A. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Richard Aries, Donald Antaya, Robert Dickinson, and Carol Fletterick
Members Absent: Vicky Paliulis and William Vees
Alternates Present: Ed Havens, Jr. sitting in for Vicky Paliulis
Richard Siedman sitting in for William Vees
Staff Present: C. Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Pollution Control
Ether A. Diaz, Recording Secretary
Chairman Richard Aries called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following actions were taken during the February 5, 2013 Regular Meeting of the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA).
B. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
January 2, 2013 – Regular Meeting
The minutes were grammatically corrected.
Motion was made to accept the minutes of January 2, 2013 as amended.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Richard Siedman
Mr. Robert Dickinson abstained as he was not in attendance at the January 2, 2013 meeting; the motion carried unanimously
C. NEW BUSINESS
1. Equitable Distribution of Sewer System Costs (Discussion)
Mr. Shaw reported that in reviewing the data provided by the CT Water Company and by Paul Lowry, Superintendent for this region, water consumption has decreased over the years for a number of reasons. He explained that people are using low flow toilets and low flow shower heads; appliances are more efficient now, people are drinking more bottle water and of course the water rates also has caused people to be more conservative about the water usage. Years ago, the average residential water consumption usage was about 93,000 gallons, but since then, it has decreased. In reviewing the information provided by the CT Water Company (see Exhibit A1) – He explained that he looked at the average annual water use that the water company computed and calculated the standard deviation for the data used in their computation. He also looked at the two lowest quarters and prorated these flow rates for the year to see what difference that would make.
Option 1 includes all residential customers using an average water of 64,000 gallons; the standard deviation unit was determined to be 53,730 gallons.
In option 2, Mr. Shaw took out apartments and condos to determine what the average annual water use would be for a single family house. However, that didn’t change the average too much; it changed it to 62,057 gallons of water usage. He calculated the standard deviation of that data which resulted in a very large standard deviation unit of (43,726); the average sewer charge would be $326.
In option 3, Mr. Shaw took out the number of new houses and the houses that had no flow, however, the flow rate didn’t changed alot; it increased to 64,977 gallons. The standard deviation unit increased to 46,024 and the average sewer charge computed would increase to $341.
The fourth option eliminated houses without four quarters of water use. The average water use increased to 67,073. The standard deviation unit decreased to 44,545 with an average sewer user charge of $352. Mr. Shaw reported that in looking at all the data there was not a very large flow difference between Option 1 and Option 4.
Mr. Shaw explained that certainly there was an impact in sewer fees. The next table he reviewed was the comparison of options (see Exhibit A2). In Option 1 he used the current flat rate (93,000 gallons for residential) and in Option 2 he calculated what the sewer user charge would be using water meter records. Mr. Shaw used the sewer user charge formula of the Rules and Regulations which is the total cost divided by the total flow of sewer users (both residential and commercial) and multiplied by the
gallons of the individual user which will give a user charge. This is the formula which was approved by DEEP (Department of Energy and Environmental Protection) and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) over 30 years ago. If the WPCA reduces the average flow for purposes of calculating the user charge, there would be an increase in user charge for many people. The current user charge is $374 per residential unit which could increase to $488 per residential unit using 93,000 gallons.
Based on actual water consumptions figures taken from The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) and Connecticut Water Company, Mr. Shaw presented what the user charge would be if the current flat rate is used ($374 per 93,000 gallons) and what the user fee would be if it was based on the water meter readings for residential and commercial users. Mr. Shaw concluded that if the user charge rates are based on meter readings, the rates are significantly different. Mr. Shaw explained that the 93,000 gallons was a real number based upon the sampling of 1700 MDC residential units in Town years ago.
Mr. Dickinson expressed that the number of residents per household will compare well to the water usage. Chairman Aries explained that in discussing the idea of looking at population presents some challenges; there is a lot of variation over time.
Chairman Aries asked Mr. Shaw that since DEEP approved about 30 years ago the formula for purposes of calculating the sewer user charge, to what extend does the DEEP get involved today if there is a change in the formula. Mr. Shaw responded that the approval of the formula years ago was necessary in order to satisfy the requirements of the Federal and State sewer construction grants; Pollution Control needs to be self supporting.
Mr. Dickinson expressed that another idea would be to start of with $200 or $250 based charge plus gallons and then keep lowering that down over the next five years.
Mr. Richard Siedman referred to the issue of inequity regarding the commercial condominiums. Mr. Shaw reported on this matter (see Exhibit A3). He explained that there are twelve (12) residential condominiums associations in Town; two of them are served by CT Water Company and they provide a water meter for each condo unit (Plum Ridge and Park View South); the other ten (10) condominiums are served by the MDC and they don’t have individual meters. Mr. Shaw determined what the average water usage
was per unit, using a flat rate, and what the user charge would be based upon water meter readings. It shows that in the case where a flat rate is used, the total revenue would be $635,052; using the water meter the total revenue would be $419,275.47; there is a difference of $216,000. Mr. Havens, Jr. requested that Mr. Shaw provide a chart showing what the cost will be if all condos are charged based upon the use of meters. Mr. Shaw explained that this was previously discussed; some of the members were interesting in billing the individual commercial units the minimum flat rate charge which would in some cases create more revenue than if the association divided the sewer bill based upon the total flow from the commercial building equally among the individual businesses.
