A. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Joseph Carino, Thomas Deming, Robert Dickinson, Carol Fletterick, Edward Havens, Jr., and William Vees
Members Absent: Frank Ferrero
Alternates Present: Richard Aries sitting in for Mr. Frank Ferrero
Richard Siedman
Staff Present: C. Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Pollution Control
Ether A. Diaz, Recording Secretary
Others: Chris Eseppi, PDS Engineering
Wayne C. Gerlt
Chairman Joseph Carino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following actions were taken during the September 7, 2010 Regular Meeting of the W.P.C.A.
B. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
1. July 13, 2010, Regular Meeting
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the July 13, 2010 Regular Meeting as presented.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Carol Fletterick
The motion carried unanimously
2. August 17, 2010, Public Hearing
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the August 17, 2010, Public Hearing as presented.
The motion was made by Thomas Deming
Seconded by Mrs. Carol Fletterick
The motion carried unanimously
3. August 17, 2010, Special Meeting
The following correction was made to the minutes:
On page 3: Mr. William Vees name was incorrect; it was written as Richard Vees. There were no other corrections to the minutes; therefore the minutes were accepted as follows:
Motion was made to approve the minutes of August 17, 2010, Special Meeting as amended.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Mr. William Vees
The motion carried unanimously
Chairman Carino appointed Mr. Richard Aries to sit in for Mr. Frank Ferrero. Mr. Thomas Deming was unable to stay in the meeting.
C. NEW BUSINESS
1. Optimus South Windsor, 161 South Satellite Road – building sewer extension (Approval)
Mr. Fred Shaw explained that this in an existing business located at 161 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, CT. This business is currently connected to the Town sewer. The project involves the addition of a new proposed building extension with two new lavatories at their facility and requires the connection of the proposed building extension to the existing building sewer.
Mr. Chris Essepi from PDS Engineering was present this evening to represent the application. He explained that this business is been in Town for about fifteen years. This is a 12,000 square foot facility with a sewer connection to South Satellite Road. This project involves an addition of 12,000 square foot warehouse facility in back of the existing building and would like to have two bathrooms. The project involves a proposed building extension to the existing sewer located in the back of the building. There will be no floor drains.
Motion was made to approve the application as presented for connection of two new lavatories in a proposed building extension to the existing building sewer; as more specifically shown on plans entitled “Optimus South Windsor LLC, Proposed Addition, 161 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, CT” Prepared by PDS Engineering & Construction, Inc., Bloomfield, CT; Sheet No.: C-100 “Site Grading & Utility Plan”, Dated 12/2009; and subject to final technical approval of the Town of South Windsor Engineering Department.
The motion was made by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion was seconded by Mr. Richard Aries; and the motion carried unanimously with one abstention made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
Mr. Fred Shaw suggested adding one item to the agenda for consideration to a Developer’s Agreement.
Motion was made to add to the Agenda Item C1a – 96 Griffin Road, Request for Developer’s Agreement.
Motion was made by Mr. Richard Aries
The motion was seconded by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion carried unanimously
1a. 96 Griffin Road, Request for Developer’s Agreement
Mr. Fred Shaw informed the Authority that this pertains to the Mitchell Project in East Windsor and to the Homes by Guarino project which were both previously approved by the Authority for connection to the Town sewer line. Attorney Wayne Gerlt was present this evening asking for consideration from the Authority for a Developer’s Agreement which would allow Mr. Dustin Mitchell, applicant, to recover some of the cost for the sewer main that would be extended from the existing manhole on Griffin Road for their project; Homes by Guarino is expected to be connecting to this extension.
Attorney Wayne Gerlt explained that his client, Dustin Mitchell has tried on several occasions to reach Mr. Paul Guarino of Homes by Guarino to work out an arrangement for purposes of connecting to the main sewer line. However, Mr. Guarino has not yet returned any of the phone calls of Mr. Mitchell. Attorney Gerlt explained that his client is prepared to continue with his project; part of the project is to extend the sewer main a few hundred feet down Griffin Road and go off the road on the west side of Griffin Road with a lateral to connect his two houses. The proposed Homes by Guarino subdivision would also require an extension of the existing Griffin Road sewer main. Attorney Gerlt requested a developer’s agreement in the event that his client should be the first to
install the sewer main extension to which the Guarino subdivision would connect at a later date.
Chairman Carino explained that he has a problem with the request, because to his recollection the Town never went into a partnership with a builder on a public sewer line. He explained, that if the Authority gives Mr. Mitchell full control of the location where the public sewer ends, Mr. Mitchell would own that sewer, therefore, the Town is not going to accept it as a public sewer as long as Mr. Mitchell has an ownership. Attorney Gerlt answered that Mr. Mitchell does not want ownership of the public sewer, all he is asking is for an opportunity to be compensated for the connection to the sewer line.
