Board of Selectmen - Special Meeting

Okay, I'm going to call this special joint meeting of the board of selectment and uh the WPCA together and we really appreciate all of you coming in early tonight. Um we just wanted to do a call to order. So what I am going to do is ask all of you to go around the room and introduce yourselves. We have new members here and older members as well. So I'm Martha Shoemaker for select woman. Uh Jim Lampos, Sleman, John Misham, Sleman, Randy Nixon, WPCA member, McCarthy, WPCA, Laura P alternate, WPCAR, WPCA,

Demetrichinski, member. Daily, WPCA member. Susan Way, WPCA member. Elizabeth, you want to introduce your guest? Guest. Elizabeth Reagan is here as a guest. By Widowitz, um, alternate WPCA. John Grandy, WPCA member. Brian Cornell, WPCA member. And we have George Fton here. Yeah. Member of the public. Okay. Thank you. Do you want to George, do you want to take that chair down there? [clears throat]

Okay. Thank you all for coming. Um so basically the boardman thought it was important as we kick off with new members to um sort of go forward to review some of the things. So I put together a packet with all of you for all of you which had the ordinances for the WPCA and also the sewage disposal systems. And then I also added because I found today in a disc a zip drive that Steve had dropped off for me that in 2020 you started to look at uh adding more to the ordinance for sewers but it was never brought forward and I guess there was some mention of it at a last one of his last meetings that really should be redone. So there's notes in here. I put it in. There's comments on here from Carlos. This has not gone through legal. So, I don't know, but I've made a packet for everybody. So, you can just take one. I'll pass them each way. So, those are what you have. You have your ordinances and [clears throat] what you are charged to do.

As far as the uh Vicki just went through and she said that the new ordinance was never completed. um she thinks that town legal reviewed it but finalized it and it was last referenced in a WPCA minutes of 61025 and uh to review the previous work done on it. So it is something that we probably should look to do in the following year um so that we can pass it through at a town meeting third town voice left in an in town meeting. We had come up with a new version of the sue ordinance that my car had reviewed. Well this said it was reviewed.

Yeah

whether it's this one or what. This was on the zip drive and I took the one with the late the most recent date. So, um anyway, went to legal. It actually went to legal according to Vicki in through the notes on May 10th of 2022 and then was asked to review the previous work on this ordinance on 610 of 25. So, I think you should know what you're charged with and what you're working with. And the other thing that I need to remind you of, and I need you to understand this, you are the old line WPCA. You are not the sound view WPCA. You are that serve the town. and you have aspects of the town, everything from septic pumpouts to problems dealing with carity and everything else that comes under your domain. The other thing that you'll have to look at is that our ordinance for pumpouts says every seven years. The state has asked that it goes to every five. So that is something that also needs to be updated and changed. And if we can get these all in at the same time, it's one town meeting and we'll get these all taken care of. Um, we have to talk about our paths forward for the sound view sewer project. I have not heard from you.

Dennis. Okay. Hi, Dennis. Dennis Maluso has just joined the meeting. Thank you.

Yep. So, paths forward. John and Jim and I may all have um suggestions. Um but I will tell you that I expect to hear from deep this month. That's my last notification from them was at the end of January. They said we will be in touch with you in February. And so I'm waiting to hear back from them. Um, I have um met with a couple of you who just popped into my office because you were in the office getting sworn in and we discussed John stopped in today. Andrea stopped in today. Sally I met at the door the other night. Um, and everybody has things that they [clears throat] would like to see happen. keep it not going away. We still have a $9.5 million referendum that was passed long ago that is still valid. So, we could spend up to that 9.5 without going back to referendum. Our bids, I did not have a chance to check in with woodworking current today, but some of you who have been sitting on this WPCA for a while will probably realize that those bids are probably now null and void. Um, I know that I spoke to Doug Whan last week and he indicated that Doug they would love the other private beach associations would welcome us aboard um when we're ready. Um, and the other thing that we need to do, and I think one of the things that we did do, and I thought

