ENFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2008
A Special Meeting of the Enfield Town Council was called to order by Chairman Kaupin in the Council Chambers of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Monday, February 20, 2008. The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL-CALL – Present were Councilmen Bosco, Dumont, Edgar, Jones, Kaupin, Nelson and Ragno. Councilmen Crowley and Kiner were absent. Councilman Lee entered at 6:36 p.m. and left at 7:39 p.m. Councilman Mangini entered at 6:52 p.m. Also present were Town Manager, Matthew Coppler; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Clerk, Suzanne Olechnicki; Town Attorney, Kevin Deneen; Town Planner, Jose Giner; Assistant Town Planner/Wetlands Agent, Steven Sadlowski; Highway Superintendent, William Sperrazza; Director of Finance, Lynn Nenni; Deputy Finance Director, Kimberly Doherty-Marcotte; Senior Assistant Town Attorney, Maria Elsden; Risk Manager, William Strachan; Director of Public Works, Piya Hawkes; Town Engineer, Jeff Bord; Assistant Town Engineer, John Cabibbo
Mr. Vindigni introduced the work team involved in putting this presentation together:
Town Planner, Jose Giner; Assistant Town Planner/Wetlands Agent, Steven Sadlowski; Highway Superintendent, William Sperrazza; Deputy Finance Director, Kimberly Doherty-Marcotte; Senior Assistant Town Attorney, Maria Elsden; Risk Manager, William Strachan; Town Engineer Jeff Bord; Assistant Town Engineer, John Cabibbo
Mr. Vindigni stated Enfield consists of nearly 34 square miles with about 183 miles of municipal roads. He noted a lot of drainage goes along with this. He pointed out Enfield has eight watersheds, and every part of Enfield falls into some form of watershed, and the most significant one of all is the Freshwater Brook. He noted this brook starts at the border with East Longmeadow and comes down Shaker Lake and goes through Enfield’s major commercial and industrial area all the way down across Route 5 and ends up in the Connecticut River.
Mr. Vindigni stated they started this project in November, and for the last four months the work team has been meeting on almost a weekly basis to review the presentation the Council is receiving this evening. He noted the team looked at several aspects – they wanted to gather information on specific sites that were causing chronic problems, they included general cost estimates, and they developed a funding plan. He pointed out the report has been divided into four major groups: erosion, flooding, street drainage and other issues.
He stated they’re also providing a prioritization of the projects based on their severity in terms of their risk to both infrastructure, buildings and dwellings, and they’ll propose a funding strategy. He noted eventually, they’d like to prepare requests for proposals. He noted they can do in-house engineering on some of these projects, and they will recommend a referendum on November 4, 2008 for some of these projects.
Mr. Sadlowski stated they will be presenting the most severe and expensive problems this evening. He noted as they wait to repair these problems, the problems get worse and more expensive since additional material is continually eroding.
He gave a historical account of how the wetlands and the types of soils were formed in Enfield about 15,000 years ago.
Mr. Sadlowski then reviewed recommendations for eroded areas:
· Prioritized sites will have full engineering reviews to design the best solution for each site
· Re-shaping of existing area/removing unsuitable materials
· Filling of voids with appropriate, stable fill
· Armoring of steep or vulnerable slopes and waterways
· Re-build or improve drainage, often including under-drains
· Re-vegetation of slopes using turf-reinforcement mats
He noted there has already been a lot of work done on these problems in the past. He reviewed some of the successful projects they’ve worked on - JFK Middle School, Welch, Queen and Cloud Streets, as well as Oliver Road, Old King Street and Meadowlark, although there’s more work to be done. He stated there were more street drainage issues corrected in the Road 2000 and 2005 projects.
Mr. Sadlowski then highlighted projects that need to be done:
Sun Street ravine - town-owned
Freshwater Brook wall - town-owned – located behind the homes on Asnuntuck Street
Mr. Cabibbo addressed flooding issues throughout Enfield. Using a map he pointed out areas vulnerable to flooding. He stated Lynch Terrace, O’Hear Street and Meadowlark are in FEMA flood areas. He stated according to the FEMA study done in Enfield, the bottleneck for Freshwater Brook, which causes a lot of flooding, is at the Route 5 bridge. He pointed out the bridge was constructed in 1934.
Mr. Vindigni stated development east of this bridge, at the time it was built, was not envisioned. He pointed out increased water flow is a result of all the development east of this bridge, i.e., the interstate highway, shopping malls, etc. He explained as the water flows from east to west, the passage at the Route 5 bridge becomes reduced, and it becomes a choke point. He noted this is the culprit that has caused a lot of the drainage and flooding problems to the west. He emphasized the importance of stabilizing everything downstream before the Rte. 5 location is addressed so that they’re not just moving the problem downstream. He noted it’s all tied together.
Mr. Cabibbo referred to Meadowlark and noted a lot of work has been done at Beemans Brook to reduce the frequency of flooding. He stated his belief that work has been effective.
He referred to the Post Road curve flooding and noted this is a different type of problem. He noted this is not necessarily in a flood plain area. He explained there’s a very flat area on both sides of the road, and there are a lot of wetlands in that area. He noted the only way to fix this area is to raise the road elevation and install larger culverts underneath to equalize the water.
