Aldermen reject plan to use water fund instead of $350,000 DCEO grant to demolish sludge dome on riverfront

QUINCY — The Quincy City Council defeated by a 7-6 vote on Monday night a resolution that would have used money from the city’s water fund to pay for razing an inoperative sludge pump station south of Clat Adams Bicentennial Park and returned a $350,000 grant to the Quincy Riverfront Development Corporation.

Aldermen approved a low bid from Blick’s Construction for $143,413 for the demolition of the sludge dome building on Front Street during their June 24 meeting. Director of Public Works Jeffrey Conte has said the pump station inside the sludge dome building was built in 1980s, calling it a “bad design from the get-go.” He said the sludge being pumped into the tank would “turn to cement” if it wasn’t pumped continuously. 

The Quincy City Council authorized Mayor Mike Troup on Dec. 11 to request the re-allocation of $350,000 in grant funding from the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity for costs associated with the demolition of the sludge dome to accommodate the potential construction of an amphitheater or a splash pad in conjunction with the redevelopment of the riverfront.

However, Conte submitted a resolution to aldermen on Monday that would instead take the money out of the water fund to pay for demolition, allowing for the full $350,000 DCEO grant to be used for riverfront development. Conte said the water fund would have repaid the Riverfront Corporation after the demolition.

Opposed were Greg Fletcher (R-1), Jeff Bergman (R-2), Tony Sassen (R-4), Mike Rein (R-5), Glen Ebbing (R-5), Richie Reis (D-6) and Jake Reed (R-6). In favor were Eric Entrup (R-1), Dave Bauer (D-2), Ken Hultz (R-3), Kelly Mays (R-3), Ben Uzelac (D-7) and Jack Holtschlag (D-7). Mike Farha (R-4) was absent.

Rein asked Conte why he wanted to use the water funds instead of the grant money.

“The amount of the bid price came in at less than half of the grant amount,” Conte said. “To parse it out just didn’t seem like the best way to use the funds. rather to use their money to get something more for the (riverfront) project than just tearing down the building. We have the money in 501 (the water fund) to take the structure down.”

“Maybe you won’t very long,” Rein said.

Troup explained that one of the strings attached to the $350,000 grant is that all of it must be used, and only half of it would be used to pay for the removal of the sludge dome.

Community Development Planner Jason Parrott said the state wants to know how every dollar of a grant is being spent.

“When we were looking at using that money for demolition, we didn’t have a use for that other $207,000,” Parrott said. “We’ve been looking at other projects. The Riverfront Corporation is looking at other potential projects, but the state says you can’t touch that money until you have the entire $350,000 designated.”

“Keep in mind, we’ve got a lot of needs that we could use this grant for, and we’re just giving it away,” Rein said. “Doesn’t make sense to me.”

Conte explained to aldermen that the city had originally planned to take down the dome but offered this proposal so the city didn’t lose the $350,000 grant for the riverfront fund.

Bergman asked if the grant had a time limit to be used before the city lost it. Parrott said an extension to spend the money has been granted by DCEO “several times.”

“We are dreading the email from them that says, ‘No more.’ So that’s why we were seeking this as an option to use it for the demolition because we can’t identify how all $350,000 from the state would be utilized. … We still have access to it. We’re just worried that at some point here, we know there’ll be a time limit. They will say, ‘Hey, you’ve got to use this.’”

Rein thought the grant money could be used on other water department projects.

“You’ve got to move electrical control boxes. You’ve got to move pumps and wires. Build a door and a tunnel. You got all kinds of ways to spend $200,000,” Rein said. “That would be a much better spend, because that we know has to be done right now.”

After the resolution was defeated, Bauer later asked Conte what was going to be done with the building and if it was going to be a liability for the city.

“Until it comes down, yes it will (be a liability),” Conte said. “I don’t know what’s going to happen. We don’t want to spend (the grant money) and lose $200,000, so we have to go back to the state. This will only delay the project.”

“The price (to demolish the building) ain’t going to go down,” Bauer said. “We’re going to have to tear it down.”

“We don’t want to go forward to spend that money and lose the other $200,000,” Conte said.

Parrott told aldermen that if the city tells the state that the demolition of the sludge dome is the “complete project,” the state would accept that figure and the city would simply lose the remaining $200,000-plus.

After the meeting, Troup said he wasn’t sure if Parrott’s last comment was correct.

“He hasn’t talked to the state to be clear, ‘Can we do that?’” Troup said. “I wish he didn’t come up at the end, because I don’t know that what he said is something that the state would allow us to do. We still have to verify that this week.”

Conte said after the meeting that the grant is specifically for riverfront development, not for riverfront demolishment.

“We can ask the state if other projects are eligible,” Conte said. “I don’t think it’s within the spirit of riverfront development. We are going to tear down a water treatment structure to make way for development on the riverfront. Everything else that we’re doing at the water plant is inside the boundaries. It doesn’t really change the use of that structure. We can ask the state, but I’m skeptical that they’ll approve additional projects down there.”

Rein said after the meeting he doesn’t want money spent by people paying water usage rates to pay for the demolition when a grant is available to pay for it.

“Effective grant administration is you find more to do with that (extra $200,000) to consume the $350,000 (grant),” Rein said. “If you want to give (the extra $200,000) back to the state, I don’t object to that. Taxpayer money is taxpayer money, right? Don’t spend it frivolously.

“We just had two water rate increases in 15 months, and they’re spending money out of that quickly. We had millions, and we’re already spending it all the way down. There’s a lot of work to do. We’re putting in new water lines and sewers all over the place. All that work has to be done. I’m not objecting to that. Why take $143,000 and spend our money on (demolition) when we’ve got a grant we could use? I’m just trying to be a better fiscal manager.”