 |
A. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Joseph Carino, Thomas Deming, Robert Dickinson, Frank Ferrero, Carol Fletterick, Edward Havens, Jr., and William Vees
Alternates Present: Richard Aries and Richard Siedman
Staff Present: C. Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Pollution Control
Ether A. Diaz, Recording Secretary
Others: Tim Coon, J.R. Russo Associates, LLC
James Cassidy, Hallisey, Pearson, & Cassidy Engineering Associates, Inc.
Attorney Thomas Blatchley, Halloran & Sage, LLP
Chairman Joseph Carino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following actions were taken during the July 13, 2010 Regular Meeting of the W.P.C.A.
B. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
1. June 1, 2010, Public Hearing
Chairman Carino asked if any corrections are to be made to the Public Hearing minutes of June 1, 2010. No changes were made. The minutes were approved as follows:
Motion was made to approve the June 1, 2010 Public Hearing Minutes as presented.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
Seconded by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion carried unanimously
2. June 1, 2010, Regular Meeting
Mr. Ed Havens, Jr. made one correction to the minutes. On Page 5, under Item G1 “Commercial/Industrial Condominium User Charge Billing (discussion)”, 3rd paragraph, last sentence change the word “he say” to “hear say”. Therefore, the sentence should read as follows: “Mr. Aries knows that they both went to the same law school and therefore he will say to him that “hear say” is a very weak evidence to base any kind of factual assertions on.”
Motion was made to approve the June 1, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes as amended.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
Seconded by Mr. Thomas Deming
The motion carried unanimously
C. NEW BUSINESS
1. Guarino Subdivision, 258 Rye Street (Final Approval)
Mr. Tim Coon from J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC was in attendance representing the applicant for proposed property located at 258 Rye Street. This is a proposed seven lot subdivision; three lots are in East Windsor, CT which will be served by septic system, and the other four lots are in South Windsor. Mr. Coon explained to the Authority that this project involves connecting two of the houses to a sewer main on Abbe Road, and extending the sewer main to service the other two houses on Griffin Road. The plan is to extend a new 8” sewer main 96 feet from an existing manhole on Griffin Road. From the manhole on Griffin Road, the new sewer main will extend to a private sewer main to be installed in a private easement and will include two additional manholes to serve the four proposed lots in
South Windsor. Mr. Coon reported that this project received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Motion to approve the application as presented for connection to the Town’s sewerage system for all four proposed residential units to the existing sewer main on Griffin Road, as specifically shown on plans entitled “Homes by Guarino Subdivision, Griffin Road and Abbe Road, South Windsor, Ct and Griffin Road & Miller Road, East Windsor, CT´258 Rye Street”, Prepared by J. R. Russo & Associates, LLC, East Windsor, CT., Sheet 3 of 5 “Topographic Plan”, Dated 4-23-2010, latest revision 6-2-2010. This motion is subject to the following conditions: final technical approval of the Town of South Windsor Engineering Department; and a draft of the Association Sewer Easement Agreement that defines the responsibility for the private sewer line maintenance must be submitted, reviewed
and approved by the Town Attorney.
The motion was made by Mr. Thomas Deming
The motion was seconded by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion carried unanimously
2. 2163 Ellington Road Subdivision (Final Approval)
Mr. James Cassidy from Hallisey, Pearson, & Cassidy Engineering Associates, Inc., was in attendance representing this application. He explained that the property is located south of Ellington Road. He explained that this project received approval for subdivision of the property by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This project involves installing a new 6” sewer lateral at 2% slope from the existing sewer main on Ellington Road to the proposed house on the rear lot. Answering questions from the Authority, Mr. Cassidy responded that the building sewer will have cleanouts and a 2% slope.
Motion to approve the application as presented for connection to the Town’s sewerage system of proposed subdivision of property located at 2163 Ellington Road, South Windsor, CT as more specifically shown on plans entitled “Resubdivision Plan, Prepared for D & D Dependable Construction, LLC #2163 Ellington Road, South Windsor, Connecticut” Job No.#2057, Page 4 of 5 “Site Development/Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan”, Dated 3/24/2010. This motion is subject to final technical approval of the Town of South Windsor Engineering Department.
