WPCA Regular Meeting Minutes
12 January 2016
Present:
Regular Members: Chairman Kurt Zemba, Frank Chan, Richard Prendergast, Andrea Lombard, Dimitri Tolchinski, Doug Wilkinson, Robert McCarthy, Ernest Lorda, Donna Bednar (arrived after the meeting commenced)
Alternates: Steve Cinami, Sal Cancelliere, Joe Carpentino
Others: First Selectwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder, Sanitarian John Sieviec, Health Director; consulting engineer David Prickett and engineer Jay Sheehan of Woodard & Curran; attorney Andrew Lord
Selectwoman Mary Jo Nosal and approximately 25 members of the public were also in attendance
Absent: None
Chairman Kurt Zemba called the meeting to order at 7:30pm. He appointed alternate Steve Cinami as a voting member pending Donna Bednar’s arrival.
Chariman Zemba announced the resignation of meeting clerk Donna Glaras and acknowledged her service. A motion was made by Dimitri Tolchinski, seconded by Doug Wilkinson, to appoint Cathy Frank as temporary clerk. Motion passed.
- Approval of the Minutes – December 8, 2015 Special Meeting
Sal Cancelliere noted that the minutes (page 8) did not indicate who seconded a motion made by Rob McCarthy. Motion was seconded by Rich Prendergast.
Andrea Lombard asked that future minutes not include as much detail. Steve Cinami concurred that excessive detail was obscuring the intent and meaning of some comments made during member discussions. Chairman Zemba added that minutes do not need to be a transcript.
A motion was made by Ernest Lorda, seconded by Doug Wilkinson, to approve the minutes with the corrections noted.
- Address by Director of Health, Dr. Vijay Sikand
Dr. Sikand, Director of Health for the Town for 16 years, addressed the WPCA “regarding pathogenic contamination of groundwater in the vicinity of Hawks Nest Beach area.” Stating that the threat to public health of contaminated groundwater in Hawks Nest and neighboring beach areas has been a growing concern, Dr. Sikand spoke of the need for a long- term comprehensive solution that is practically feasible. He noted that politics, personal agendas and financial considerations have no place in public health decisions.
Dr. Sikand distributed copies of his remarks to the WPCA members and his remarks are attached to these minutes.
First Selectwoman Reemsnyder asked Dr. Sikand to comment on questions raised about the veracity of the data and asked if he thought it worthwhile to continue to monitor data from Hawks Nest Beach.
Dr. Sikand believes that Sanitarian John Sieviec’s report will clarify the data and conclusion. He said it is important to consider all the data collectively, and does not believe further monitoring will change his opinion.
Rob McCarthy expressed concern with the age of the data contained in a report prepared by Sanitarian John Sieviec. He believes more recent data should be considered. The Sanitarian said the report is based upon a continuum of data. Rob has raised a number of questions about the report and has yet to receive answers.
Rich Prendergast and Doug Wilkinson asked if connection to a public water supply would solve the problem in Hawks Nest Beach. Dr. Sikand said it would address water for drinking and bathing but would not address the groundwater contamination, thus does not solve the whole problem.
Steve Cinami spoke of the need for the WPCA to evaluate conflicting data received from two different sources. Chairman Zemba said the data has been evaluated by multiple experts who have reached the same conclusion:
- The State DEEP, which has been empowered to determine pollution
- The WPCA’s consulting engineers
- The Town’s Department of Health
- The State Department of Public Health
- The Town Health Director, Dr. Sikand
Dr. Sikand commented that it is never wise to look for the diagnosis you want, and excused himself from the meeting.
- Report by Woodard & Curran
Jay Sheehan of Woodard & Curran distributed a Scope of Work that covers completion of the wastewater management plan, submission of the plan to the DEEP, and preparation/submission of the EIE (Environmental Impact Evaluation).
