Middletown council reviews $39 million referendum package and $9.5 million water-and-sewer bond

Mayor Eugene Pino Serra opened the Aug. 25 Common Council meeting with an overview of two referendum questions the city plans to propose to voters this fall: a $9.5 million water-and-sewer bond and a larger multi-part infrastructure package. The mayor said both questions continue work started in prior referendums and are intended to address deferred maintenance across multiple systems.

Joe Fuzzino, director of Middletown Water and Sewer, told the council the water-and-sewer question would request $6,000,000 for water work and $3,500,000 for sewer projects for a total of $9,500,000. Fuzzino reviewed the system’s assets — including the Charles Bacon and John Roth treatment plants, the Francis Patentau pump station and roughly 400 miles of mains — and outlined the rationale for continuing projects begun under the 2022 bond. “We are looking for $6,000,000 in the bond referendum question for water and $3,500,000 for sewer for a total request of 9,500,000,” he said.

Fuzzino described progress on the city’s lead-service-line inventory, saying staff and consultants had resolved data for about 2,400 of an initial roughly 2,700 unknown services; roughly 300 locations remain to be verified. He estimated worst-case replacement costs at about $6,500 per service and noted the state’s funding structure: roughly 75% of eligible costs would be grant-funded with a low-interest loan covering the remainder. He said the city has a roughly 10-year window for replacement work and will seek state loan or grant agreements where applicable.

Councilmembers asked for the detailed memos and asset lists Fuzzino referenced; he agreed to circulate them to the full council. Members also pressed why the request had been trimmed from earlier, higher estimates; Fuzzino said line items for contingency and construction had been reduced after updated inventories and an engineering-first approach for major treatment-plant work.

Acting public-works director Noel Peterson then outlined the second referendum question, a multi-part infrastructure package staff described as addressing building envelopes, city-yards, parks facilities, sidewalks, stormwater obligations and road resurfacing. Peterson said staff and consultants (including Landmark Architects) assembled measured drawings and feasibility budgets for seven prioritized building projects and recommended addressing building envelopes first to stop water intrusion and repeated mold problems.

Paul Pizzo of Landmark Architects, who conducted the field measurements and feasibility analysis, said repairing the Parks and tradesman buildings’ envelopes and roofs would be more cost-effective than demolition and rebuild. “The Parks Building is a solid block building…by solving the envelope we can go in and remove mold and put the building back into service,” Pizzo said.

Peterson and staff gave a line-item summary: about $22,000,000 for facilities/infrastructure (including a $15,000,000 core package for the city yard and parks), about $6,250,000 for road paving and resurfacing, $1,150,000 for stormwater management (a compliance obligation), and smaller amounts for sidewalks, pedestrian improvements and street-light work. Peterson said the total of both referendum questions and related items equals about $39.05 million for the facilities/infrastructure package, in addition to the $9.5 million water-and-sewer question.

Councilmembers repeatedly asked why the city had deferred maintenance that led to current costs, sought proof that required procurement steps (three quotes) were followed, and urged staff to split or clarify elements they feared could jeopardize voter support. Peterson said procurement records and quotes are on file with purchasing and that the administration had cut initial requests substantially. He flagged legal and contractual obligations — notably a stormwater settlement — that limit the city’s ability to remove certain items from the referendum.

On timing, staff told the council the referendum language and line-item breakdown would be circulated the next day; bond counsel requires final ballot language by Wednesday for a council vote scheduled the following Tuesday. No formal vote on the referendums occurred at the Aug. 25 meeting.

The meeting closed after a motion to adjourn by Councilwoman Blackwell.