This motion was approved by Mr. Thomas Deming
The motion was seconded by Mr. William Vees
The motion carried unanimously
3. Commercial Condominium User Charge (Discussion with Town Attorney)
Mr. Fred Shaw’s opening remarks were that Town Attorney Duncan Forsyth was requested to attend this evening meeting to review with the Authority the subject concerning commercial condominium user charges and to answer any questions that the Authority may have. Along with the Agenda a copy of the original request for a legal opinion was provided (see Exhibit A). Unfortunately, Attorney Forsyth was unable to attend this meeting, and therefore, Attorney Thomas Blatchley was in attendance on behalf
of Attorney Forsyth and to answer any questions that the Authority may have.
Prior to Attorney Blatchley comments, Mr. Richard Siedman expressed that the provided legal request (see Exhibit A) does not includes all of the facts regarding this issue. So, he explained to Attorney Blatchley that there are commercial buildings in Town that will use the same amount of water that a residential condominium will use in the development, but the commercial condominiums will be charged for only $340. He expressed that he would like to see a change in the billing policy to be able treat
Commercial/Industrial Condominiums same as Residential Condominiums, where they should be charged the minimum fee of $340 for 93,000 gallons per unit.
Mr. Fred Shaw for the record responded that although the legal request did not include all the facts pertaining to this issue, the Town Attorney is aware of the issue. The legal request form is a requirement that the Town staff have to follow through the Town Manager to obtain approval to request a legal opinion; and only a limited amount of space is provided on the form to provide a brief summary of the subject matter. However, Mr. Fred Shaw reported that he has talked to the Town Attorney over the phone on more than one occasion. The Town Attorney was provided with a copy of the WPCA Rules and Regulations, and all his questions were answered. The Town Attorney is very familiar with all ramifications of the subject including policies pertaining to both commercial and residential condominium user
charges.
Chairman Carino explained to Attorney Blatchley that the Authority has been following a procedure that is consistent with the State Statutes which explains that the Authority can bill based upon water meter records; it is billed based upon the use of water that goes into the sewer system. Now, the problem is where there is a combination of condominiums with water meters and some without water meters. So, the Authority, he explained, is looking for guidance and recommendations as to how the Authority should address these various combinations that are in Town.
Attorney Thomas Blatchley explained that a “Legal Services Request Form” (Exhibit A) dated May 18, 2010 was submitted for the purposes of looking into the commercial condominiums user charge billing process. He explained that in reviewing this matter, it was determined that the current process in place is appropriate for commercial condominiums. First, he explained, because it was inequitable with one pipe line coming in and one coming out. But most importantly, he explained, that
under the WPCA Rules and Regulations, Section 16.2 discusses and annual sewer charge shall be imposed on each building; and in Section 16.5, in terms of commercial/industrial it discusses the user fee for each building. However, he does understand Mr. Richard Siedman concerns on residential condominiums vs. commercial condominiums and asked for that to be looked into further, because he was just asked to review the billing process for commercial condominiums.
Mr. Fred Shaw explained that Attorney Forsyth was aware of the residential condominiums billing process. Mr. Richard Siedman gave as an example 25 commercial condominiums paying one sewer fee of $340; however, the residential condominiums are each being billed $340 individually. So, he asked Attorney Blatchley why they are being billed differently. Attorney Blatchley in response to his question explained that under Section 16.5c “the commercial/industrial section” the language itself says that each billing user fee per fiscal year is for each building. Mr. Richard Siedman stated that he understands the policy but he wants to know what can be done to change the billing practices. Attorney Blacthley answered that under the current rules the Authority has the right to bill differently
unless they amend the rules and regulations to reflect it in the budget. Mr. Siedman answered that was the reason a legal request was submitted to change the bylaws so that every one can be treated equally.
Mr. Fred Shaw explained that the Authority can change the billing policy. However, the problem is that out of 12 condominiums in Town only two condominium associations have a meter for each single unit; all of the other ten associations do not have individual meters because they are served by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC). It seems, he further explained, that Connecticut Water Company is the only water company that provides individual water meter for each unit. Mr. Siedman explained that he does understand that, however, he wants the policy to change so that the commercial condominium owners be treated the same way as the residential condominium owner. Mr. Robert Dickinson explained that it seems that the only way to make it totally equitable will be by setting up a system where
everybody that has a water meter pays for what they use; for those that don’t have a water meter, they’ll pay the standard rate.