Included with the Agenda was also a survey (see Exhibit A4). Mr. Shaw explained that he selected these towns based on the fact that they are similar to the Town of South Windsor in terms of the number of users that they had and also their use of water meters. He explained that the purpose in doing this survey was to understand what it cost to run a billing system based on meter system. A set of questions were asked of these Town; each town had staff working in putting the bills together, getting the
water meter records from the water companies and dealing with the customers and so forth. There are a lot of different ways to do the sewer billing based on this survey. A brief discussion ensued, and Chairman Aries explained that his information will be discussed during the Task Force Committee; this will be on the agenda for next meeting for further discussion.
2. Commercial Sewer User Charge Adjustment – Account No. 303760, FY 2011/2012 (Approval)
In a Memorandum dated February 5, 2013 (see Exhibit B1), Mr. Shaw explained that the business at 350 Chapel Road uses two private water meters to account for water used in an ice making operation and water used for a sprinkler system; the use of these meters was previously approved by the Authority. To receive a credit on their sewer user charge bill, Town businesses that have these meters are allowed to provide that information to the Town by the end of January. Last year, the information was not received
by the Town for 350 Chapel Road and was not therefore used in the calculation of the sewer user charge. However, the property owner stated that he did send in the information on time (see Exhibit B2). The property owner is requesting an adjustment for water that didn’t go into the sewer. Mr. Shaw recommended an adjustment from $3,630.67 to $1,019.56.
Motion was made to approve the adjustments of the Sewer User Charge from $3,630.67 to $1,019.56 for the sewer user bill FY 2011/2012 for property located at 350 Chapel Road (See Exhibit B.)
The motion was made by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion was seconded by Mr. Donald Antaya
The motion carried unanimously
D. COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
1. Sewer System Evaluation Project (Update)
Mr. Shaw reported that the engineer is waiting for a better weather to come for an Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) testing; this will be done to determine where sources of I/I is coming from.
2. Dry Pit Pump Station Upgrade (Progress Report)
This projects has been substantially completed; the contractor will be coming back to do some paving in the spring.
3. Task Force Committee (Discussion)
Mr. Shaw reported that the Task Force Committee meeting is been scheduled for February 25, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.
E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - None
F. BILLS, CHANGE ORDERS, DISBURSEMENTS - None
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Discussion of Email Consensus Voting
Included with the Agenda was the legal opinion provided by the Town Attorney (see Exhibit C). Chairman Richard Aries explained that based on the legal opinion received, the Authority cannot do consensus voting’s via email. If a need for a decision should occur between meeting dates, the Authority will have to convene a special meeting or provide for a meeting by conference call and permit a space for interested parties to listen to the conference call.
2. Amendment to the draft Agreement for the Phase I – Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Study (Approval)
Included with the Agenda was the Amendment to the Scope of Services provided by Wright-Pierce (see Exhibit D). Mr. Fred Shaw reported that this is in an effort to identify the sources of extraneous flow in the sewer system. This particular study has been funded through the Clean Water Fund and Grant. This amendment will not change the original budgeted fee but will only change the focus of attention pursuant to the findings resulting from Phase I.
Motion was made to approve the Amendment to the draft Agreement for the Phase I – Inflow and Infiltration Study as presented in Exhibit D.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Carol Fletterick
The motion carried unanimously
3. Proposed project to update Town GIS Sewer Mapping (Approval)
Mr. Shaw explained that there are certain sections of sewer that the Town does not have asbuilt record drawings. In an effort to complete the mapping for the sewer lines through out the Town, Wright-Pierce was asked to provide a proposal to assist the Town. Included with the Agenda was a copy of the proposal from Wright-Pierce (see Exhibit E) in the amount of $34,300.00. Mr. Shaw explained that there is adequate funding to support this work; this cost will come out of the Removal and Manhole Rehab
reserve fund; the current available balance in that reserve is $306,121. This work is possibly eligible for State grant, and an application will be submitted.
Motion was made to approve the proposed project to update the Town GIS Sewer Mapping as presented (see Exhibit E).
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Carol Fletterick
The motion carried unanimously
4. Review Proposed Budget FY 13/14 (Discussion)
Mr. Fred Shaw reported that at the last WPCA meeting when the budget was first discussed, one of the things that he was asked for was to describe the status of capital project funding and whether there are any unrestricted funds. Mr. Shaw distributed a printout of the report (see Exhibit F). He explained that there are some negative numbers in some projects; that’s because they don’t show those offsetting payments to reduce the amount. This can be misleading, he explained. Also, when a
project extends over two fiscal years, the report does not show the original appropriation; it shows a zero appropriation in the second year. He expressed that although there may be a negative balance in a project, it is necessary to understand that no current projects has gone over budget. Mr. Shaw also explained that he talked to the Town’s Director of Finance concerning providing for those reserves as identified in the Reserve Fund Policy. Mr. Shaw explained each project account as follows:
Exhibit F, Page 1-Plant Outfall Pipe Erosion: this is an ongoing project which was suspended during the original application process to begin the Treatment Plant Upgrade; the fund is reserved for that purpose.