very hardly, and I received word today from Old Shores, that they realized that some of their numbers were off, and they think that they're going to be paying about $6,000 more per household. um if their figure the new figures work out. So they have a meeting tonight on their WPCA I believe at 7:30 as well. So they realized that they were off. I think that our numbers were pretty good when we went through and had uh HRT advisors go through the uh cost with Steve. They spent an hour with Steve doing that. They spent another half hour to 45 minutes with Jim going through some other things. And then Deep, they also talked to Mike Patello, our bonding attorney. They talked to Deep. They talked to Clean Water Funding. And at three or four weeks before our referendum, Deep sent us new numbers. We updated that into the uh spreadsheet and repopulated the numbers. And that's what we went out to referendum for per household. The other thing that I want to cover with you and I think that one of our attorneys needs to come in. There's a lot of this talk about the Betterman assessment in ADUs. And I had a long conversation with Carl Fortuna over in Sabbrook about betterment assessments and that was happening when he first came into office about 12 12 and a half years ago. Um he'd never heard the term edu. So he said, "You're teaching me something. I'm going to teach you something. I know that we have one of our town attorneys who is an expert at it. Uh he gave me a crash course over the phone in seven minutes uh one day on betterment assessments and I said I'm a visual learner. This is a lot to take in. but he's willing to come to a meeting. Uh and I think you should be educated on it because

uh I think there's misconceptions on both sides of the field that so I know this there can be no civil lawsuit on betterment assessment. It has to be individual homeowners going at the town one at a time. Um, and I know that it was uh something that um they only they had about four people apply for lawsuits. One went through, the person lost, the others all dropped out as soon as they had it because they knew the expense of going in. That was in Sabbrook. My other thoughts here too, I'm just going to say because I can leave at seven. Um, is that there needs to be a lot of patience on this. There are a lot of people with varying viewpoints, but I'm going to tell you that there these meetings have to be run with decorum. You are all grown-ups. I have brought the Robert Vicky Bows bought one of these books for every single meeting room. And if you don't know what the Robert's rules of orders are, check it because this stays in this room. But one of the things there's not talking over people, you wait your turn. You're patient. You listen to questions. Somebody answers them. Randy and Rob, Dimmitri have all been on this. the Andrea have all been on this uh WPCA for many years. They have knowledge, background knowledge, and you may not always agree, but let them instruct you on what has happened in the past. I'm going to stop there. You can go on. What are Would you like to say anything? um

yeah I mean we just I think the two main things that we have to hash out are how will we respond to deep and what is the m mission and directive of the WPCA um now some people say well you know you lost uh Miami old colony old lime shores are going ahead with this it's going to go up Portland Avenue regardless um kind hold your hand and join join the circus. Um, and I I get that perspective. Um, unfortunately, that would totally ignore the referendum, which was 72% no. Um, and that some people have suggested was as a result of deception on my part of the town's part, misleading people into voting no. And I completely reject that notion. I think our numbers are absolutely accurate. If anyone has questions about them, I can defend each and every calculation we have. Uh, and in fact, there's a quote in the in the paper, well, one of the one of the uh electronic papers, I guess, um, from Doug Whan saying that our shared infrastructure is 3.3 million. That's what we owe. Uh, that's what we would owe even if we don't do this. And in our numbers that we presented um the referendum, we had 1.529 million. So I think we were very conservative. So Doug seems to think that we owe more and even we thought we did. Um but anyway, I think we need to speak with one voice. Um you know, there's a lot of back and forth. I tried to reconcile the numbers that seem to be pretty obvious to us because they were presented by Fuss and O'Neal and being used by the private beaches and they were presented by deep um and we had a third party consultant

confirm them uh and that there was unnecessary acrimony by putting out two sets of numbers um and I don't think we can move forward on that basis uh in the future. Uh so anyway, if it's the decision of the WPCA or the town to try and join this uh this project, I think we we do have to reckon with 72% of the people said no and they said no for a lot of different reasons. Not all of it was cost. Uh so I am prepared to uh present an alternative proposal to make to deep to make sound view a pilot program uh for alternative systems and that could be applicable to pox nest could be applicable to white sands uh Rogers Lake there are a lot of R10s by water courses in old lines and it could be a pilot program for for the entire state um it's will deep listen to it I don't know but that that would be something that I would want to do at this meeting with de my perspective on it. Um and finally uh finally nothing that was everything.

