ENFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2010
A Public Hearing was called to order by Chairman Kaupin in the Council Chambers of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Monday, August 23, 2010 at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL-CALL – Present were Councilmen Bosco, Dumont, Edgar, Hall, Kaupin, Keller, Kiner, Lee, and Nelson. Councilmen Crowley and Mangini were absent. Councilman Kiner left at 8:30 p.m. Also present were Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Clerk, Suzanne Olechnicki; Town Attorney, Kevin Deneen; Director of Social Services, Pam Brown; Director of Public Works, Piya Hawkes; Community Development Director, Peter Bryanton; Director of Finance, Lynn Nenni
Chairman Kaupin read the notice of Public Hearing, which was published in the Hartford Courant on Friday, August 13, 2010 as follows:
TOWN OF ENFIELD
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2010
“The Enfield Town Council will hold a Public Hearing in the Enfield Town Hall, Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Monday, August 23, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. to allow interested citizens an opportunity to express their opinions regarding the proposed RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF VARIOUS TOWN ROADS AND ROADSIDE ELEMENTS.
Chairman Kaupin then announced the ground rules for the Public Hearing.
Director of Public Works, Piya Hawkes and Gordon Daring of VHB were present to provide a brief presentation.
Mr. Daring stated the pavement management process is a planning operation for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation with a goal to maximize the value and the life of the pavement network.
He explained the process followed in a pavement management program:
- They build a defined inventory of the pavement sections
- A visual inspection is done of each pavement section
- Road distresses are rated in a prescribed manner so as to be objective and systematic
- A Pavement Condition Index, or PCI value is calculated so they are able to compare the condition of roads on a scale of zero to 100 – 100 is the best condition
· The database of pavement information is integrated with the Town’s Geographic Information System (GIS). This is a tool to visualize various aspects of the road program.
· With specialized software, they are able to define the type of treatment appropriate for each road.
· Past costs for the various types of road treatment have been programmed into the software.
· The software allows them to run various type of analyses, i.e., what road conditions will look like over time with different funding levels; different approaches can be tested in terms of using certain treatments in certain conditions.
· The software can come up with a list of candidate projects, which can be analyzed and prioritized.
Mr. Daring stated the average PCI in Enfield is 72, which shows there are a good number of miles in Enfield in good condition. He noted the bad news is that there are still a good number of miles of roads that need significant work.
He stated based on the evaluation done earlier this year, if money were no object and the Town wanted to improve every road, it would cost about $45 million dollars.
Mr. Daring recommended dollars be put toward pavement preservation, i.e., crack sealing, thin overlay and other pavement preservation and pavement maintenance options to preserve the roads that have been improved through Roads 2000 and Roads 2005.
He stated the Town does need to address the more major pavement needs in town as funding allows.
Mr. Daring stated once projects do go to construction, they recommend the Town institute appropriate construction inspection techniques to be sure the paving mixtures put down and the construction practices that are followed are quality practices.
Chairman Kaupin stated the resolutions coming before the Council involve a $27.5 million dollar referendum, with $25 million dollars being bonded funds, and the balance coming from annual appropriations by the Council as has been done through the budget allocation process. He noted this Public Hearing is to learn if the public wants the Town to go forward with a referendum in November.
Bruce Chadwick, Bond Counsel from Shipman & Goodwin, was present to explain the three resolutions before the Town Council. He noted the first resolution is to appropriate $27.5 million dollars for the road projects in accordance with the plan presented. He stated the total amount to be spent on this phase of the road projects is $27.5 million dollars. He noted the maximum that can be borrowed will be $25 million dollars with the balance coming from annual appropriations.
Mr. Chadwick stated the second resolution is to submit this proposal to a referendum in conjunction with the state elections taking place on November 2nd. He noted under state statute this has to be done at least 60 days prior to the election date.
He stated the third resolution would authorize the Town Manager and Town Clerk to prepare explanatory text, which would provide unbiased information that could be distributed through a mailing or made available to the public. He noted the explanatory text would be reviewed by Bond Counsel, and it must be signed off by the Town Attorney to be sure it’s not biased in anyway.
Ms. Nenni stated she prepared a schedule which shows the Town’s current debt service and the impact of a $25 million dollar bond issue on the mill rate. She noted she computed the $25 million dollar issue at an interest rate of 4%. She stated the impact on the current mill rate ranges from 72 cents in the first year of the bonding to about 42 cents in the last year of the bonding.
Chairman Kaupin invited comments from the public.
Carol Bison, 36 Burnham Street
Stated she’s here to advocate for her area, which is known as Southwood Acres. She noted this area falls within the “reclaim/reconstruct” area of the road projects. She acknowledged these are difficult economic times, and it will be difficult to pass this referendum, however, it’s prudent to move forward considering the low interest rates at this time.
She stated her hope the Council will give attention to Southwood Acres if they do move forward with another road project.
Charles Woods, 11 Westerly Drive
Voiced his support of the road program, however, he’s concerned about the timing and the scope of the program. He noted there should also be coordination with utility companies so that newly paved roads aren’t torn up for utility work.
Mr. Woods stated his belief the Town should also be coordinating the condition of the roads and the usage of the roads.
He stated he was rather disappointed in the number of miles done for all the money already spent.
Mr. Woods stated he recognizes the need for the road program.
Margaret Jedziniak, 232 Abbe Road
Questioned whether Enfield officials make sure that certain overweight trucks don’t use certain street in town as shortcuts. She questioned whether there should be signage forbidding trucks to use certain streets. She noted some of these trucks travel at high rates of speed, and large trucks also cause wear and tear on the roads.
