Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Resilience topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Land Bank Commission votes to advance simpler Francis Street rain-garden plan, asks staff for cost estimates
Summary
The commission approved staff’s recommendation to pursue a low-cost rain-garden approach (Option 2) for Francis Street Beach and required staff to return with pricing before final approval. Commissioners debated trade-offs among flood storage, cost and town coordination.
The Connecticut Land Bank Commission voted to advance a staff-recommended, lower-cost rain-garden approach for the Francis Street Beach improvement project while requiring staff to return with detailed cost estimates before the commission gives final approval.
Staff presented three alternatives for the site—Option 1, a detention-basin approach to maximize flood storage tied into the town’s stormwater system; Option 2, a simpler rain garden intended to provide water-quality benefits at lower cost; and a do-nothing alternative to leave the site as grass. "Staff are leaning in on option 2, knowing that we would try and keep it really basic, even simpler than the Easton Street Rain Garden," a staff member said during the meeting.
Commissioners discussed trade-offs including high groundwater at the site, uncertain stormwater storage gains from an engineered detention system, the visual and educational value of a planted rain garden, and the need to coordinate with ongoing town and senior-center planning. One commissioner urged caution about spending when the town and other local projects remain unresolved; another called for a modestly improved design to showcase natural solutions. "I would like to propose option 3 that we do nothing," a commissioner said, while another moved to proceed with Option 2.
The motion to proceed with Option 2 was made by a commissioner and seconded; the chair proposed a friendly amendment that staff proceed with Option 2 but return with pricing and a recommended budget cap for the commission’s consideration. The commission approved the motion as amended; the transcript records voice votes in favor, and the chair directed staff to bring back specific cost information before the commission commits funds. (The transcript includes a staff remark that Easton Street cost "about 750" but did not specify units; staff said Francis Street could be less and that the commission had expressed concern about cost, mentioning a notional figure of $300,000 as a possible spending limit to consider.)
Staff said the town is closely involved in the Francis Street planning and that some technical questions about groundwater and storage effectiveness fall to engineering consultants named in the packet. Commissioners suggested phasing the work and piggybacking Easton Street design elements to reduce design cost.
Next steps: staff will return to the commission with pricing estimates and a proposed budget for Option 2, after which the commission may take a final funding or contract decision.