You ask questions? Yeah. Let let John do his and then can ask questions.

Uh I I'm certainly in agreement with Jim. We need to pay attention to the to the referendum and it's direct democracy. There there was allowed uh no vote for various reasons. Um working up old data part of part of the problem I have with this I think we need to invest some money in testing so we actually know what the conditions are. There's been a lot of conjecture about what the conditions are. There's people that feel that earlier testing was was a little slanted and and the choices of where the testing occurred. Um, so I think before we make any decisions, I would like a real good ground game on where we actually stand today environmentally with hard facts and data and um and and then look at if we should repass the WPCA to the sewer avoidance or uh if there's some kind of mix because clearly we need to decide what to do with the earlier referend referendum that was approved that that's that hasn't gone away. That was that was approved. So, you know, that money is used for what we owe towards shared expenses, then maybe that's that's the path I take. But that's that's where I'm that's where I'm looking right now.

I think too that one of the things and Cheryl Hos who works for Ledge Light, first of all, she's more than willing to come to a meeting um with you. She's worked um outside as a consultant to uh Sabbrook on some of their issues, but she serves she is the person that's here um weekly to approve new septic systems, review designs, etc. She knows this town. She knows Hartford a lawn. She knows them in and out. She knows who has sewers. She septic. She knows who has ces pools. Um and she knows where there's been problems. but she's willing to come if you would like to invite her to every meeting that you think some is going to have something on the docket that she should weigh in on and help you and guide you, but we pay for their services. You can use them. Um, what else? All right. So I think if we'll open it up to questions from all of you. Andrea, did you want to start?

Sure. Uh Jim, could you um share with this commission at some point your ideas about this alternative pilot and also when the meeting is with deep? I mean that has to get vetted through the school commission. Yes, it does. I don't know when the meeting is. We have they haven't reached out. But I'd be happy to uh test you out to VPCA and have you I mean whatever information you have share it with membership and then put that on the agenda. Sure.

Anyone else? So my understanding briefly as to why old shores number went up 6,000 will also affect us and that when we did our calculations we figured 25% clean water funds plus 15 million but DE has since I've heard said no we're taking the the shared project is about 25 million at this point we're going to take our 15 million and apply it to the shared project First your balance is 10 million and then you will get 15 uh 25% clean water funds based on that 10 million versus the 25 million. So the deficit there is about 4,500,000 and for us for our share it's over um it's 1.1 something million for some view which works out to 4,000 something per property plus interest. So, as Olan Shores is saying 6,000 per property, I would suggest that we are in that same ballpark. Add that on top of the numbers that we've already seen that were cost prohibitive.

And that's still an issue. That's still an issue that we've been talking about for a long time as far as affordability, right? Yeah. [clears throat] Anyone else?

I think we Hey, this this is this is John. Um, can you confir Hi, how are you? Are are we definitely you know if we if if we don't go forward whatever are we on the hook for the shared the town um the consent agreement the u not consent agreement the cost sharing agreement that was signed in 2020 is uh currently under review or at the lawyers so I don't have an answer for you today. Okay. So that's something to keep keep in mind that no matter what we do, we may be on the town may be on the hook for a certain amount of money. Thanks,

Andrew. And yeah, John, this question is to you. Um so your testing um plan that would include ground soil condition soil I mean it's not justation and is that something you want to see happen immediately like have us form that plan and roll that out because it's not in our favor. Yeah, we we used to do a certain amount of testing and I think we need to go back back to that and if we need to expand what type of testing we're doing, I think need to hear from, you know, from an expert on that

and, you know, we definitely I think we we could with their someone's help, we could map out where the pest uh to come up with some new relevant data rather than relying on what happened 20 years ago. go and keeps you know contention that we're polluting by density and I think we need to have a way to counter that if it comes to that and if we need to I don't know how much testing would be we need to have go in excess of 20,000 if that's what it is then um I don't we haven't you know finalized the next budget coming up so yeah we'll have to get some numbers because it's not in budget