At their last meeting, the WPCA instructed Woodard & Curran to modify the implementation plan to allow a phased-in implementation, starting with Sound View, and continued monitoring of Hawks Nest to gather data. Mr. Sheehan said additional data did not refute the existence of a problem. Because the data did not support the request to modify, the DEEP will not allow a phased in implementation. New data, including additional public comment, has been received since the 2014 plan was drafted. Mr. Sheehan said Woodard & Curran has to change the plan to include the new data and modify the EIE to be consistent with the modified plan.
Woodard & Curran has an agreement with the Town to complete the study and the EIE at no additional cost if additional work is not required. Because additional work is required, Mr. Sheehan has proposed a fee of $5,000.
WPCA members reviewed their current budget and debated how to handle the unbudgeted cost.
A motion was made by Dimitri Tolchinski, seconded by Frank Chan to authorize the $5,000 payment from the WPCA budget. When it was determined that Woodard & Curran’s contract was signed by First Selectwoman Reemsnyder, not the WPCA, Doug Wilkinson questioned why the cost would be charged to the WPCA.
Members also discussed the importance of modifying the plan to include new data. Donna Bednar stated that all data has to be on the record for the sake of transparency, accuracy, and respect for the data. Attorney Lord noted that opposition to the plan is already on the record; including it as new data makes the plan more defensible. Mr. Sheehan added that the three private beaches have submitted their own EIE since the Town’s original 2014 plan was done. The Town’s plan needs to be modified to include that fact.
Chairman Zemba distributed a report given to the WPCA at the meeting from Hawks Nest Beach.
Members noted that neither the Hawks Nest report nor the report provided by the Town Sanitarian had been technically reviewed or vetted. Andrea Lombard suggested setting a deadline for the submission of any additional data. Rob McCarthy agreed that a deadline would provide a valuable delay and give the WPCA and its consulting engineers time to consider the data.
Chairman Zemba said members have several options:
- Leave the plan on pause
- Submit the plan as is
- Modify the plan and set a deadline for receipt of further data
Dimitri Tolchinski amended his motion; Frank Chan amended his second to recommend that the plan be modified and EIE prepared per Woodard & Curran’s Scope of Work, and First Selectwoman Reemsnyder come back to the WPCA in February with a recommendation on funding.
First Selectwoman Reemsnyder will discuss the WPCA recommendation and Scope of Work with the Board of Selectmen, Finance Director and Board of Finance.
Jay Sheehan said it is important to consider all data in context. He acknowledged that there are municipal challenges and can complete the plan within one month. He will submit the modified plan to the WPCA before submitting to the DEEP.
David Prickett reiterated his recommendation from the prior meeting: that no plan be submitted unless the WPCA and Boards of Selectmen and Finance are all in agreement.
Ernest Lorda called the question. Motion passed with 5 in favor and 3 opposed.
Correspondence
Chairman Zemba requested that emails received be entered into the record and attached to the minutes. (so attached)
Budget Update
Chairman noted that the Meeting Clerk line will be over-expended, but the WPCA is otherwise on budget.
Rich Prendergast asked if there was a plan for resolving invoice issues from the prior fiscal year.
First Selectwoman Reemsnyder said outstanding invoices may need to be presented at another Town Meeting, but she continues to work with the Board of Finance, Finance Director, and legal counsel on a resolution. She believes the final report from the Board of Finance legal counsel may offer direction or clarification on the invoices in question.
Final Budget Proposal FY16-17
Chairman distributed a draft budget requesting $92,300 in operating funds for the next fiscal year.
The advertising, postage and printing lines have been reduced, while the consultant and clerk line have increased. He suggested requesting that $25,000 allocated in the current year for “compliance” costs be carried over.
Members noted that the $25,000 was intended to cover costs incurred due to compliance with DEEP requirements if necessary, and only with notification to and agreement from the Boards of Selectmen and Finance.
Steve Cinami suggested the compliance budget, currently called WWM Project Consultant, be renamed contingency fund to more accurately reflect its purpose.
David Prickett suggested the WPCA request project cost projections from Woodard & Curran.
