Town of Old Lyme, Meeting of the WPCA
June 12, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. in the meeting room of the Memorial Town Hall
In attendance: Chairman Prendergast, Vice-Chair Donna Bednar, Frank Chan, Dimitri Tolchinski, Rob McCarthy, Sal Cancelliere, Andrea Lombard, Treasurer Doug Wilkinson. Excused: Joe Carpentino and Steve Cinami. Also in attendance were First Selectwoman Reemsnyder and Selectwoman Nosal, along with approximately 21 townspeople.
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m.
Approval of the May minutes:
Motion by D. Wilkinson to approve the minutes of the May 2018 meeting. Second by D. Bednar. Discussion: none. Motion carries unanimously.
Chairman’s Report:
- The WPCA budget was submitted and passed at town meeting. Overall amount was reduced from current year.
- State of CT DEEP EIE summary document was approved on June 5 by the state, and is going to be published on the Monitor website on June 19. Notices will be placed in The Day newspaper. Chairman Prendergast would also like to put a note on the town’s website with instructions on how to get to the Monitor website to make it easier. Comment period is open for 45 days.
Clarification related to EIE. Estimate of installing water in Sound View $4.2 million more than we planned. Misleading because they took estimate on linear square footage, reasonable cost, added contingency. Not all pipes need to be replaced. CT Water has agreed to donate materials. Have a meeting with them in about a month. Goal to get down to $1 million, or less. Clean Water funds are available, and funds for small communities to upgrade existing systems, but not expand them. S. Cancelliere stated he thinks Sound View residents should vote on issue. Chairman Prendergast replied that it is not possible due to Town bonding. Chairman is working on probable cost.
Area known as Hawk’s Nest. Spent a lot of time figuring out probable well locations. Still have to review final documents that are submitted to DEEP to get our letter for Clean Water funding. Get 55% reimbursement, goes back to Town.
- Cooperation with private beach associations. Got some feedback regarding land lease, we had thought all questions resolved, but got more questions back. Planning on meeting to go over, rather than emails back and forth.
Budget Update:
D. Wilkinson reported no expenses, no invoices. In relation to Hawks Nest, we have carryover from previous years added to what is in the budget for FY 18-19, which should be enough.
Correspondence:
Summary was sent via email prior to the meeting. Old Lyme resident Rocco Todaro asked questions related to Long Island Sound, and the New London wastewater plant. Carlos Esguerra from DEEP replied and Chairman Prendergast was cc’d. Also received correspondence from Laura Parent who mentioned article in New London Day newspaper about heavy rainfall, after which a number of OL beaches and neighboring town beaches had high bacteria counts. Rocky Neck was closed. Suggested this is coming from NL treatment plant. Chairman Prendergast responded to her, and clarified that these are normal events during extreme rainfalls (high bacteria count) regardless of sewers.
Old Business:
EIE: Covered in Chairman’s Report.
Groundwater Study:
Submitting a revised scope. Chairman Prendergast will forward to committee. Revisions are minor. Purpose is to get Clean Water funding from State. Need to include additional lab testing and survey by planner of the new wells. Requirement to know where wells are. Did this before with well we put in near Rte. 156. Human DNA testing does not get Clean Water funds. Still planning to do it. Trying to start sampling before July 1st.
EDU assessment discussion. S. Cinami is the chairperson of the sub-committee. He is absent/excused from tonight’s meeting. A. Lombard give an overview. They were asked to come up with methods of capital cost recovery for sewer benefit analysis. The sub-committee looked at what other communities have done. Options include: fixed charge, front footage, lot size, property value, flow proportion, general taxation and other factors. Some communities use one method, or other use multiple methods. Need more time to do more work and dig into assessment data. They are developing a Q&A handout, including state statutes.
Chairman Prendergast commented that he does not think we have luxury of time. We want to know estimate of cost and how it relates to different size properties. Average, high and low helps people figure out what the costs might be. If we wait another month, we will not be ready for public outreach, which then jeopardizes ability to have town referendum in summer months. We have a method in the EIE. We can always change it later. D. Bednar said she thinks we should review the options that we have, because we have choices have been discussed before.
Chairman Prendergast distributed handouts with summary of 4 options, along with detailed spreadsheets with every property, square footage, and assessment. He reviewed the options.
Option 1 current draft model, what engineering company decided. Everything is 1 EDU. Less than 400 sq. ft. is excluded. Multi-family homes would be .75 EDU each for 1.5 total. Commonly used. What other private beach associations have proposed to us.
Option 2: Derived by building square footage. Pro-rated based on bigger or smaller.
Option 3: Split evenly per building.
Option 4: Use assessment that is fixed but based on assessed value of property. Used Excel and planned costs, adjust amounts, adds up to 11.7% assessment charge.