right absolutely it doesn't have if it doesn't go budget though it can go through special appropriation at town meeting if it's over 20 otherwise if it's under 20 can be approved by the board of finance um just on sorry go ahead you birth and Rob in regard to testing we do have an estimate um based on the retesting that was done in Hogs Nest but ignored in 2019

we should bring that testing back to the table that cost uh Hawk Nest $4,000 to analyze it. But we paid $48,000 to open the wells, 10 wells over 10 months, the wells for hawks nest over 10 months and and collect data. It's put on the shelf for some reason. Should bring that back to life and I think we should follow that um going forward for if we're going to do testing in some view. I think that's a good way benchmark to start with.

Brock, go ahead and fill in. Well, I guess just to add on to Mariam, yes, we did collect all that data for Hawk Nest and it'd be a great test case for the issue with testing is that is a dilemma that's twofold. One is a lot of times it's inconclusive and that's the path deep is going to say that yeah, it was fine in January, but it's not in July. And so that makes it all bad. And then the second part is what you alluded to is the density problem. They look at dust of groundwater and density of development and they just ignore whatever you collect for data even if it's all clean because they say you can't put a septic system on those properties. And so you can test and I'm not saying don't test but you still may get deep to show up because they did it before at a meeting and say that data doesn't mean anything. You have too dense of development and you have to put sewers in. They did they came to a meeting and said that. So,

Cheryl Cos did say to me she doesn't understand why we didn't continue testing. She said, "Most places continually test throughout the years." And she said, "I don't know why you didn't keep up the testing whether quarterly or whenever it was being done." So, the Hawk Nest data, yes, we have the Hawkness data. It would be great to for whatever reason it didn't go to deep, provide that to deep and get their opinion on it. If they are in agreement that yeah, maybe things were okay, then sure, testing may help, but they like to say it's inconclusive or it's above background and it tells you there's a problem and above background is a low low standard. Yeah. I mean, it seems to me Deep has been changing the rules in the game.

So, when we have we have testing and then they say, "Oh, well, we don't want testing. It's you're just polluting by density." You know, they keep moving the goalpost. So, you know, to me, this is a game of chess. This has been played out for years and years. So if this someday ends up in court rather than just trying to deal with deep again I think we we need we need that they like to ignore the data. They do. They do. Right. So, and it may not help you in the end, but we've been down this path is why I say this and we've been there before

and we don't want to start totally from the scratch. We have information. I did speak two things. I did speak to Carlos one day and I said, "So, when was the last time you were down on Hartford Avenue?" And he goes, "What?" I said, "When was the last time you were there?" And he said, "Well, it's been a while." I said, "You know, there's changes that have been made down there." Really?

And I said, "Yeah." I said, "There are there are buildings that are gone." I said, "Completely gone." Um, I said, "Some have been renovated. There have been some new septic systems put in." I said, "I just think that you should be aware that it's a different environment than when what whenever it was the last time that you saw it." Um, and he goes, "Well, the next time I'm down, I'll take a ride." I said, "Okay." Um, so that was one thing. And then he mentioned to me the density situation. We talked a little bit about miscellaneous area B, which by the way, Sally lives there. And I don't think it should be called that. I don't know why it had to be called that. It should have been it should have been called Sound View North or something. Sound View South and North,

but miscellaneous area B sounds terrible. Um anyway, he said that he believed that the area in miscellaneous area B is polluting the wells at Connecticut Water that are off roughly. Um I said, "Doesn't gravity flow downward?" Well, I can prove the wells aren't because I have a well and I'm right next to those wells. I'm as close. I'm the closest to that well. Do you have any house in town is But do you have your water tested?

I had it tested. I showed the results online to prove to people my water is clean. There were zero zero bacteria. Zero every time I tested. So that was one of his. That's all I know. Um I'm sorry, but I have to check check out. I know that we and I just want to again thank Andrea and Mary for helping put together your agenda. I hope that you'll have some co-chairs that will take this responsibility on moving forward and I am know that the three of us have committed to working with you going forward in whatever path we end up on.