A motion was made by Frank Chan, seconded by Rob McCarthy, to set January 31 as the deadline for receipt of new data. Motion passed.
Data will be submitted to the Town Sanitarian. Notice of the deadline will be posted on the website.
Andrea Lombard asked that Sanitarian Sieviec provide a summary to WPCA members when data is received and he agreed to provide it in a timely fashion.
The February meeting agenda should include discussion of whether the Sanitarian’s report should be included in the plan.
None
None
Judith Read, Ben Franklin Road, expressed her displeasure with the conduct of the WPCA meeting. She said they are lacking the confidence of the community.
Attorney Ainsworth, representing some residents of Hawks Nest beach, said the WPCA does not know what the DEEP will say if Hawks Nest Beach is excluded from the final plan. He will be arguing against including Hawks Nest Beach in sewer implementation.
Rick Jones, West End Drive, said if there is data to support the DEEP position he has not seen it. He believes it is important to include all data in the final plan, and is so confident of Hawks Nest water quality he is willing to drink water from every property
Mary Jo Nosal, Selectwoman, thanked the WPCA for their deliberative approach to the issue. She said the EIE was stopped because of public comment and stressed the importance of all data included to be standardized.
James Birge, Hemlock Circle, said there is a plethora of data from 1998 to 2012 supporting the presence of a problem in Hawks Nest Beach. He said his well water has tested high for nitrates, which he believes is due to problems in Hawks Nest.
Carol Stanton, Center Beach Avenue, suggested the Birge’s problem is with their own septic system and well. She said there is nothing wrong with her system.
Sandy Garvin, Hawks Nest Beach, Inc., said she is trying to understand the degree of pollution but the WPCA is not willing to spend funds on testing. She believes too much emphasis has been placed on tests performed by Jacobson engineering and said Jacobson engineer Brian Curtis told her the test results were not definitive; just a snapshot. She would like the Hawks Nest Beach, Inc. section eliminated from the plan.
Nancy Birge said she is a realtor who has dealt with 3 West End Drive properties with septic/water problems. She said her concern is for her health and safety; as a citizen, she wants clean water.
Laura Parent, Center Beach Avenue, said she connected to CT Water when she moved here full time. She questioned Nancy Birge’s comments about properties in Hawks Nest with problems and suggested the Birge’s problem is with their own septic system.
Chairman Zemba thanked everyone for their comments and asked people to keep several things in mind:
- This is not a fast process. We need to respect one another’s point of view
- The Town and WPCA have a history of sewer avoidance. It is not correct to state that the First Selectwoman invited the DEEP into the town. The DEEP became involved when Point o’ Woods installed sewers and again when another three chartered beaches began to pursue sewers. At that time, the First Selectwoman pushed back and argued that the Town should make its own decisions regarding sewers in town neighborhoods.
- He asked Attorney Lord to explain the benefit assessment. Per Atty. Lord: The intent of the benefit assessment is to recoup the project cost through fees paid by users. There are limitations - the assessment can’t be higher than the increased value. It will be important to develop a supportable benefit assessment.
- Election of New Officers
Chairman Zemba said he will be stepping down as Chair and resigning from the WPCA due to work responsibilities. He was grateful for the opportunity to serve the Town and said it has been a privilege to work with all.
Kurt Zemba nominated Rich Prendergast as Chair; seconded by Andrea Lombard. There were no other nominations. Rich Prendergast was elected Chair.
Rich Prendergast nominated Donna Bednar as Vice Chair; seconded by Doug Wilkinson. There were no other nominations. Donna Bednar was elected Vice Chair.
Kurt Zemba nominated Doug Wilkinson as Treasurer; seconded by Rob McCarthy. There were no other nominations. Doug Wilkinson was elected Treasurer.
Motion to adjourn at 10:19pm made by Doug Wilkinson, seconded by Rich Prendergast.
