Judge Radcliffe: Why Did Anastasi Put In Moutinho’s Driveway When Appeal Was Pending?

Manny's mansion
Moutinho’s waterfront mansion in Stratford. Image courtesy of Morgan Kaolian.

Superior Court Judge Dale Radcliffe, as he often does, got right to the point on Tuesday in the ongoing saga of the $400,000 taxpayer-paid driveway for Manny Moutinho’s Stratford mansion. “Why did Mr. Anastasi make the decision to put in the driveway when the appeal was pending?” Judge Radcliffe, referring to City Attorney Mark Anastasi who was not in court Tuesday, had ruled previously that city taxpayers had no obligation to cover the cost of Moutinho’s controversial driveway for a municipally owned airport improvement plan. CT Post reporter Dan Tepfer provides details:

Despite repeated invitations by the judge, city officials wouldn’t join the case, so Radcliffe did not take the runway safety work into consideration when he issued his original ruling favoring Breakwater’s appeal.

During a recess, numerous calls were made to the Bridgeport city attorney’s office asking a representative to attend Tuesday’s hearing. Eventually, Assistant City Attorney Russell Liskov showed up, apologized to the judge and said he had nothing to do with the driveway situation, but had been sent over by City Attorney Mark Anastasi to ask for a continuance.

“If he wants to say something, Mr. Anastasi can come here and say it himself,” the judge retorted. “Why did Mr. Anastasi make the decision to put in the driveway when the appeal was pending?”

Full story here.

Also see a related story by CT Post reporter Brian Lockhart regarding the city addressing potential conflicts of interest here.

Airport Manager John Ricci became a casualty of the controversy, some maintain a scapegoat, for the City Attorney’s Office mishandling of the matter. In a statement Ricci issued to OIB in early August, he pointed out that city lawyers moved ahead with the driveway irrespective of the pending court appeal. Ricci’s perspective on the process:

You be the Judge …
In early March 2013 I was informed by Associate City Attorney Lisa Trachtenburg that an access road servicing four property owners, one of whom is Manny Moutinho, needed to be removed to complete a Safety Improvement Project at the Airport. Removing this road would deny the property owners access to their homes. A few years earlier these same property owners approached the Airport to request that their right of way over Airport property be relocated to construct a new access road because of frequent flooding conditions on the road in their existing right of way. The request was approved by the Airport Commission and Manny Moutinho for himself and the other property owners made application to the Town of Stratford Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission and Stratford Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a new road which was approved except that the adjoining property owners, Breakwater Key Condo Association, appealed the decision of the Stratford Board of Appeals. Manny and his neighbors decided not to build the road until the appeal would be decided.

The safety improvement project was on a Congressional-mandated deadline and was in jeopardy because relocation of the access road was holding it up. The City Attorneys’ Office was the facilitator for the project so the City Attorney decided that the City had an obligation to provide the four property owners an alternate access to their homes/properties. The City Attorney then decided that the most expeditious way to get this done was to acquire the approval rights from Manny to construct a new access road. The City Attorney also decided that the City would pay all costs and assume all conditions to get the access road built. These decisions presented a problem for me. I had an association and long history with Manny and these decisions involved the Airport of which I was manager. Every time Manny or his Company Mark IV Construction had any dealings with the Airport in the past I would recuse myself from the process which is well documented. The Airport Commission and the City Attorneys’ Office was aware of my recusals on certain matters.

Knowing of my having a close relationship with and direct access to Manny, I was directed by Lisa Tractenburg to obtain a proposal from Manny to acquire his rights to construct the new access road regardless. Manny consented to transfer his rights but he made three demands contingent to the transfer. He wanted to be reimbursed for all his costs to get the approvals, he wanted the City to pay for all costs going forward to develop finalized plans to his standards and Town of Stratford imposed conditions to issue a permit and he wanted an opportunity to bid on the work. The City Attorneys’ Office agreed to all of his demands and after its review of the costs incurred by Manny to date I was directed by Lisa Tractenburg to pay Manny $46,000 for his rights and get the final construction plans completed which cost the City an additional $10,000. The final plans were done to the Town Of Stratford standards and imposed conditions which increased the cost of construction considerably. The costs of the access road before construction started stood at $56,000.

Lisa Tractenburg, to keep on schedule to meet the Congressional deadline decided to use a Qualified Purchase which is an expedited process to choose a contractor to build the access road. The City Purchasing Agent suggested that she get three Qualified Price Quotes (QPQs). Lisa Tractenburg directed me to get the three OPQs, one of which must come from Manny by prior agreement and I choose the other two. My choices were based on using Bridgeport contractors with known qualifications because they had done work at the Airport/City before. Contrary to what was written in newspaper articles, I received all three QPQs on the same day, April 16, 2013. I submitted the QPQs to Lisa Tractenburg and she/the Purchasing agent awarded the contract to construct the road to Mark IV Construction based on price. The contract was drawn up by Lisa Tractenburg and she instructed me to sign it on behalf of the City.