Have you thought about combining or somehow having the board to select and participate more in the WPCA? You can call a special meeting. You can invite us to anything but it just has to be a joint meeting. so that we can record that we're all here. So, you can always do that and request a special meeting and we'll make every effort to be here. I will tell you though, Tuesday nights here are the busiest nights of meeting of the entire month. This this uh second Tuesday of the month, we have like five different groups that meet here on Tuesday night, but we're happy to do it. And if another night works for you, we could always work it out then, too. But

it would be a good idea because anything we do has to go through you also we would have to approve it and we would be negotiating deep not WPCA. So to have us all on the same page or at least all in the same room to have that discussion.

I agree. It seems like over this past year or two there's been a lot of intentionally separation and I don't think that's how we are going to work. I mean it's it's counterproductive. So we should be working as one group, getting direction from you, executing what you tell us, but getting direction from you, not just, oh, this is what we think we want to do. This is what we think you want us to do for the town. Yeah. There's no point in you coming up to the plan if we're not going to carry it over, right? And deep has alluded to the fact that they will be investigating White Sands and Fox Nest. So,

I'm gonna go. Can I do that? Is there a better night to meet besides the second Tuesday? Well, we can discuss that. But I just want you to know that at the end of this meeting, Jim, John, whoever will hit that red button on that to end this recording and then your recording will pop up and you'll just have to hit your point. Thank you. Thank you. Pass your budget. Thanks. Jim, is there another day?

Um, my schedule is kind of It's pretty tight. So, Mondays are my nights off. So, any Monday either before or after the slate meeting. I think we're usually done by 7:30. So, there's a Monday at 7:30, I'd be happy to roll into there. Otherwise, they're all bad. I'm always I just came from work. So, you know, I'll try to make it work whatever night you get. I think it's really important to have your input in the meetings. So, I I'd be more than willing to change it to Mondays. Maybe we should vote on what is true.

And and finally, I think Rob, your point, and I heard you say that myself about density and two goal posts that we were looking at before were affordability and then uh testing and threw them both out. Basically, there was no such thing as something not affordable if you're polluting and by virtue of density whether the testimony or not you're have the potential to pollute so that's what we stand but no one in the state really regulates septic systems supposed to be the department of public health they don't go out inspecting septic systems deep doesn't cover that um so if we propose something to deep say you know you could have better results in terms of nitrogen discharge Then the London surge treatment plan based that on the Massachusetts model which appears to be very successful. They have a lot of data. They know what works and what doesn't work. Um and we offer it to them as a uh as a solution that they could avail themselves of in areas that they can't get sewers to. Um and it it may be a powerful solution for them. Not sure if they're willing to listen or if they're just baked into sewers regardless, but I think we owe it to the 72% that said no to to go too deep and and present a a viable plan to them that's based on real data that's being used in the real world today. That could be a model for only all of the on state. Is that less expensive the one that you're looking at?

Yeah. So, not cheap. I mean, nothing is cheap. Everything's expensive, but we knew that. So, a lot of it isn't based on expense. The communal system at Cherry Stones wasn't cheap either, but everyone seemed to be in favor of it. So, there's a lot of opposition to actually connecting to that infrastructure going to New London. That's a big part of this proposition as well. I I think it's the ongoing cost, too. We all know I know people that in other towns their sewer bills have more than doubled just recently.

You know, I mean, we were already looking at pretty high number and have it for the rest of our lives. You know, right now, you you don't have to get your septic pumped every year. It's not that expensive. Maybe they should consider maybe mandatory inspections. We don't have to get them inspected. We just have to get them pumped, right? They know nothing of anybody's condition of any system or They don't even know who has new ones, right? We have no inspection. WPA doesn't know what's in old line. They don't know what's