Mr. Fred Shaw explained that in the past, usually during the application review process, sometimes a developer will run a sewer past existing properties and will be requested to install laterals for these properties which are not part of his/her project. The developer subsequently requests an opportunity to recover some of these costs for the laterals; and the Town did have a couple of agreements with developers where the developer has a ten (10) year period during which to recover some of the assessments from those that connects. However, this particular case there is difference because it depends on who gets there first as both projects will be extending the existing Town sewer which would become a public sewer.
Mr. Richard Aries asked if there is a mechanism to ensure appropriate reimbursement for the developer. Attorney Gerlt responded that he would need to draft a developer’s agreement with the Town. Mr. Richard Aries asked if the Homes by Guarino applicant received any notice that this is being discussed this evening and the response was no. Mr. Fred Shaw stated that both projects are been approved by the Authority. Mr. Shaw also explained that this would improperly benefit Mr. Mitchell because the Town would end up by paying for the Guarino project connection. He explained that normally with the developer’s agreement, the Town would be giving the developer the opportunity to recover some of those assessments funds such as the connection charge and the sewer
assessment for those existing properties there was a benefit to the Town for this work. In the present case, there are no existing properties for which sewer laterals would be required. In this case, the Town would not collect any sewer assessment; the only thing that the Town would collect is the connection charges for those six properties which would then be given to Mr. Mitchell. The Town receives no benefit that would justify entering into a developer’s agreement and properly would be unfair by benefiting a private developer. It is a business matter between two developers that the Town should not property become involved with.
Chairman Carino asked Mr. Fred Shaw if Mr. Mitchell is going to be putting in a “T” connection and the answer was no, Mr. Mitchell was not going to be putting in a “T” connection as well as Mr. Guarino.
Mr. Richard Siedman arrived to the meeting at 7: 21 p.m.
Chairman Carino explained that if the developer puts a “T” connection, then the argument can be made that there is some interest; that the developer put in a line for somebody to use. However, just putting in a pipe in the ground for their own use and trying to get reimbursed when someone else connects to the line, is not agreeable. Mr. Fred Shaw explained the only difference is that there are no existing houses in this area, and the Town always tries to benefit the residents. In this case, if the Authority approves a developer’s agreement to the first developer that puts in the main, then the Town would be benefiting the developer instead of the residents.
Chairman Carino requested an informal opinion from each member present; the comments follow:
Mr. Williams Vees stated that he feels very uncomfortable in taking a decision; Mr. Ed Havens stated that the agreement should be made between the two developers and the Town should not be involved in the decision; Ms. Carol Fletterick agreed with Mr. Ed Havens. Mr. Richard Siedman answered that he feels very uncomfortable due to the fact that both projects were previously approved by the Authority. Mr. Robert Dickinson explained that he thinks is unfair to require the developer to put in a lateral or a “T” connection in the line; and Mr. Richard Aries explained that he would need to see the terms of the agreement between both parties before inclining approval of a “T” connection. With this said Attorney Gerlt stated that he would speak to his client, Mr. Dustin
Mitchell and ask him for his opinion on putting in a “T” connection. Mr. Richard Aries asked Attorney Gerlt to provide the Authority with some documentary of the attempts of communication that Mr. Mitchell has made with Mr. Paul Guarino with no response back. He also asked Mr. Fred Shaw to perhaps make some inquiries to Mr. Guarino as to what are the expectations of the Authority when an approval is granted.
2. Residential Sewer User Charge Billing (Approval to bill)
A memorandum from Fred Shaw dated September 7, 2010, was submitted for approval for the billing for residential user fees for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 (see Exhibit A). The proposed residential count was 8,035 units, and the revenue totaled $2,330,944 which is less than last year revenue. However, this difference in revenue was expected due to the decrease in the sewer user fee.
Motion was made to approve the Residential Sewer User Charge billing list for FY2010/2011 as presented in the Memorandum from Mr. Shaw dated September 7, 2010 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Motion was made by Mr. Richard Aries
The motion was seconded by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion carried unanimously
3. Sewer User Charge Billing Notice (review and discussion)
Mr. Richard Aries presented a draft copy of the information to be included with the residential sewer bills. This information was reviewed by the Authority and minor changes were recommended. Mr. Fred Shaw stated that it is necessary to emphasize in the message that there is a need to have a sound financial plan to stabilize sewer user fees now and in the future. Mr. Aries will make the changes and provide a copy via email to the Authority for final approval.
