.
"This is about the checks and balances."
But others question whether it is the most objective, most
efficient way to take care of Bridgeport's 278 miles of municipally maintained
thoroughfares and byways and the estimated $92 million backlog of fixes and
upgrades.
In August the council's ordinance committee took up some
proposed regulation changes recommended by the public facilities department.
All were approved except language giving that agency's director
"discretion to make pavement alterations, repairs and repavings"
using their "best judgement" and "in consultation with"
Bridgeport's local legislative body.
And that proposal was not revived Tuesday when the full,
all-Democratic council convened and gave final approval to the other public
facilities-related amendments the ordinance committee had authorized.
The paving power proposal was so unpopular that two
council members known for having a hostile working relationship —
Ernie Newton and Maria Pereira — were united in condemning it during last
month's committee meeting.
"The City Council runs every two years," Newton
said at the time. "We're on these streets. ... I will not support usurping
the power of City Council to make recommendations in their district on what
streets should be paved."
Pereira agreed "wholeheartedly."
"We are the front line to our constituents," she
told her colleagues at the August ordinance committee gathering. "I
(receive) tons of calls about cracks, potholes, whatever. To say the public
facilities will 'consult with us' is saying, 'I'll talk to you, but if I don't
want to do what you want to do, I'll do what I want to do.'"
City Engineer Jon Urquidi that night argued that the current
process — divvying up the annual allotment of budgeted paving dollars among the
10 council districts and obtaining council representatives' lists of priorities
— is not the best approach.
"It's very difficult to come up with a long-term paving
plan on a year-to-year basis," Urquidi said. He added it also makes it
difficult to coordinate with utility companies to avoid having them dig up
newly-improved roadways.
"Sometimes you have a street and literally a month or a
couple months later a utility company's coming in and cutting into brand new
pavement," Urquidi continued. "I just want to make that
point."
But Pereira argued Mayor Joe Ganim's administration could
work with the council and develop a longer-term plan and more stable funding
for roadwork.
"It works two ways, here," she told Urquidi.
Why did city officials propose the change now? As
previously reported, a consultant hired by the city to review the
conditions of Bridgeport's roads in its report issued last year concluded $7.5
million needs to be invested annually to tackle a more than $92 million backlog
of road repairs.
That firm, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., gave
Bridgeport's streets an overall average rating of "fair," a 75
on a scale of 0 to 100, but just three points outside of the "deficient
condition" range.
The study broke that "fair" ranking down further:
73.7 miles require "preventive maintenance" costing $13.4 million;
67.4 miles require "structural improvement" worth $29.4 million; 48.7
miles require "base rehabilitation" — the most expensive type of work
— totaling $47.9 million; and 41.9 miles need $1.2 million worth of
"routine maintenance."
Michael Looney is director of public works in Hartford.
"We don't do it the way Bridgeport does," he said
after the local process was explained to him.
Looney said Connecticut's capital city employs "asset
management software" to rate the condition and life of its roads, creates
an internal paving list built around those in the worst condition, and forwards
it to utility companies to avoid conflicts.
Looney said his department works to balance the condition
data with "geographic distribution" so one side of town is not
unfairly excluded. But in the end, he continued, the final decision on a paving
program is his.
"I give it my final blessing and hand it off to our
milling and paving contractors and say 'go for it,'" Looney said. "I
may get a call from a (council) member saying, 'Such and such street is in
really bad condition.' My answer usually is, 'I agree. We've seen it on our
list. ... It's probably not going to be this year but probably next year
because we've got others in worse condition and we have to take care of those
first.'"
Matthew Quinones, Stamford's director of operations, said
the situation is similar in that city with a third party analyzing street
conditions and recommending improvements.
"Nothing prevents (Stamford's board of representatives)
from requesting (paving). But we are driven off of our priority list,"
Quinones said.
Quinones, prior to working for municipal government, was a
member of Stamford's board of representatives for eight years, four of those as
its president. He said he cannot fault local elected officials in Bridgeport
who want the power to pave roads — "they want to deliver for their
district" — but noted that such a system can be inefficient.
"When you create a city-wide policy you should have
citywide decision makers," Quinones said. "Their (individual council
members') role is to advocate for the needs of their district. Someone running
a department is going to be able to have a different perspective."
New Haven's approach is different from Bridgeport's but also
Hartford's and Stamford's. That city has a resources allocation subcommittee of
two members from its board of alders and two mayoral appointees. At least
once every four years a consultant will review New Haven's streets for that
board, and annually aldermen are asked to submit a list of projects for their
neighborhoods ranked in order of greatest priority. That resources board then
takes all of that information and consults with New Haven's public works
director and city engineer.
Back in Bridgeport, Nieves in an interview argued that
giving a mayoral-appointed public facilities director discretion over street
work does not necessarily mean the resultant decisions are apolitical.
"It's just an appointee of the mayor. Due to that
dynamic, the loyalty of the public facilities director usually lies with the
administration," Nieves said. "And that's a lot of power to wield
from that one chair."
Bridgeport Councilman Tyler Mack, an
ordinance committee co-chairman, said when running for office two years
ago he pledged to work to try and make the council more of an equal branch of
government with the mayor. Mack in an interview said taking away road-paving
power would be a step backward.
Mack also argued that while council members tour their
streets and consult with constituents, they also discuss pavement conditions
with public facilities staff to "make the best decision for our
districts."