Lengthy discussion followed. Sub-committee chair is not here, and did not promote voting on the issue tonight. Options used in other towns were reviewed again. It was noted that flow proportion is critical. Need to know anticipated water flow. Chairman Prendergast said not based on flow, but *ability* of building to flow. Conversation with CT Water, they don’t want to give info, privacy issues, they would charge us. A. Lombard said a lot of communities use this method, and she feels we haven’t adequately explored it. D. Bednar said we have discussed it in the past. D. Wilkinson said we talked about flow as usage fee, but not as means as how to allocate capital costs. R. McCarthy stated that to use flow for capital side is incredibly flawed. Maybe for usage down the road, yes, but not for capital charge. D. Tolchinski stated he is a
member of sub-committee. Have only had 2 meetings. Did not know about the work that A. Lombard was doing. Have to have some kind of proof that costs are spread equally. 2 components - construction and usage. Project cost divided by connection should be charged to every building that has connections. Then, cost per usage. At Old Colony Beach Association meetings, spent a lot of time discussing. CT Water gave info to OCB for past 5 years. No complication. Chairman Prendergast has water usage data, but had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. OCB did not have to do this. A. Lombard pointed out that some towns include tax dollars as part of assessment. Chairman Prendergast noted that is outside the scope of definition of an EDU. He pointed out part of us keeping the costs low is to get this going for State of CT to re-pave 156 after this project in 2019, and suggested that we make it known these are preliminary numbers. Actual cost of project is an estimate. F. Chan said it needs to be
easy to understand. S. Cancelliere said the agenda says discussion, doesn’t indicate urgency that he feels from the discussion.
Motion by D. Wilkinson: For the sake of public outreach and an initial starting point, we use option 4 to determine cost of sewer connection to develop a range, with the understanding that this more than likely will change as we get more information. Second by R. McCarthy. Discussion: can we change it later? It may be the final choice, but doesn’t have to be. Would be a modification rather than a complete different option. F. Chan stated he thinks option 4 makes sense. There is a fixed component and variable component. A. Lombard said the review table has errors. Chairman Prendergast replied look at the full spreadsheet with all data to see details. There are always going to be exceptions.
In favor: 6 Opposed: 1. Abstain: 1. Motion carries.
Public Outreach: Chairman Prendergast will work on proposed dates.
New Business: Carmody is an online method for haulers to enter data on septic tank pumpouts. A high-end estimate of cost (including setup and monthly fee for one year) is approximately $6,587. Would be less expensive in future years, as there would be no setup fee. Also, would be less work for the Clerk.
Motion by S. Cancelliere to approve purchase of the Carmody software system. Second by D. Wilkinson. Discussion: It is a step in the right direction, and would support the whole town. A. Lombard stated in 2018 that we need to be automated. She recommended that we call Steve Mansfield at LedgeLight to loop him in. Motion carries unanimously.
Public Comment:
John Peters, Sound View: Are all the connections the same? For a large building, multi-family vs. single family.
Carmine Satany, Sound View: Option 4 that was approved, based on assessment. Is that based on Vision?
Angelo Fazano, Sound View: Does assessment count sheds, etc… or just square footage of house?
Frank Lishgin: As far as assessment goes, properties are assessed higher with a water view, and this is a beach community. Would view increase assessment value and cost that homeowner more?
Gail Fuller, Sound View: She has a vacant lot. How would that play out? She also asked if we could please repeat numbers for option 4.
Frank Noe, Sound View: When it comes to assessment, have to consider land value. Land value has to come out of the equation. Closer to the beach higher value compared to closer to Rte. 156. Comparing apples and oranges. When it comes to square footage, a 5000 sq ft house can have 3 bedrooms, a 12,000 sq ft house can have 3 bedrooms. Also, he is chairperson of Old Colony Beach Association. They worked for years and covered all aspects of EDUs, including water flow. 180 gallons/day times 6 months. They found in their calculations that a multi-family house doesn’t necessarily use more water than single family house.
Selectwoman Nosal: Would like to thank everybody for their diligence and patience on this issue. The committee have been having this discussion for about a year. Much work done by chairperson especially. Thank audience. Great turnout. People need information before we go to referendum. Imperative that we meet deadline.
Chairman Prendergast responds: Are all connection pipe sizes the same to each building? He thinks yes. D. Tolchinski says pipe size varies 4-6 inches. Vision appraisal is the town assessment. Does it include shed or outbuilding? Assessed value is living area (i.e. not outbuildings.) Water view would have a higher assessment. Yes, that is a side effect of option we chose. Will have problems with whatever option we choose. What we did tonight is to establish a starting point. Will change before we start sending bills out. These effects will be considered. Does living area of a building include that cost of land? Will have to research. Might answer concern. Not using land assessment. We appreciate feedback. Helps us respond. Mention of vacant lot – excluded unless it is a buildable lot. Number of bedrooms is small vs. large house -
have had discussions in the past. Using number of bedrooms becomes difficult. Data that says multi-family doesn’t use more, Chairman will look into our data.
Motion by D. Wilkinson to adjourn. Second by D. Bednar. Motion carries unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Datum, WPCA Clerk
| 
