The '$238,000 Sewer Mistake'

Mistakes and a lack of communication has already cost the town $238,000 in costs associated with Sewer Assessment #34. That cost could go up again after residents expressed additional concerns during a public hearing at Southington Town Hall on Tuesday night.

Nearly 70 town residents packed into the Council Chambers on Tuesday as more than a dozen residents impacted by increased rates spoke out against the assessment and how it was handled, calling for the item to be tabled and requesting the town do more to help reduce the “excessive costs left sitting on our shoulders.”

Joseph Klepacki, who owns property from 1685 West Street through 1720 West Street, expressed anger at the prices he was given, saying it’s a mistake that would cost him more than $94,000 – and these costs don’t include tying in to the line.

“I’ve been here 85 years and have never had a problem with the sewers,” Klepacki said. “We don’t mind paying out share, but I’m not Santa Claus.”

Edward Pocock III, chairman of the Southington town Council, said there are tough decisions for council members to make as they attempt to do what is fair and right to the residents.

“The bottom line is were some issues with entire thing we already needed to address. From this point, the costs will only be adjusted lower for residents. They won’t be increased any higher,” Pocock said.

“There is $238,000 as we’ve already determined tonight coming out of undesignated reserves. As more facts are found and the numbers adjusted, this is something that could end up leading to a cost of $440,000 to $500,000 to the town.”

The council on Tuesday proposed immediate changes to the process to help alleviate some costs to those residents affected by the project.

When the sewer bills were mailed in late 2011, the bills shocked many local residents after they came in at nearly twice the price they were given when the projects were first approved from 2004 to 2006. The projects affected residents of West Street, Williamsburg Drive, Annelise Avenue, Skyline Drive, Cedar Drive and Reusnner Road.

Residents in these areas were given estimates that there costs would be in the range of $65 to $80 per square foot with a one-time fee of $750 to connect to the town’s sewer lines.

By the time they received their bills late last year, however, residents on West Street were assessed a cost of $131.20 per linear foot, those in the second part of the project on Williamsburg Drive were assessed at $126.15 per linear foot and the remaining residents in the third section of the sewer installation were assessed at $97.62 per linear foot.

In addition, the residents were also notified via certified mail in November that they would be expected to pay $1,500 to hook up their lines rather than the $750 they were initially quoted.

Several members of the council said Wednesday that they felt compelled to make adjustments and further changes could be coming to help alleviate the costs to those residents effected by the delayed and unrealistic assessment bills.

“These linear foot costs include all hard costs such as materials and labor, as well as soft costs,” Pocock said. “The original estimates were woefully low and in terms of the process of keeping residents in loop, we failed.”

Pocok said the council’s initial proposal involves returning the connection cost to $750 and furthermore said they would remove soft costs from the bills, reducing costs to $116.99 per linear foot for West Street residents, $103.48 for Williamsburg Drive residents and $81.79 for everyone else.

Based on these figures, the town is already committed to absorbing at least $238,132.42 in costs associated with Sewer Assessment #34.

Residents who were directly affected by this issue still believe that isn’t enough, however.

Helen Henne, who was at the meeting on behalf of her mother, and West Street resident Edmund Sterniak each said they felt it was unfair for residents to be asked to pay anything more than the high end of what was projected. They said residents should not be penalized for mistakes they attributed to former Town Engineer Anthony Tranquillo.

“This whole project was grossly mismanaged by the town’s former engineer,” Henne said Tuesday. “This is a severe injustice to the taxpayers and landowners on West Street. Why should residents pay for Tony Tranquillo’s screw-ups?”

Sterniak said he also believes that Tranquillo lied to him regarding what would be assessed. He said that his property, due to it’s location, would have been responsible for just 25 feet of line but instead was charged at 190 feet. He said this was a shock to himself and his wife, both over 90-years-old.

Michael Baker, who owns and operates the West Street business Patrick Baker & Sons, encouraged the town to do the right thing. He said the assessment is problematic and the town should take the steps to charge residents at the price they were quoted, not what the town decided to pay after the public hearings on installation, the last which took place in 2006.

Baker said when he was younger, he made a mistake with his business and was forced to decide whether to charge the customer 25 percent more than anticipated or deliver services and goods at the price his company had quoted.

“My family made the decision to charge what we promised. We took a hit then, but that customer has continued to come back since,” Baker said. “If the town wants to set a strong example, it needs to do the same.”

Still others said more change is needed, but it will be incumbent on residents to work with officials to find a fair resolution for everyone.

Anthony Denorfia, a local developer, attorney and resident of Williamsburg Drive, said he was “astounded” when he got the estimates for his neighborhood and said based on services rendered, he believes that Williamsburg residents should have seen bills closer to $73.

He suggested the town take a stance and charge all residents evenly at the high end of the estimates, which would be around $82.

“There are aspects of this project which also need to be looked at much closer,” said Len Pauquette, West Street resident. “In tabling this, I think it gives everyone the opportunity to work together and find a resolution that will work for everyone.”

The council did in fact table the issue Tuesday and will take it back up during their next scheduled meeting on Feb. 27.

In the meantime, council members will face tough decisions as they determine the best way to address the issue in a way which is not only fair to those residents affected, but is fair to taxpayers throughout the town as well.

“It’s a tough issue. Do you forgo all costs and put the burden on the shoulders of thousands of taxpayers to alleviate the concerns for the 72 property owners affected?” Town Manager Garry Brumback said. “It’s not a decision that will be popular no matter what we do. This issue isn’t up to town staff, however. This is an issue that the council will be responsible for deciding on and we will move forward with the direction we are given.”