Here we go again

Timeline set for new vote on $3M bond

Waterbury voters are headed to the polls once again May 13, when they will be asked whether or not to overturn last month’s vote in support of a $2.95 million bond for a new municipal complex and library at 28 North Main St.

The Waterbury Select Board set the rescission vote timeline Monday night, after opponents of the project filed a petition with 253 signatures last Thursday calling for a new vote.

The rescission vote is expected take place from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. at St. Leo’s Hall.

Early voting will begin on April 23 at the town clerk’s office from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

A public hearing on the vote will take place at Thatcher Brook Primary School on Thursday, May 8, at 6:30 p.m.

Voters approved the bond 809-617 on March 4. Petitions calling for its repeal started circulating around town shortly thereafter.

To overturn that result, at least 540 people must vote in favor of rescission — two-thirds of the original votes in support of the bond.

The bond is intended to help fund construction of new municipal offices, an expanded public library and space for the Waterbury Historical Society at the site of the currently library, located in the historic Dr. Henry Janes House.

The town’s former municipal offices at 51 South Main St. were heavily damaged during Tropical Storm Irene in August 2011.

The new vote doesn’t come without a cost, according to select board chair Chris Nordle. He said there are fees associated with printing new ballots, publishing information in newspapers and reprogramming the ballot machine for a new vote.

He estimated around $2,000 will be needed. Those funds will come out of the town budget.

Environmental study

Among the petitioners’ concerns are possible environmental issues at the site. A Phase I Environmental Report conducted earlier this year revealed the presence of asbestos, lead paint, radon and coal ash.

The town is preparing to advertise a request for proposals for the Phase II Environmental Review of the Janes House, according to long-term recovery director Barbara Farr. She said proposals will be due to the town no later than April 25.

At the select board meeting Monday night, board member Chris Viens asked Farr if the Phase II findings would be ready in time for the May 8 public hearing, so they could present the findings to residents. Farr said it’s unlikely the results would be available by then.

Viens suggested the environmental concerns have been exaggerated.

“There are claims that we’re dealing with a Fukushima at this site,” Viens said, drawing a few laughs from meeting attendees. “Those claims are out there now, so how do you put that to rest?”

Nordle said the environmental findings were expected at the site, and project officials are prepared to deal with them.

“The architects and the estimator were aware of the likelihood of things like lead paint and asbestos, and we budgeted accordingly,” he said.

Municipal Manager Bill Shepeluk agreed, saying it’s no surprise to find these types of materials around buildings constructed in the 1800s.

“I think if we were going back to the 51 South Main St. site, you’d have all the same issues to deal with there,” he said. “If you are going to have a village site and there’s an existing building involved, this is not something new.”

Farr said cost estimates for abatement of the asbestos, lead and radon came in at roughly $20,000, which is a little over what was anticipated. The coal ash, she added, will be further studied in the Phase II assessment.

“But it’s certainly not a hazardous waste site. It’s something that’s got to be done regardless,” Farr said.

Viens said it’s important to remind residents that the project is still on track and on budget.

“We were authorized by the voters to spend up to $2.95 million, and come hell or high water we will stay within that budget, even if this means sacrificing portions of the project or making some alternative choices,” he said. “We should just let (voters) know we’ve got to hold the line on this thing, just like we did the fire stations.”

Rescission history

This won’t be the first time Waterbury voters have faced a rescission decision. At least three other rescission votes have taken place over the last decade.

In November 2004, voters initially approved a merger of the town and village, but overturned that vote the following January.

In August 2005, in another rescission vote, residents of Waterbury and Duxbury upheld a vote in support of a $5.5 million bond for improvements to Thatcher Brook Primary School.

In 2009, Waterbury residents overturned a vote for a $5.8 million bond to build two new fire stations.