I always thought that was part of like I thought they had records. I was surprised when I asked and we know here and they're like we don't know anything. I think seven years is a long time for pump out. I mean, five years is much more reasonable and a lot a lot can go wrong in five years, especially in New England with with frost heaving and and uh changes in conditions and um you know, my wife's been a real estate agent for 25 years and, you know, I get to hear all the the horror stories of uh you know, septic systems destroyed by baby wipes and

or just you know, anytime there's a transaction, you do you do an inspection for the septic and there's just there can be a lot of things simple things wrong that can be you know corrected when you pump it out and do an actual inspection you know everything from a cracked tank to uh the debox being not working properly and a lot of times it's not a big it's not a big fix to help uh it work correctly but it makes a big impact if working correctly

and But but John John and and [clears throat] and isn't isn't all this moot until you meet actually with Deep? I mean, we can talk all we want, but if Deep says no, it's no. And at that point, it's time to hire consultants and lawyers to fight Deep. Correct. Oh, John. Well, John, I don't I don't I mean, I don't think I don't think, you know, deep is is being all that reasonable when every time that we've, you know,

countered to what they're saying, you know, first, you know, there was an affordability pro aspect and then, you know, oh, affordability doesn't count anymore. Um, you know, they keep changing the game. So, no matter what we do, it seems to me they're going to be probably contrary to it. But I think so. So what's our game plan? We need to still show right that we're moving in the direction to try to make corrections.

Yeah. But we should have an alter another another plan is you know and that's great. But if they keep being obstinent about it, you know, what is our alternative? Again, I think we should be looking at or somebody should be looking at who are the lobbyists and the lawyer environmental lawyers are out there that that that fight this in other states. I mean, we may end up with that kind of a situation if we keep thinking they're going to be opposite it and keep throwing up roadblocks. One of the things that I think Martha had mentioned previously as I was looking up some things was also the WPCA focusing not just on sewers but the other bodies of water in town which really have been neglected because of the sewer project including the lieutenant river maybe Rogers Lake and I think there's another uh river which if you look at the state of Connecticut website those rivers including the tenant show pollution. They're they're flagged. We've done nothing about that. So, if we're going to be a townwide WPCA versus a sound view WPCA, I think our focus has to be expanded to include those other areas in town. That's my personal opinion.

Yeah, we don't have well testing anywhere now. We don't test the water courses. You know, we have Fledge Light that tests the recreational areas on a weekly basis. test sound beach and swimming areas, but they they don't test the water courses and that is something that the WPCA is part of their mandate. We know we have water issues on Lime Street issues. Another thing is is the golf courses. Are they nitrate free? What what kind of what kind of fertilizers are they using?

I see chem signs all over town. Those should be banned. That pollutes the groundwater. We've got almost all wells in the whole line. You know, these are things the WPCA should be focusing on also. And it's everywhere in town, not you know, it's scary when you walk your dog. You got to watch out. Don't don't go on that grass. Don't go on that grass. That's poison. That's poison. That's going in our water. So

on a on a very local household level, I would I would just tell everybody if you don't know this, if you have a septic system that was rebuilt or built post 2000, the discharge side of your septic tank has a filter. And

many of the contractors that we deal with dig up the influence side, pull that cover off, pump the tank out, cover up, and they go away. And the problem is the filter. And it and it doesn't take many wipes and various other items to plug them up. So that's that's another reason why the fiveyear rule is prudent as opposed to seven or longer. We recommended five years a few years ago to Pagos. We said let's change the ordinance. He said people won't buy that now. They won't pass it. That's the summit. But I think they will now because it is now a state mandate. So to him you have no choice. I think those are some good common sense steps that start with Jim Dennis.

Hi, Dennis.

Hey. Hi. Um, I'm on board with immediate testing, opening up the wells, the test wells. Naturally, they've been dormant for since 2012 and 2013. So, it's going to take time to get that scum layer out of there and and test um perfectly. Uh my suggestion is that we use not Nathan Jacobson, not anybody that uh that um uh tested Wells pursuant to WPCA today backwards. somebody new and let let us come up with a a valid reason for what they're asking and and everybody knows Deep is an impetuous little kid. Okay? They can't even keep their water waste clean because they pollute more than we could ever pollute. So, this is our chance to get back on the road to testing. There's nowhere in this world that people design stuff and manufacture stuff and and um contract stuff without testing. Testing a alpha, then it goes to a beta and then it goes to a control set. um that proves what we've been talking about and this is where we should start and hopefully we're not going to be paying the absorb the absorbbitant fees to to lawyers today going forward. Uh so

