The last and most recent public notice as to the cost for this project was a quote by the district in the Middletown Press that the latest cost estimates is for a sum of $71,400,000.
Let us exam the true cost to the City of New Britain taxpayers as being approximately 69.3% of this overall estimate amounting to sum of $49,400,200.
Why then would we as, New Britain Tax Payers, underwrite a bonding cost for some twenty years or so with an added 6% interest accrual as a continued expense when the district’s board of directors can just continue to pay for the nitrogen credits to the State of Connecticut at some $20,000 to $50,000 yearly cost which would be shared with the other owners of the district.
As I understand it, many other plants are doing just that, in order to avoid the similar drastic expansion cost to their own Districts.
With the bad economic times both our city and taxpayers are forced to endure why would the Mattabassett District be allowed to continue with this enormous expenditure for this planned expansion?
Frank,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this information. If these numbers are accurate it is more cost effective for New Britain to pay the credits versus building a $70+ million plant. I know there are grants and extremely low interest loans available for projects like these (this includes the "stimulus" federal dollars) but it is all still government money. As one of my constituents always says "if you don't take money out of my left pocket you guys take it out of my right pocket". So true!
Since NO decision has been made to the expansion of the Mattabasset plant discussions have to be FINALIZED to (1) allow Middletown into the District (thus lowering New Britain's cost in Mattabasset) and (2) detail the denitrification processing costs.
Mark Bernacki, Alderman
New Britain City Council
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. JONATHAN N. GOOGEL,
ReplyDeleteBENJAMIN J. SISTI, KEVIN P. SISTI, KENNETH A. ZAK, WILLIAM P.
CANDELORI, PETER J. CURLEY, AND EDMUND M. AUTUORI, Civil Action
No. 3:95-CV-420 (TFGD), (D. CT.)
The complaint, filed on March 9, 1995 against Sisti,
Jonathan N. Googel, Benjamin J. Sisti, William Candelori, Peter
J. Curley, Kenneth A. Zak, and Edmund M. Autuori (collectively,
the "Defendants"), alleged violations of several antifraud and
securities registration provisions of the federal securities laws
in connection with a fraudulent unregistered public offering by
Colonial of 1200 limited partnership units in the Colonial
Constitution Limited Partnership ("CCLP") between September 1,
1989 and September 1990. During the offering period, CCLP
interests totaling more than $30 million were purchased by over
700 investors residing in 28 states and the District of Columbia.
The complaint also alleged that, with the knowledge,
approval and/or participation of various Defendants: Colonial
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======
concealed its financial problems from investors as the CCLP
offering progressed; Defendants Googel, B. Sisti and Candelori
signed false certifications in connection with the sale of
investor notes to financial institutions; and Colonial failed to
disclose that distributions to investors in its partnerships were
funded frequently by "loans" from other partnerships. In
September 1990, shortly after the CCLP offering was suspended,
Colonial was forced into bankruptcy and CCLP limited partners
subsequently lost their entire investment.
(For further information, See Litigation Release Nos. 14432,
14448, 14612 and 14723)
why should New Britain taxpayers pay all this money for a $20,000 to $70,000 so-called savings?
ReplyDelete$71 million to save $70,000, is this some sort of Democratic math???
Democratic Math is you pay, and pay, and pay, and they waste and waste and waste!
ReplyDeleteWe pay and pay and pay, maybe it is time to find some other solution, like selling the plant to Metropolitan District.
ReplyDeleteWe pay and pay and pay, maybe it is time to find some other solution, like selling the plant to Metropolitan District.
ReplyDelete