Mr. Frank Ferrero explained that there is a consensus between Mr. Richard Siedman, Mr. Thomas Deming and himself which is to simply have a system that is fair to everyone. He feels that the current system that is in place regardless of past customs and practices is not fair to everyone. There are some people that are paying a lot more than they should and there are others that are getting away with not paying what they should as compared to those that are paying.
Mr. Richard Aries asked if the commercial condominiums are equipped each unit with plumbing and bathrooms, or if is just one bathroom for all the units. Mr. Richard Siedman answered that each unit have its individual plumbing and bathrooms. Mr. Aries also asked if the State Statutes that Chairman Carino made reference to, was just a guideline for billing purposes or an authority. Chairman Carino answered that the law says that the Authority is permitted to bill that way, he does not think the law dictates the Authority.
Mr. Ed Havens, Jr. asked that he thought one of the reasons why Attorney Blatchley was in attendance was to give an overview of how the Authority could proceed in this process in a more equitable fashion. Mr. Fred Shaw responded that the purpose of having Attorney Blatchley in attendance was also to get input from the members so that he could forward those comments to the Town Attorney for the preparation of a written opinion.
Chairman Carino provided Attorney Blatchley with a copy of a written opinion prepared by the Town’s bond counsel and asked him to provide the group with his interpretation of the language. In the meantime, Mrs. Carol Fletterick expressed that it seems that the commercial condominiums are being treated differently from other commercial entities. Right now, the Town is billing the large commercial entities based upon water consumption, but the Authority wants to treat the commercial condominiums differently. In response, Chairman Carino expressed that it is a fundamental problem, because of the various combinations in place that there will not be an equitable standard applicable to all users.
Mr. William Vees expressed that fundamentally he supports the idea of being fair and equitable. However, the other argument that could be made is that the Town wants to encourage commercialization in South Windsor; why not then give the commercial properties a break. Mr. Deming explained that when it comes down to fairness and equitable, there are property owners that are paying a lot of money to put grey water into the system. Mr. Shaw answered that non contact cooling water can’t be discharged into the system. In the case of we ask the property owner to put a meter in the pump station so that the Town can get an accurate measure of both the water consumption and the condensation water. He explained that the Authority can require every business to do that.
Mr. Frank Ferrero explained in response to Mrs. Fletterick’s concern, that every commercial establishment in Town pays a minimum of $340 plus overage, and that is what some members of the Authority want to get, the commercial condos up to the same level as everyone else. Mr. Fred Shaw explained, that the interest is in the amount of water that is discharged to the sewer and be able to charge based upon that figure, regardless of whether the businesses own their own office space or not. In response, Mr. Richard Siedman expressed that he would like for Mr. Fred Shaw to work with the Authority in terms of changing the policy to be able to bill the commercial condominiums same as the residential condominiums, individually. He feels that Mr. Fred Shaw has not come forward with one constructive idea on
changing the policy. Mr. Shaw responded that he is not trying to decide policy. His job is to provide the Authority with information and options with by which they may make policy decisions. The Authority decides all matters affecting fairness and equity.
Chairman Carino asked the Attorney on his interpretation to the State Statutes. Attorney Blatchley answered that what Chairman Carino presented to him is actually a regulation which the Authority should be following.
Mr. Fred Shaw explained that when this discussion began earlier in the spring time, he prepared a fact sheet in which he listed all the Commercial/Industrial Condominiums, and he also provided data on the residential condominium sewer user charge billing. That information was provided to the Authority so as to consider the full impact of making such a decision. Mr. Shaw explained that at some point in the past, the individual condo units were charged the minimum charge. He explained that if the Authority decides to change the policy so that they can bill the residential condo for flow, they should understand the impact on revenue to the Town. Mr. Robert Dickinson suggested billing by the usage where there is a meter, or the owner is willing to put in a meter, and if they don’t have a meter then
bill for the overage.
Chairman Carino asked the Attorney if he envisions any legal problem should the Authority decides to deviate from the current system in place which is to charge by the flow that goes into the system. Attorney Blatchley explained that one of the complexities will be who will pay for the installation of the meters. With this said, Mr. Havens stated that in the case of the condominiums in South Windsor, installing individual meters for each unit would be physically impossible due to the nature of the construction, the age and how they were designed. Mr. Dickinson answered that in this case, they would pay the total usage for the complex and then split the overage.