Mr. Fred Shaw reported that he was also planning on sending out a notice with the billing about FOG (Fats, Oil, and Grease). This information would allow the residents to be aware that they could be causing problems with their own sewer systems, and allow them to learn how to protect their sewer system and avoid any sewer blockages. The Authority agreed that is a good piece of information for the residents, however, it may be too much to include with the sewer bills. Therefore, adding a link in the Town’s webpage on FOG or an informative report on the newspaper will be the best venue.
D. COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
Mr. Fred Shaw reported that the construction phase for the Treatment Plant is proceeding well and the project is about 45% completed. This project is anticipated to be substantially completed by the end of next year as scheduled. There is a link to the updates of the Treatment Plant on the Town’s webpage.
E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None
F. BILLS, CHANGE ORDERS, DISBURSEMENTS
None
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Commercial Condominium Sewer User Charge Billing (Review – Town Attorney’s Opinion)
Along with the Agenda was included a legal opinion from the Town Attorney regarding the current policy on the commercial condominium sewer user charge billing practice (see Exhibit B). Chairman Carino summarized the legal opinion and his understanding is that when the Town Attorney reviewed the WPCA Rules and Regulations, he concluded that the current billing practices conform to the State Statues and the Rules and regulations. The basic statement
says that the Town bills the commercial condominiums based upon flow figure. However, the Attorney does indicate that the Authority can change the billing practice. Chairman Carino would like to get an opinion as to see if once the Authority has passed or approved the applications that conform to state statues and WPCA regulations, can the Authority two years or three years later, notify the applicants that they have to re-do their plumbing in their building so that the Town can charge every person in that building the $288 (minimum charge). Chairman Carino believes that the legal answer would be no, therefore, he believes that those applications that were approved meeting all the requirements, have to be grand fathered.
Mr. Richard Siedman disagreed with Chairman Carino. He explained that he interpreted the legal opinion differently. He stated that the legal opinion was referring to charging each building individually, the Town Attorney did not mentioned whether it is commercial or residential. Mr. Siedman explained that there are residential condominiums with multiple units in a building that are being charged $340 per building. Therefore, he believes that the Town would need to go back to adjust the billing so that they get billed individually. Mr. Siedman also pointed out that he does not want everyone to re do their plumbing. All he is asking is to charge each building or each unit $288 per unit. Mr. Siedman gave Wentworth Condominium as an example. This is a
commercial condominium with twenty five (25) units. He is suggesting charging $288 per unit plus overage. So, taking the 25 units times 93,000 gallons, anything over 93,000 times 25 units, be divided by the number of units. Mr. Richard Siedman does not believe that it should apply to as grand father.
Mr. Fred Shaw was asked to seek legal opinion from the current Town Attorney that if the Authority decides to change the rules, can the previously approved commercial condominiums be charged under the new rules.
Mr. Richard Aries expressed that it seems there is a discrepancy between the way the residential condominiums and commercial entities are treated; separate tenants in commercial facilities are subject to one bill, where each individual tenant in a residential condominium gets individually billed. Chairman responded that this subject is not about commercial vs. residential. He explained that those commercial condominiums that are served by the Metropolitan District Commission have only one single meter, however, the one that are served by CT Water Company are individually meter as requested by the water company. This is something that the water companies did, not the Town. Mr. Fred Shaw expressed that he did explained to the Town Attorney the residential inconsistency. He
explained that in the case of Wentworth Condominium, where they came in to make their representation, everyone understood, that even though the individual units were going to be owned individually that they were going to have their own meter, and only one bill was going to be sent out to the association and the association was going to distribute the bills among the individuals.
It was decided to have the Town Attorney join the meeting to further review this matter.
2. Proposed Reserve Fund Policy (Discussion)
Mr. Fred Shaw asked the Authority to review the proposed policy (see Exhibit C). This is recommended as a proposal to provide for a sound financial plan. Fred Shaw stated that there should be a policy that underlies the whole process and the Town Council should be involved with this too. The Authority will review the draft policy for further discussion.
3. Referendum – Pump Station Upgrade (Discussion)
With the agenda was included a copy of the legal opinion from the current Town Attorney’s Office, concerning what the Authority can and can’t due concerning the referendum issue (see Exhibit D). Mr. Fred Shaw explained that it was clear that as long as there are no expenditures of the Town’s funds to promote the projects, it is perfectly alright to have a general discussion of the project. He further explained that the minutes where
the subject is being discussed are available to the public on the Town website.
The Authority agreed adding to the October meeting agenda an item concerning the pump stations upgrade for general discussion.
H. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING CLAIMS
None
I. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
Seconded by Mr. Richard Aries
The motion carried unanimously
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________
Ether A. Diaz
Recording Secretary
Originally Posted: September 17, 2010
Approved Date: November 3, 2010
| 
