Mayor, City Council Members To Host Forum On Proposed Solar Project

Mayor Bill Finch announced on Wednesday a community meeting will take place February 6, 7 p.m. at Roosevelt School, 160 Iranistan Avenue regarding the installation of a new renewable energy project at the former municipal landfill site along the west end of Seaside Park.

The mayor says he and City Council members representing the 131st District Jack Banta and Denese Taylor-Moye and the 130th District Susan Brannelly and Rick Torres will host a community meeting to give residents an opportunity to learn more about the project. Several council members have urged the city to share more details about the proposal.

Last October the mayor announced a city partnership with United Illuminating for the Green Energy Park renewable energy project, one of the initiatives proposed in the City’s BGreen 2020 sustainability plan to create jobs, save taxpayers money and fight climate change. The planned project consists of 2.86 MW of Solar Photo Voltaic and 2.8 MW of fuel cell energy, according to the mayor. The green energy project will generate tax revenue for the City, and cut down on UI’s dependence on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions for citywide UI customers. The project is estimated to pay nearly $7 million in tax revenue under the terms of a 20-year agreement.



  1. Taking it to The Park–
    Undeterred by opponents who question its importance, Mayor Finch is hosting a question free-for-all close to the site’s location. That’s first-degree transparency.
    What better place than Bridgeport? I think P.T. Barnum would be happy to see a Bridgeport mayor put a renewable power station atop his former gift.

  2. Local Eyes,
    Time will tell is my regular tagline, but just what type of “community meeting” is held on that date will be better understood after that meeting, no?
    Having a meeting where the Mayor presents as many details as possible, especially the financial details, is important. And to have the details available in a handout before the meeting, able to be downloaded from the City site (save paper expense for City) would be welcome. And then to have questions or comments briefly delivered by the public … is positive. But most important is to have genuine responses where questions and comments are not answered or critical issues are raised and still to be dealt with … an example, the $7 Million number is used … but it is a 20-year number so $350,000 is the annual number if it has been truly agreed upon? … Or is it still in negotiation and may be offset by other property tax numbers? … And if the UI can get out of the agreement during the 20 years, why use the big number? Details, details, details … but that is where the devil is … and where the City has been so lax in providing info to taxpayers (as well as often to the City Council) but taxpayers have to pay, regardless of how little info they get, right? Where does one sign up to ask questions? Any limits announced ahead? Will responses be made, unlike last year’s SNOW JOB, and most public hearings? Time will tell.

  3. I almost felt I was going to have to agree with you when I started reading this and then you go off on 100 different tangents.
    First John, if the council is not getting copies of contracts then shame on them for not demanding. Back when I was on the council that is what we got. Now the full contract may not have been completed but we received terms sheets that explained all of the financial aspects of the deal. Now I hope you are not taking what happened at the airport and blindly assuming it is the same everywhere. Did you look on line to see what was referred to the council? Did you ask your council representatives for copies of everything they received?
    If you were going to say there should be a reverter clause if the UI decides to mothball the project until more advantageous economic times, I would agree with you. If you were going to suggest the UI as a public utility should have to produce economic documents showing their total costs to be sure the city was getting a good deal, I would agree with you, John. If you were going to suggest the UI should be required to automatically pay the city more if their pro forma revenue estimates were underestimated, I would agree with you, John.
    But instead you speak in generalities, provide no meaningful input and simply ramble on.

  4. Bob,
    Did you think I was talking to your exalted and omniscient potentate, or to the regular OIB audience? Perhaps you have had too much coffee, but “100 different tangents?” If you don’t like my ‘generalities,’ get down to your specificities, because you have not been posting them regularly over the past several years. People need the generality framework in order to understand the specific issue.

    As a matter of fact I have developed a good amount of info and my main point was to call for a meeting where a RESPONSE IS PROVIDED BY SITTING OFFICIALS. That would be reasonably special and daring. I used the oft-repeated $7 Million as AN EXAMPLE, didn’t I?

    Why don’t you ignore me, troll? Then you will not have to attempt to put down my efforts. Or do I bother you in some unspoken manner? I have not attempted to change you, nor will I. If you have all this information about UI why don’t you spill it or ask Lennie to carry your article? Is it more exciting to be oppositional or to merely be a public path to questions and information? Time will tell.


Leave a Reply