Submitted by
Catherine Frank
1/14/16
Attachments: Correspondence and Letter from Dr. Vijay Sikand
Subject:~~~~~~~~INPUT TO 12 JAN 16 WPCA MEETING
Dear Bonnie and Kurt,
I plan to attend tonight’s meeting. ~In advance, I’d like to restate my position: ~I am opposed to the project ~being contemplated for Hawks’ Nest Beach for a number of reasons, the two primary ones being:
1.) Hawks’ Nest is not polluting. ~No data have shown that it is. ~Rather, ample data have demonstrated just the opposite.
2.) While I am not fundamentally opposed to sewers where they are required to control demonstrated pollution, I am adamantly opposed to the total cost being foisted upon us as is being contemplated in the current situation. ~We are paying our share for the school capital project, even though there is a negligible number of children from Hawk’s Nest attending the school. ~It is therefore only right and fair that the entire town share the cost of mandated sewers should that happen. ~Unlike other shoreline communities and their associations, we have not voluntarily agreed to install sewers. ~To lay the full cost upon us is just wrong.
Respectfully,
Rick Jones
Thomas R. Jones,
30 West End Drive
_____________________________________________________________________________
Subject:~~~~~~~~WPCA meeting of 1/12/16 - correspondence
Cc:~~~~~~~~~~~~~Bonnie Reemsnyder
Dear Chairman Zemba,
As a property owner at Hawk's Nest Beach, I have been regularly attending Water Pollution Control Authority ("WPCA") meetings for well over two years, but I am unable to attend the upcoming meeting, so I am taking the opportunity to submit my thoughts in writing.
When I first became interested in this issue, I was not for or against the proposal to connect some or all of Old Lyme's beach communities to the regional wastewater treatment plant in New London. But, I did want to understand why this drastic step was being proposed and exactly who was going to bear the expense of this massive project.
After listening to the many involved parties over these past two years, I have concluded that the reason provided - that ALL beaches are polluting - is unsatisfactory to justify this large and costly project. ~Incomplete and/or inaccurate data has been used to form the basis of the decision. In short, while there may be certain pollution problems in some beach areas, there are not substantiated pollution problems in ALL beach areas, most specifically Hawk's Nest Beach. The problem has been painted with far too broad a brush stroke.
With respect to who will be bearing the cost of this project, while it is the WPCA's stated intent that only users of the system will pay for it, this seems an unlikely outcome given the constraints imposed by state law on the amount that users can be assessed. State law provides that initial and subsequent assessments shall not exceed the special benefit accruing to the property. Connecticut courts view that special benefit to mean the increase in fair market value to the property as a result of sewer availability. Statistics show that properties in communities that add sewers get an increased home value of $6,000 to $16,000, which is clearly NOT going to support an assessment in the vicinity of $25,000, as is proposed for Hawk's Nest Beach. The broader tax base may well end up absorbing the difference, and not just for Hawk's Nest Beach
assessments. I find it troubling that the WPCA has failed to clearly and publicly acknowledge the very real possibility that ALL Old Lyme tax payers may be sharing in the high cost of this project, not just sewer system users. I hope the WPCA will take the opportunity at this meeting to better inform the public on this topic.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Lisa Clark
Subject:~~~~~~~~Sewers
To:~~~~~~~~~~~~~Bonnie Reemsnyder
Thank you Bonnie, for taking emails concerning the water quality at the beaches along Long Island Sound. We have had a home in Old Lyme for all of my 55 years and have enjoyed the activities and ocean. We have had septic since the home was built and have not had any leakage which would hurt the quality of the Sound.~ Our system has been replaced twice over the past 50 years and seems to continue to work well.~ We are hoping to continue using septic and not switch to costly sewers as it is a huge financial burden for our summer home, used just 6 months out of the year!
Thank you for listening to my thoughts and representing the shore homeowners!