Mr. Sperrazza spoke about street drainage problems. He noted this is often related to problems with the road or its drainage system or lack of a drainage system. He stated some roads require reconstruction and some problems are serious or a nuisance. He noted these areas can be icy this time of year, and then it becomes a public safety matter. He listed some problem areas – Virginia Avenue, Allen Street, Somers Road, 115 North Street, Stephen Drive/Edmund Lane, West Forest Drive, Wilstar Circle, 359 George Washington Road.
Mr. Sperrazza highlighted some other drainage issues which involve miscellaneous problems with pipes, outlets and other structures. He noted there are various issues on the following streets: Sapphire Street (culvert headwalls), Mullen Road (culvert headwalls), Still Lane (culvert), Audrey Lane (outlet), 25 Parker Street (pipe issue), Belmont Avenue (pipe issue), Summer Street (outlet) and Debbie Lane (outlet). He noted some of these are relatively simple fixes. He added the Town has easements at some of these locations, and others will require easements.
Mr. Vindigni reviewed the funding strategy as follows:
Individual projects which cost less than $50,000 can be grouped into a single Capital Improvement Project Account (Erosion & Drainage Maintenance Account)
Individual projects which cost between $50,000 and $300,000 can be funded over a one to two-year fiscal period.
Individual projects that cost in excess of $300,000 require referendum approval to obtain sufficient funding. (November, 2008 referendum being recommended)
Referring to Neelans Brook near Buckhorn, Councilman Ragno noted this was a situation that was really developed by the State, and it appears the Town is getting stuck with the bill for this. He questioned what recourse the Town has in this situation. Mr. Vindigni noted the same argument can be made for the situation on Broad Brook Road. He noted the point is that sooner or later, all problems are local. He added if the Town doesn’t get the grant funding, the Town has to find a way to deal with such situations.
Councilman Ragno stated his belief these are the types of issues that need to be forwarded to the Town’s Representatives and elected officials. He noted he would like to look at other constructive resolutions, i.e., some work can be done in-house, they can seek out other funding sources, etc. He stated his belief the Enfield contingent going to Washington, D.C. should bring up these issues with the elected officials in Washington.
Mr. Vindigni stated they never look at a referendum as an easy solution to a problem. He noted they cannot guarantee the Town will get monies from other sources. Councilman Ragno agreed, however, he feels they need to pursue other avenues.
Mr. Sadlowski stated he met with representatives from the Conservation district and Watershed Association to see if there’s any available state money for these projects, and there isn’t any money available.
Ms. Doherty-Marcotte provided a chart which showed the fiscal impact of bonding.
Mr. Strachan noted in reviewing the Town’s insurance policy as relates to doing work on private property, anything that occurred while the work is being done would not be covered. He recommended not doing work on private property.
Attorney Deneen stated there’s no legal obligation to do this work. He noted this would be a policy decision by the Council acting as the Flood & Erosion Control Board. As concerns issues regarding Town property, the Council has the authority to maintain Town property. He went on to explain the Town doesn’t necessarily have the authority to fix a single person’s property, but if it’s part of an overall system, the Town has that authority when acting as the Flood & Erosion Control Board. He noted the statute clearly contemplates that the Town do that through either the granting or taking of easements. He pointed out that once the Town starts that project, it owns it.
Councilman Bosco questioned if the Town tries to alleviate the problem at Gordon Lane by taking down some trees, will that mean the Town will have more financial problems because if they touch this area, they’ll own it. Attorney Deneen agreed it’s a risk if the Town does erosion control work.
Chairman Kaupin questioned if it’s recommended to fund Categories A and B in the upcoming budget. Mr. Coppler responded yes. Mr. Vindigni recommended listing the three projects under Category B separately as individual CIP projects within the budget.
Councilman Edgar stated he would expect that they would do Phase II and Phase III in the Meadowlark area this year. He noted they already put in $327,000 for this, and they already have the easements for Phase III, which is Yale Drive. Mr. Vindigni referred to the reference to Meadowlark and noted that’s for something much larger in scale and requires real estate negotiation and discussion in Executive Session. He noted this is not to stop the project being specifically referenced by Councilman Edgar.
Councilman Mangini questioned if they’re addressing Town vs. private properties. Mr. Vindigni stated their funding recommendation right now is on the Town-owned properties where the Town owns the property or the Town has a maintenance easement requirement already in place. He pointed out the funding the Council sees tonight is only for publicly owned properties, and it’s not for privately owned properties.
Councilman Mangini questioned if they will address private owned properties. Mr. Vindigni stated the Council has to discuss what direction it wants to take. He noted although this involves a handful of properties, the costs associated with those projects is quite high.
Councilman Edgar pointed out the people on Yale Drive have the same problem that Virginia Avenue did in that there are no catch basins and the culvert is under-sized.
Chairman Kaupin suggested two items for future agendas – a discussion on the referendum and the discussion regarding private property issues.
Chairman Kaupin stated he is very impressed with the work done leading up to tonight’s presentation. He commended the work team who put this together. He thanked everyone for their hard work and a great job.
MOTION #9692 by Councilman Nelson, seconded by Councilman Mangini to adjourn.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #9692 adopted 8-0-0, and the meeting stood adjourned at 8:00 p.m.