Steve Forrest, 62 Burnham Street
Stated Southwood Acres is in big disrepair. He questioned what will happen if this referendum doesn’t pass.
Robert LaFlamme, 335 Elm Street
Stated he owns a home in the north end of Enfield, which benefited from the Roads 2000 project. He noted he has also supported the road projects over the years.
Mr. LaFlamme stated consideration should be given to the funding level so that roads don’t deteriorate.
He stated that although these are difficult economic times, this may be a better time to spend the money because prices are low and labor is cheaper.
He agreed with Ms. Jedziniak regarding heavy trucks using Enfield roads and questioned why 53-foot tractor-trailer trucks pass the police station every day, particularly since they built Shaker Road, Moody Road and Hazard Avenue to handle this type of traffic.
William Kweder, 87 Steele Road
Stated he is very much in favor of going forward. He noted interest rates are down, and they’re continuing to slide, therefore, the Town could take advantage of this. He noted his greatest concern is when they can expect to see some of the improvements.
Chairman Kaupin requested Mr. Vindigni address some of the questions that were raised.
Mr. Vindigni requested Mr. Hawkes and Mr. Daring to respond to the question about the coordination of the roads and the usage of the roads.
Mr. Daring stated the evaluation of pavement condition is based solely on the stresses and the pavement condition. He noted when they use the pavement management software to come up with the list of candidate projects, that software absolutely does consider the level of usage. He explained the software will favor doing low cost maintenance or preservation work on a heavily traveled road as a first priority, and it will then move toward doing the low-cost maintenance work on lower traveled or local roads.
He stated it will then mix in the more major work on the heavily used roads first and then the local roads.
Mr. Vindigni stated they can defer the question about truck traffic on town roads to the Public Safety Director and the Police Department. He noted when he gets a response, he will forward that to the Council and Ms. Jedziniak and Mr. LaFlamme.
Councilman Dumont questioned whether the Town is taking into consideration utility road cuts. Mr. Vindigni noted VHB spoke about the need to coordinate work with utility companies.
Councilman Nelson agreed Southwood Acres needs roadwork. He noted roadwork has to be spread throughout the whole town. He stated he support this 100%. He stated with the cost of the bond and the interest at this time, he’d like to commit the next ten years and try to bond this money at this interest rate. He pointed out this is an on-going project, and they can’t stop now because they have been making progress.
Chairman Kaupin stated his belief this is a good time to look at this because of the interest rates. He noted this would be improving the infrastructure of the town. He requested Mr. Vindigni post the figures on the Town’s website so that people can understand what the cost impact will be over the life of the 20-year bond. He stated his belief they do need to do a combination of the maintenance work and the reclamation work.
He noted if the referendum did not pass, the only avenue would be to fund this work through the Town’s capital improvement program budget. He explained on a specific item, they can budget up to $600,000 per year without referendum, therefore, they would have to do road work on a pay-as-you-go basis. He noted Councils in the past, and he believes the current Council believe that it’s better to bond the money so the money gets done in a shorter period of time.
Councilman Hall stated it might be a good idea to have a few informational sessions for the general public and in different locations in Enfield. She stated her belief it may help pass this referendum if people are informed.
Mr. Vindigni stated the Town Council is having one of their neighborhood quarterly meetings scheduled for August 30th at Nathan Hale School. He noted this could be used for the first informational meeting. Chairman Kaupin agreed and noted they can schedule these informational meetings throughout the fall leading up to the November election.
Charles Woods, 11 Westerly Drive
Questioned if it’s intended to spend $5 million dollars per year. He questioned how they will spread out the spending of this money. He stated his belief there needs to be a good understanding of what the flow of money and debt will be.
Councilman Lee requested a historical on how the town has done a project of this magnitude before. Ms. Nenni stated her belief the Council passed the Roads 2005 Project in 2005, but they didn’t actually do the bonding until 2008. Councilman Lee questioned what causes that, and Ms. Nenni stated the Town had a sufficient Fund Balance on hand that enabled the Town to start the construction and delay the bonding until the market conditions were more favorable. She noted in this case and in the schedule she prepared it assumes that they do the entire bonding in 2012.
Councilman Lee questioned if the Town has to wait until the referendum passes before something could go out to bid from a procurement standpoint, and Ms. Nenni responded yes.
Councilman Lee questioned if the Town can buy a paving contract similar to how they purchase heating oil, and Mr. Hawkes responded no because they don’t know what the rate will be for bituminous.
Councilman Lee questioned how much the Town’s capacity to do projects varies from season to season. Mr. Hawkes referred to the 2005 Program and noted they had three to four consultants working on certain sections of town, and they prepared the plan specs and estimates.
Councilman Nelson stated a resident just texted him and questioned the chance of the bond company calling the bond.
Mr. Chadwick stated the only way projects can be financed in Connecticut is through short-term bond anticipation to start the processing of bonding before doing long-term bonds. He went on to note it’s generally not allowable to call in the bonds until eight to ten years out.
Chairman Kaupin questioned if the work would be spread out equally over five years, and Mr. Hawkes stated if the referendum passes in November, they could start doing estimates in the spring and have them done in summer. Chairman Kaupin questioned if Mr. Hawkes sees this as being fairly equal spending over the five years, and Mr. Hawkes responded yes.
Charles Woods, 11 Westerly Drive
Questioned whether the Town will be putting any money out for the railroad project, and if so, will that have any effect on the Town’s bonding for that project as well as the roads Chairman Kaupin stated there is no bonding for the transit center.
As no one else wished to speak, Chairman Kaupin closed the Public Hearing at 8:09 p.m. |