Knowing that there was an appeal that Manny decided to wait out for a judgment, the City Attorney still decided the City would take the risk and proceed to build the access road regardless. During construction, for my part in it, I hired a Professional Engineer at a cost of $4,400 to oversee the project to insure all requirements were met and I could deal arms length with Manny to avoid any conflict under the City’s Code of Ethics. The only extra cost on the job was the addition of a second fire hydrant required by the Stratford Fire Department which cost $5,500. The total cost of construction paid to Mark IV Construction was $394,500. Another expense unanticipated was $16,000 to Aquarian to inspect, test and charge the eight-inch water main installed to feed the hydrants. Also once completed the Town of Stratford requires that an as-built construction plan and survey be prepared which I estimate would cost at least $12,000. So adding it all up the total costs to date are just below $483,000. The costs are still increasing because now the city Attorneys’ Office is negotiating a settlement with Breakwater Key Condominiums on the appeal taken by them. What will that cost? Another $60,000 or $70,000? This does not include any additional legal costs the City now faces. This road will most likely have a total cost of $600,000. However, I did negotiate the sale of surplus Airport properties which should net the Airport $1,200,000 and by federal law must be used for capital improvements at the Airport. Some of the money from these property sales could be used to pay the costs of the access road instead of using money that was bonded for the Safety Improvement Project or City budget dollars.

During the entire process of getting the access road constructed I made no assumptions or decisions regarding method of procurement, final choice of contractor, or award of contract for construction. By revealing that I had a long history and close friendship with Manny to everyone involved, in effect, I recused myself at all levels of my participation and acted only as directed by the City Attorneys’ Office and did nothing including making any expenditures without its approval. Regardless of what was reported by the Connecticut Post through a series of clever cut and paste articles the extent of my business relationship with Manny throughout the entire process was that I received mortgages at prevailing market rates with full consideration from a licensed lender in which he is a principal.

Because many decisions were made above my level, be they good or bad, the Safety Improvement Project is still in jeopardy and a lot of taxpayers’ money could be spent for nothing. There could be a less expense alternative which I will bring out at a later date.

During the investigation done by the Office Of labor Relations it was alleged that I may not have performed my duties properly as my job description requires so just for the record, not as a defense, I will state that I have served under 10 of the last 11 Mayors with nearly 40 years of service to the City with a squeaky clean personnel file and numerous accomplishments. Does anyone really think I would put that record at risk? You be the judge. However questions regarding the process still remain:

Who signed the bid waiver or does one exist?

Why the lack of information to the City Council or the public about the bid waiver and the decisions made?

Why was the contract drawn up for my signature and not for the Mayor to sign? It is now known publicly that Manny was a financial supporter of Mayor Finch, did the administration create a public controversy by trying to avoid one?

Was my friendship with Manny regarded as a benefit by the City Attorney’s Office when I was directed to approach him?

Did the Mayor really not know about my close relationship with Manny especially when the investigation proved I had recused myself because of that relationship at a meeting he was chairing?

Did the Mayor lie to the public, or did the City Attorney lie to the City Council on July 1, 2013?

Did the administration create a bigger controversy than actually existed to cover up incompetence?

Maybe someone will find the answers, and once known publicly, you can be the judge.



        1. “I’m hoping we get more of the story and the rationale for firing Mr. Ricci,” said Councilman Steven Stafstrom, D-130, who was appointed earlier this year to fill a vacancy. “I feel like there’s still a lot we need to know. I think there’s a lot of corrective action that still needs to be taken.”

          Still waiting for the rationale and corrective action. Anastasi was supposed to provide a timeline to the Council.

  1. Q. How productive are the FOI requests for info on this ‘developing story?’ (HINT: FOI requests pass through the City Attorney office.)

    Q. How was it possible for Mayor Finch or CC President Tom McCarthy to be unaware of Ricci/Moutinho relationship assuming Ricci’s stated record of recusals is part of the “RECORD” of the airport commission? (Recusals are not unknown on the CC when CDBG funds are approved to avoid the perception of conflicts of interest.)

    Q. And now the Judge’s question: Why did Anastasi put in the driveway while the appeal was pending?
    Some possible answers … seemed like a good idea at the time will not likely be advanced … but perhaps, “I was told to do it.” Are we likely to hear that?

    Q. And when you read how the whole financial expense has developed, does anyone look like they care how much Federal, State or local taxpayer money is used? Does any of this look careful to you?

    Q. Better answers? Time will tell.

  2. Ricci’s side of the story has never changed. That is what happens when you tell the truth! Blagys and Torres should be calling for Anastasi’s head.

  3. “If he wants to say something, Mr. Anastasi can come here and say it himself,” the judge retorted. “Why did Mr. Anastasi make the decision to put in the driveway when the appeal was pending?”

    Why didn’t the Three Stooges, Mark, Lisa and Ed Schmidt file intervenor status on the pending appeal after going at risk to build?

  4. If Finch had any balls he would call for the immediate resignation of Anastasi and McCarthy. They have both proven their incompetence in this and other important matters. If Finch had any balls he would privatize both the City Attorney’s Office and Labor Relations now. The WPCA is in crosshairs, Finch should change his sights. Perhaps the eunuch will surprise us.

  5. In related news:
    www .ctpost.com/local/article/Candidates-spar-over-WPCA-positions-4879948.php

    In 2011, Trumbull’s Water Pollution Control Authority sued Mark IV Construction, which is owned by Manuel “Manny” Moutinho–who is embroiled in a Bridgeport scandal over a $400,000, taxpayer-funded driveway he built to his waterfront mansion in Stratford. In Trumbull, the WPCA accused Mark IV Construction of doing a shoddy job on its Jog Hill Road sewer project, causing streets to sink and buckle.

    Independent engineers have identified more than 600 defects in the project, along with more than $9 million in damages.

  6. Thank you, Judge Radcliffe. Somebody needs to hold these fools accountable for the things they do. They are running the state’s largest city and making us all look like fools.

  7. There is something very wrong here. Why is it the State of CT still allows Mark Anastasi to be a lawyer when he breaks the law? If I were making a pizza pie with bad, poison ingredients for the public, I would be fired and in jail. He gets to interpret the law as he sees fit and nothing happens. Let them eat pizza. Just a question.


Leave a Reply