Page 2 – Ellington Road Pump Station: this project was completed and closed down; the total fund balance was $63,000 which includes $1,000 that the Town was holding for pavement restoration. The project was closed prior to expending the $1,000 invoice.
Page 3 – Pump Stations/Dry Pit: this shows as negative balance of $1,596,410.98; that’s not accurate. The Town went out for referendum and received authorization. The Town signed the contract for about $1.6 million. As previously mentioned, this project is substantially completed; there will be a surplus from this project and the project will be close off later this year.
Page 4 – Removal and Manhole Rehab: this is a reserve in the Capital Projects Fund. The current balance of that is $306,121.00 and as previously reported this will be the source for the update of the Town GIS Sewer Mapping.
Page 5 – Sewer Line Extension: this is the project to extend the sewer line on Pleasant Valley Road that was completed some years ago. The Town did this project together with a State road project. The Town can’t pay this bill to the State until the final audit is completed.
Page 6 & 7 – Facility Upgrade Construction: This project has been finished. $700,000 was put in the budget this current fiscal year in preparation of making the 1/20th payment next year for the Treatment Plant Upgrade Project. However, the information provided by the State was inaccurate and the Town determined the best option was to begin paying the debt service this year in October 2012. Therefore, the $700,000 will be used to make these payments in the fiscal year. This project has been completed; there is a negative balance in this account. This is the debt service payments to be made to the State Clean Water Fund loan over the next 20 years at a 2% interest rate.
Page 8 – Sewer System Improvements Phase I – this project involved replacement of corroded concrete pipe on Chapel Road and to slip line the pipe on Route 5 and to rehabilitate five manholes in Town. The budget amount that was appropriated for this project was $882,000; however, the project cost is $587,701.13. This project will be completed in the spring; the project will be finished with a surplus.
Page 9 – Buckland Road Sewer Evaluation: this is an ongoing project; it is not expected to spend more than this amount ($9,558.00).
Page 10 – Design Concrete Manhole Repair: This was for the design that Wright-Pierce completed for the construction work to replace the Chapel Road sewer. It shows a negative amount of $399.52 because there was an error in the amount of the original contract amount entered in the report by the Finance Department. The actual project cost was $42,400; there was a surplus of $.48.
Page 11 – Reserve Debt Service 1/20th Payment: This is the $700,000 that was set aside in preparation for making the 1/20th payment next year for the Treatment Plant Upgrade Project. However, WPCA is expected to pay from October through the end of this fiscal year about $1.56 million ($560,000 less than budgeted). The Town government will be taking over the debt service beginning July 1, 2013 through the balance of the twenty year debt service schedule.
Page 12 – Restricted Reserve Sewer Evaluation: This is the Planning Grant; there is a negative balance because it shows the expenditures made in this fiscal year. The original appropriation was $409,600.
Page 13 – Restricted Reserve FAC Upgrade: This reserve was set aside for expenditures that wouldn’t be eligible for the State grant and loan for the upgrade of the Treatment Plant. The total reserve now has an available balance of $285,676.50 which will become unrestricted once the W.P.C.A. closes out the project.
Page 14 – Reserve for Capital Projects: The $894,640 is the amount for reserve that is now currently left over from previous projects and is not designated for any use. The sum of this plus the other reserve (Restricted Reserve FAC) comes to about $1.18 million and is currently undesignated.
5. Approve Map for Sewer Service Area (Approval)
Mr. Shaw explained that in the process of seeking a grant for the Treatment Plant upgrade, it was require that the Town’s Sewer Service Area Map be consisted with the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) Plan of Conservation and Development. In revising the map, it appeared that there were a lot of restrictions to Town’s planning for future development. After many discussions, is been confirmed through OPM that the Town’s sewer service area does agree with the OPM’s Plan and under those conditions, DEEP is now ready to approve this map. The WPCA needs to approve the revised plan, which now reflects the Town’s full plan of development, in order to obtain DEEP approval. The map is color coded; the blue identifies the current sewer areas; the brown identifies the future
service connections; and the green identifies areas that the Towns designates as open space or land for conservation or wetlands. Mr. Shaw expressed that the WPCA Regulations should probably describe the process for future applications for a variance or to revise this plan.
Ms. Carol Fletterick asked what the white areas on the map reference to. In reviewing the map, Mr. Shaw was not sure what it reflects. Therefore, this map will be further reviewed so as to properly identify those areas.
Motion was made to table this item until the next WPCA meeting for further revision.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion carried unanimously
H. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING CLAIMS - None
I. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
The motion was made by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion was seconded by Mr. Richard Siedman
The motion carried unanimously
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________
Ether A. Diaz
Recording Secretary
Approved Date: March 5, 2013
| 