"If council members are making (paving) decisions based
on political convenience, they shouldn't be on the council," Mack said.
City Council pushes Cook Avenue site ahead for Meriden senior center project
Christian Metzger
MERIDEN — The City Council unanimously voted this week to
move ahead with the senior center project at 116 Cook Ave.
The site’s blighted medical office complex which has
stood vacant for 25 years will be demolished to make room for a modern,
centrally located community center. The council plans to establish a building
committee in late October or November and begin toward a tentative
timetable, with ground being broken some time in 2025.
The estimated $48 million project will see the reclamation
of the 5.6-acre parcel and the construction of a 33,000-square-foot building
that will serve not only as a senior center, but as a consolidated office space
for the city’s health and human services divisions, with an 8,000-square-foot
multipurpose gymnasium that can be used for events or disaster relief.
Cook Avenue was chosen as one of two potential properties
for the new senior center site after design firm EDM Studios conducted surveys
and focus groups, fielding over 500 respondents from patrons and staff about
what they wanted to see at the new facility.
Although all the plans presented before the council are
loosely conceptual and don’t portray what the building may look like once
ground is broken, the new center will have a number of dining and multipurpose
rooms, exercise and fitness spaces, several arts and crafts studio spaces, and
flexible lounge facilities that can accommodate different events.
At first, some members of the council were hesitant to
accept the Senior Center Review Commission’s recommendation of the Cook Avenue
site, wanting to assess if the second reviewed property — the more rural
65 Westfield Road — would be a better fit for the center.
Mayor Kevin Scarpati urged the members of the council,
however, to make a decision at the meeting, expressing a concern that any delay
will see the progress of the center project stalled and lost in committee for
months — trusting in the judgment of the commission’s recommendation for
the Cook Avenue site.
“I don’t see any benefit to say no to this, even if you’re
against the committee’s proposal on 116 Cook Ave., to at least get us to the
next step, and that is to form a building committee,” Scarpati said.
He said that the expansion of the greenspace provided to the
area by the senior center by the outdoor walking trails would be a “wow
factor” to that area of downtown and draw more people to the area. The
fate of the 116 parcel, if not for the senior center, he said, would be
only more high-rise apartment developments.
“The question is what does 116 look like in the future. We
take the building down, we cap it, we have an open space that’s adjacent to
Factory H, you bundle that together and you look for a developer,” Scarpati
said. “I can tell you that, from what we’ve seen, attracting into the downtown
area specifically, that I can only think that it’s going to be larger high-rise
type towers or apartment-style buildings, one that I don’t think is beneficial
to the future of Meriden. I don’t think we need more of that type of housing in
and around downtown where we’ve saturated it already.”
There has been some pushback regarding the committee’s
recommendation of the Cook Avenue site, both in public comment at meetings and
online. Some believe that the Westfield property would be better, even if it is
two miles out from downtown, as it is believed to be quieter due to its more
rural location and safer from potential traffic concerns.
One of the biggest criticisms of the Cook Avenue site is
that it doesn’t have enough parking space to satisfy the needs of its capacity,
requiring the construction of an additional parking lot across the street.
According to representatives from EDM, however, the parking would only be an
issue when hosting larger events and it won’t be a problem during normal
operating hours.
During the discussion, Councilor Michael Rohde asked his
council colleagues to consider who they were building the new center to
serve.
“I think we have a fundamental paradox here in terms of, are
we creating this senior center for the suburban or urban population? (We are)
unlike Wallingford, which is a suburban town without much of a downtown like we
have, and their senior center is for a suburban population,” said Rohde. He
added that there is a large population who will attend the city center
with mobility issues, who would have a more difficult time accessing it if it
were two miles out of downtown.
“I think the people who use the senior center now live in
the downtown area,” he said. “For the life of me, I don’t know if this were on
Westfield Road how this population, which is our major population now, gets to
Westfield Road without a massive busing operation, plus the traffic issues
— trying to get onto Broad Street at certain times of day is virtually
impossible. … It’s an urban center, we’re an urban city. We’re not a
Wallingford.”
Rohde added that the city could assess other
options for parking if that was a concern — such as acquiring
land from the adjacent housing properties to expand parking and keep it all in
one space.
Should the Cook Avenue property be constructed
similar to how it was presented, it will include a large greenspace area
that allows for walking and lounging opportunities, along with connecting to a
walking path along adjacent Harbor Brook. For those who have noise concerns
from the downtown area, there will also be an enclosed courtyard space inside
the building which will allow seniors to enjoy the sun without the sounds from
the street. There will also be multiple entrances to the Cook Avenue site,
unlike Westfield, which are anticipated to reduce potential traffic or
congestion concerns that might arise with the Westfield property.
Demolition costs of the medical complex are not factored
into the $48 million price tag for the center, as that is considered a separate
project being handled by the city. It is currently unknown how much it would
cost to raze the building, given the presence of hazardous materials like
asbestos on the site. However, with the formation of a building committee
to occur later this year, demolition of the structure could occur sometime in
2024.
Selection of the building committee will be a month-long
process with nominations by the mayor, confirmed by the City Council. The
committee will begin to thoroughly assess the Cook Avenue site and draft a more
complete version of the plans. It’s yet unknown whether the city will continue
its work with EDM to continue the design process or select another
architectural firm.