Misty Garvin Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
From:~~~~~~~~~~~Nicholas Perna <nickperna@aol.com>~~~~~~~Saturday, January 09, 2016 3:20:05 PM
Subject:~~~~~~~~Input to Jan. 12 WPCA Meeting
Dear Bonnie and Kurt:
Hope you enjoyed the holidays.~I'm not sure that I'm up to the 170 mile round trip drive to attend Tuesday's meeting. ~However, I did want to make sure~~that you were fully aware of the facts strongly supporting the case that that Hawks' Nest Beach should NOT be included in the sewerage plan the ~WPCA submits to the state.
There simply is no groundwater pollution at HNB. ~The Garvin family Corp hired engineers who tested the groundwater along the HNB shoreline and found no evidence of pollution. Indeed, they concluded that the groundwater is of drinking water quality.~
Yet, the WPCA continues to contend -- without any evidence -- that there is pollution at HNB. ~All the data submitted by the WPCA were for Old Colony, Old Lyme Shores and Miami Beach and there was none for HNB.~
This is getting very tiresome for all of us. ~Let's move on to the more important issues such as what can be done to protect shoreline properties as sea levels rise further in coming years. It is already happening. This is a much more urgent problem than forcing us to pay for sewers that we really don't need. Don't forget: rising sea levels endanger a very big part of your tax base! ~
Respectfully
Nick Perna
96 West End Drive
Old Lyme ~~
Subject:~~~~~~~~Sewer project
To:~~~~~~~~~~~~~Bonnie Reemsnyder
Bonnie. ~Assuming you were elected/reelected to represent the interests of all the Old Lyme residents it should be of great concern to you that data being used for the proposed sewer project at HNB did not come from HNB itself.
Data was only collected on the scoping notice from the Old Lyme Shores, Miami Beach and Old Colony beaches and should have no direct bearing on HNB pollution issues where no test data was ever obtained.
Our own test monitors show no pollution in the HNB area and you must therefore not allow this project to include HNB without proper substantation, which to date there is none.
Pritchard Meyer
-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:32:51
Subject: Fwd: Fw: HNB update
Gentleman, I enclose some misinformation that Sandy Garvin has put out there concerning the lack of any evidence that there is a ground water contamination problem at Hawks Nest Beach. I submitted both sets of my well water sampling to you all that shows my well water contamination and that it actually increased in a week. The town has known about the contamination for 14 years and as Dr. Sikand said on 12/17 that there is confirmed contamination and we can't keep kicking the can down the road just to keep a wealthy beach owner happy while they try to sell their beach. There is NOT 100 percent CT Water in Hawks Nest Beach. Only the Garvin family and a few residents right on center beach road have connected. My wife and I look forward to the Tuesday WPCA meeting. We will not sit idly by while residents are swayed by a minority with false
accusations and wanting to extend this "no pollution" farce any longer. The right thing has to be done here to protect Human health and the environment. John: PLEASE send this email string to Dr. Sikand for me so he can read what the other side is saying. Sincerely, James Birge 860-227-2408 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Any thought about this,
Nancy Birge, ABR Previews Luxury Property Specialist 2016 Five Star Real Estate Agent - Awarded by CT Magazine 2015 Excellence Award Winner – Platinum http://cbemarketingadvantage.com http://www.previewsadvantage.com COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGEPO BOX 509, 86
HALLS ROADOLD LYME, CT.06371CELL (860) 227-2406OFFICE (860) 434-8600 EXT 161FAX (860) 434-3130
_________________________________________________________________
Nick Perna
96 West End Drive
Old Lyme ~~
Thank you for coping me on this memo.~ Any concerns you have regarding the existence or not in your opinion should be directed to the Town Health Official, John Sieviec, or the State of CT through the DEEP.~ In the case of the pending project the WPCA prepared a plan for the DEEP. The DEEP is the only authority that will determine the existence of a pollution problem and may or may not direct Old Lyme to address it.~ Nothing the Town or the WPCA will do can alter that.
Kurt J Zemba
Old Lyme Water Pollution Control Authority
CC:~ Rich Prendergast, Vice Chairman
| 
