Minutes of the Town of Old Lyme WPCA meeting
Held on November 14, 2017 in the OL Memorial Town Hall meeting room
In attendance: Chairman Rich Prendergast, Frank Chan, Dmitri Tolchinski, Steve Cinami, Sal Cancelliere
Absent: Joe Carpentino, Rob McCarthy, Donna Bednar, Andrea Lombard, Doug Wilkinson
Also in attendance were First Selectwoman Reemsnyder and approximately 10 residents.
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m.
Chairman Prendergast appointed alternate Steve Cinami as a full voting member, and noted that there is a quorum with 5 members present.
Approval of October meeting minutes:
Motion by D. Tolchinski to accept the October meeting minutes with no corrections. Second by S. Cancelliere. Motion carries unanimously.
Chairman’s Report:
- Woodard and Curran have a staff member who is familiar with grant writing for public water support. During open public comment for drinkable water state fund, this staff member made comments that Old Lyme is putting in a plan to consider sewers in the Sound View area. There is a point system based on priorities. State could consider adding a point to the town to possibly get a subsidy for cost of project to benefit citizens of smaller communities. It also might make our project a priority. Chairman Prendergast will follow up and send electronic copy to members.
- Draft coastal wastewater plan was sent to the state for consideration. DEEP responded that they are very busy, understaffed, and working on it. Meeting with subservice group this week to evaluate submittal of groundwater testing for Hawk’s Nest. They are also dedicating time this week and next to review scope notice and draft wastewater plan.
- Cooperation with private beach associations. After discussion with attorney and First Selectwoman, the land lease draft is available for WPCA members to review. First Selectman’s office has some concerns, which can be read in their meeting minutes. Chairman Prendergast is considering drafting a letter to other parties (private beach associations) to introduce himself as WPCA chair to open communication. D. Tolchinski says he knows beach associations are working on negotiation with NL and East Lyme, and working to benefit all of us. He does not think a letter should be sent. Chairman Prendergast replied his concern is that he should know details, or make best attempt to know all details, before going to referendum. It is a matter of due diligence. Chairman Prendergast sent an email with EDU method used by beach associations to committee
members. It is a 3-page document, with the information on the last page. S. Cancelliere asked to please re-send. Lastly, the beach associations requested a meeting this week – timing didn’t work out. Going to try and schedule a meeting with First Selectwoman, associations, and Chairman Prendergast to discuss land lease and resolve edits, which will be scheduled for after Thanksgiving.
S. Cinami asks: In Woodard & Curran document, it says we’ve partnered with CT Water. Have we entered into any partnership? Chairman Prendergast says we are trying. We want to partner with them so that when we open the roads for sewers, they will replace water lines. Have not entered into an agreement. They will send a memo that they are committed to doing the work.
Budget: Update and expenses. D. Wilkinson couldn’t be here. We are well positioned. Haven’t spent majority of money. Some legal invoices have come in related to the land lease. 98% of budget not spent. Haven’t done Hawks Nest monitoring fees. Just got memo to prepare for next year’s budget. Will ask for it to be similar, with carryover of funds as needed. No new invoices.
Correspondence: No correspondence received. The town has a new email system, using a generic email for committee chairs. This will prevent the use and publication of personal emails. The new WPCA email will be put on website.
Old Business:
Hawks Nest draft water testing plan update: Chairman Prendergast gave information on this in the Chairman’s report. He thinks that when we hear back from state, they will recommend how many wells, and where they should be. All we can do is keep contacting the state and asking for updates. S. Cancelliere asks: we had discussed in the past about seeing where leaching fields were in relation to the wells. Isn’t it possible that test wells near leaching fields would get skewed results? Chairman Prendergast thinks it’s a valid point. Two wells that are very close together not giving proper results in the past. Collecting Miami Beach groundwater, not Hawk’s Nest. Other test well that is 6 feet away from a galleried catch basin will get results from storm water, not groundwater. When we get report from state, we can
review.
EDU sub-committee research update: S. Cinami was selected as leader of the task group. He reviewed the sub-group’s first meeting, including the concept of possibly having a construction EDU and a usage EDU. A lengthy discussion followed. If our agreement with beach associations is based on EDUs, it would help to know how they determine EDUs. Percentage of ownership. Would be best to have one method to determine EDUs across all 4 WPCAs. Does the sub-group have permission to contact beach associations? Yes. It’s not required that we have the same system as beaches to move forward. S. Cancellieri notes it is a very convoluted project. It was noted that this town has zoning regulations that prevent someone taking a smaller house and making it a bigger house only because of sewers. There is selective zoning on Hartford Avenue. D.
Tolchinski says state health code does not allow one pipe for 2 separate buildings, even on the same lot. The sub-group has another meeting scheduled, and each member will present what their idea of an EDU is.
As an additional note, Chairman Prendergast received CT water company usage info – cannot be shared. He is not acting on it. Will research it. Can advise that we might be able to take info from some of the unusual properties to get more data using authorization forms.
New Business:
Need to decide if we want to have December meeting. Motion by S. Cinami to skip the December meeting, unless we get direction from the state to act on something. Chairman Prendergast adds: if he gets feedback from the state, he could call a regular meeting with 48 hours’ notice. Second by F. Chan. Motion carries unanimously.
Public Comment:
Fred Guidobono, 42 Portland Ave: In the first EDU proposal, were EDUs calculated by property or per dwelling on property?
Sandy Garvin, Hawk’s Nest: She is getting a sense that town if feeling pressured by beaches as far as lease agreement goes. Clarity as to what is down side or upside for town to enter agreement if we don’t what the know outcome of referendum will be? Is that the only location available? When they started out, they must have had a location without town property.
Chairman Prendergast replied: The first EDU proposal was per building, because some properties had multiple buildings on them. Second option was based on building size. Still working on other options. Ultimately hope where we get to a number of fair options, debate, decide, and be fair.
The upside for the town to enter agreement is saving money. 2 pump stations, 2 pipes, would be more money. What we are putting together is option to buy in. if referendum fails, we are not obligated to pay. If it passes, best possible scenario.
First Selectwoman Reemsnyder added: One of the benefits is that there is a payment to the town to build restrooms along with pump station. Will be a little bit more blended not look like a pump station. Right now, there are porta-potties. Best location is down by the beach. One of the other advantages is distance away from residential homes. Looking at 3 stalls for each gender, possible a family bathroom. The combined pump station/bathroom building will be aesthetically pleasing. Trying to look for collaborative savings.
Motion by F. Chan to adjourn. Second by S. Cancelliere. Motion carries unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Datum, WPCA Clerk
WPCA Task Force Meeting 11/16/17 6:30 pm, Town Hall
Agenda
I.~ Review Minutes
II.~ Continue EDU Discussion
III.~ Review any EDU Methods
IV.~ Public Comment
| 