Mr. Frank Ferrero explained that there are two issues being discussed. In regards to residential the big issue is that there are a number of residential condominiums in Town where there is one meter and one charge. And there are other condominiums that have individual meters and are being billed individually. Mr. Ferrero feels that every residential unit should be paying the $340 minimum fee. On the other hand, the commercial condominiums should be treated differently because for the most they are metered. In response, Mr. Richard Aries expressed that he is attracted to the idea of seen the revenue and equity for treating the commercial condominiums individually; however, he said he admits that the Authority is basing that concept just on expectable principle as residential condominiums.
In his view, the residential condominium is a home where when you buy it is with the idea that you will need to pay for the water and sewer bill. On the other hand, in the commercial condominiums there are a lot of varied businesses, so it is a different concept because the owner may not be in the office very often. Therefore, Mr. Aries explained that he find it difficult to make a final decision.
Chairman Carino asked Attorney Blachley to relay this information to the Town Attorney and to provide the Authority with understanding of the State law and legal aspects of this matter. Mr. Ed Havens, Jr. asked Fred Shaw how other Towns handle this issue. Mr. Shaw explained that there are many different ways by which they bill. The most direct method is to install a meter on the pipe going into the sewer which is a very expensive option involving installation, maintenance and meter reading costs. However, Mr. Shaw stated that he will always present alternatives so that the Authority can make an informed decision. With no further comments, the Authority thanked Attorney Thomas Blathley for his time.
4. Referendum for Pump Station Upgrades (Discussion with Council Liaison K. Yagaloff)
Chairman Carino explained that Mr. Keith Yagaloff was invited to this meeting to further discuss this subject. For the record, Chairman Carino explained to the Authority that there is a WPCA subcommittee which was to meet with the Town Council. This subcommittee was approved by members of the WPCA. However, he made it clear that all final decisions are to be made by members of the WPCA. With that said, Chairman Carino proceeded to explain that a Referendum was approved by Town residents to build the new treatment plant facility. He explained that on September 2013, a one-time payment of just over $1.7 million is due. However, no decision has yet being made as to who will cover this debt service. Chairman Carino explained that a letter dated June 3, 2010 (Exhibit B) was written to Mayor Pelkey requesting in writing who will be responsible for paying these debt obligations. Chairman Carino indicated that minutes were not taken in either of the two meetings between WPCA
subcommittee and the Town Council. Chairman Carino further explained that the Town Council is going to referendum for the pump stations improvements and requested members of the WPCA to support the referendum; however, he strongly feels that he is not ready to support the referendum until he gets an opinion as to who will be responsible to cover the debt service obligations.
Mr. William Vees asked what would be the next step to make should the referendum fails. Mr. Fred Shaw responded that the Town Council agreed that the user fee rate of $288 would allow construction of the next pumping station. If the referendum passes, the Town will proceed with construction of the pump stations (see Exhibit C for Summary of the Project). However, there is no allowance in the reserve fund to provide for any future debt service for this project. Mr. Shaw also explained that
it was suggested by Councilman Yagaloff that if the referendum passes, the WPCA would take the current $588,000 budgeted for pump station improvement to help the Town Council to meet the first payment due in September 2013 for the Treatment Plant Upgrade. Mr. Fred Shaw also explained that Councilor Yagaloff has indicated that the minutes of the Town Council meeting of March 2010 stated that property taxes will be used to cover the debt service obligations. However, Mr. Fred Shaw explained that the Town Council minutes (Exhibit D) or the resolution does not indicate that responsibility; all it says is that “any bonds to be issued for the new sewer plant
shall be secured by the full faith and credit of the Town of South Windsor.” Therefore, it does not specify whether the debt service is going to be paid through the user fees or through property taxes.
Mr. Richard Aries recommended writing another letter on behalf of Chairman Carino explaining what is understood to be the terms of the contract. Also, he would like to see an enclosure with the billing explaining that the sewer fees are going to be deferred via transfer to property taxes, and that in the future sewer users may be increased. There was consensus for Mr. Richard Aries to draft a letter from Chairman Carino to Mayor Pelkey regarding this subject matter and explaining that the WPCA will support the referendum with the understanding that property taxes will be used to cover the debt service for the Treatment Plant Upgrade.
D. COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
None
E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None
F. BILLS, CHANGE ORDERS, DISBURSEMENTS
None
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Set Sewer User Rates for FY 2010/2011 (Approve or Reconsider)
As presented to the public at the WPCA Public Hearing on June 1, 2010, the proposed Sewer User Charge Rates at $288 (see Exhibit E.)
Motion to adopt the Sewer User Charge Rates and Schedule for Benefit of Assessments for FY 2010/2011, as presented on June 1, 2010 at the Water Pollution Control Authority Public Hearing (see exhibit E).
Motion was made by Mr. Thomas Deming
The motion was seconded by Mr. Robert Dickinson
A discussion ensued and Chairman Carino mentioned that the motion should include all of the items presented at the Public Hearing. Mr. Fred Shaw reported that the proposed definition for “Pollution Abatement Facility” (Exhibit F1) one of the comments during the public hearing was that there was wording including the word “capital”. For the record, Mr. Fred Shaw reported that the definition unfortunately was in his notes as he was giving his budget presentation on March 25, 2010
to the Town Council, and that a not to himself was printed next to the definition and was later mistakenly copied on to the Legal notice. It was not his intention to add his note to the definition, and, the words which included capital did not convey any meaning within the definition. Therefore, he recommended removing the last section of the definition as shown on Exhibit F2.
Mr. Richard Aries asked members of the Authority to allow Mr. Fred Shaw to comment on his thoughts and concerns about the proposed sewer user fee of $288. Mr. Fred Shaw commented on what the consequences are and the impact on debt service repayment options are (See Exhibit G1 and G2). He explained that in the past, he had provided different “what if” scenarios to the Authority involving use of p or user fees. Mr. Shaw stated that should the pump station referendum pass, WPCA is going to need to repay debt service through the user fees, this is not going to be paid through the property taxes; which will mean increasing the user fees again.
Mr. Fred Shaw also commented on the Item G2 of the Agenda: Review Draft Pollution Control Reserve Fund Policy (Discussion). Included with the Agenda was a draft copy for review and consideration of the “Pollution Control Reserve Fund Policy” (see Exhibit H.) This explains the purpose of the Reserve which is to stabilize the sewer user charge rates. The intention is to provide a financial plan that would help to stabilize user fees. Mr. Shaw asked the Authority to review the
draft policy and take into consideration the policy objectives. Mr. William Vees asked how is the Town of South Windsor compared to other Towns. Mr. Fred Shaw answered that the user fee rate of $340 was less than average ($360) in the state level.
The motion on the floor was to approve the Sewer User Fees at $288. The motion carried unanimously. However, this motion was for the User Fees only. Therefore, a motion to add to the Agenda the Approval to the Proposed additional to Section 1 and approval to the Proposed Changes to Section 16.0. The motion was made as follows:
Motion was made to add to the Agenda Item G3 - Proposed addition to Section 1; the definition of “Pollution Abatement Facility” and the definition of “User Charge System” of the Rules and Regulations as amended (See Exhibit E) and Proposed Changes to Section 16.0 “Sewer Use Charges and the Collection Thereof”, Paragraph 16.3 “Small Industries” and Paragraph 16.4 “Major Industries” of the Rules and Regulations, See Exhibit I, (for approval).
Motion was made by Mr. William Vees
The motion was seconded by Mr. Frank Ferrero
The motion carried unanimously
3. Approval of Proposed Section 1; the definition of “Pollution Abatement Facility” and the definition of “User Charge System” of the Rules and Regulations (See Exhibit E) and Proposed Changes to Section 16.0 “Sewer Use Charges and the Collection Thereof”, Paragraph 16.3 “Small Industries” and Paragraph 16.4
“Major Industries” of the Rules and Regulations, See Exhibit I.
Motion was made to approve the addition to Section 1; the definition of “Pollution Abatement Facility” and the definition of “User Charge System” of the Rules and Regulations as amended (Exhibit E) and approve the Proposed Changes to Section 16.0 “Sewer Use Charges and the Collection Thereof”, Paragraph 16.3 “Small Industries” and Paragraph 16.4 “Major Industries” of the Rules and Regulations (Exhibit I.)
The motion was made by Mr. Willian Vees
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas Deming
The motion carried unanimously
H. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING CLAIMS
None
I. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
The motion was made by Mr. Thomas Deming
Seconded by Mr. Siedman
The motion carried unanimously
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________
Ether A. Diaz, Recording Secretary
Approved: September 7, 2010
| |