we have monies available to to do testing and do proper testing and we can start in the spring because it's going to take that long before we can get all the wells all the test wells uh um excuse me um opened. That's my that's my take. And then I also have I have thought processes and uh uh Mr. Pototts came to our meeting and um he he gave us some valuable information that the town of Olime owns our streets. This is a WPCA project which is the town of Olime. There is no reason why we can't utilize our streets, especially on Portland Avenue, that's going to be dug up for the sewer system. I have a plan on paper. It looks great. I want to I want to present it to everybody and uh let you know about what it's like in O line. We have two alleys that are dirt and three streets that are amicite. So, um, with that, I hope I hope we can start on a fresh, uh, fresh point. Um, and not hash over what Deep did, what Deep said. Um, they'll have a hard time defending their theirelves with with the amount of pollution that they they produce. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Dennis. [clears throat] There anyone else online who'd like to uh comment our work here done today? Does anyone else have

I I had just I just have a question. I came in perhaps a little late. I didn't get quite an understanding of what deep uh is is asking or how do we meet their condition. So if you do well testing is that is there and let's say well testing the the tests show that pollution is below levels water pollution is below levels. Is that something that that deep is going to accept? I'm sorry, this is Mike Ridgio.

Mike, the thinking right now, and uh Rob McCarthy um made a comment and and I agreed with him. The thinking right now is that deep doesn't care what the testing looks like. They're defining pollution by density. Um, and the alternative is that we could present uh a plan that would uh draw upon the experience in Massachusetts or they've had some rigorous programs there with some uh rigorous testing and a lot of data um to present a plan to deep that uh might be attractive to them for areas that can't be sewered. Um but right now where deep stands uh the thinking is that nothing we could do or say will shake them from the idea that we're going to uh connect to New London. Um but one thing that stands above everything is the referendum that we had and we can't ignore it and neither can D. So the these are some of the issues that we're working through and will be working through in the next month. Okay. Um, [clears throat] so it it seems that Deep is going to maintain their position that the conditions in Sound View, be it the soil, be it that it's in the flood plane and so forth, is going to mandate that sewage be done. So, I've often wondered about the affordability issue and I've als I've wondered whether the idea of doing it per .edu PU was the best way to fund the expense

and the alternative funding perhaps through uh the use of assessment value just as we do property tax. The same thing so that a smaller property would pay a smaller amount for the sewer system. A house, a larger property with more bedrooms would pay a greater share of the sewer system. As properties on Hartford Avenue got revitalized and structures got placed on those properties, they would make a larger contribution based on their assessed value to the sewer project. So it I was wondering if if looking into that might put it in a different light. Uh and that [clears throat] you know and that it does look like the only way to satisfy deep and to avoid penalties from them may well be to find a more attractive way of financing. Is there is there any thought along that line? Mike, I think we're we're stuck with a fixed number in terms of what construction and engineering costs and we can shift that burden around and there may be a way better way of doing it. Um, but you you know distributing that cost based on property value some people are going to get hit in a way that uh will make the project completely unworkable. Um, which isn't to say that the way it's being done now is the right way to do it, but I think our problem is he is is the top line.

Right. That's I'm just thinking uh how O Sabbrook funded their sewer system. Mhm. and that they recognized the town of Obrook paid 50% of the cost of installing the sewer systems and the other 50% was paid by the state and the town. Yeah, that's typ that's typical.

Okay. So there might be there might be something uh in the course per you know if we generated a different formula for how it's paid for it might include some contribution from the town and that the entire town does benefit from having cleaner water um and less pollution. The entire town benefits from that. So, uh, anyhow, perhaps perhaps that might find a way to I'm trying to find perhaps a way that sewer systems would not be such a such a burden.

That can't come from me because I would I would be a potential beneficiary of that arrangement. So, I'm certainly not going to go and say, "Yeah, I'll make a comment as a guest." There are people say,

George Frampton. There are people experts in this community who uh might be able to suggest uh other kinds of testing in addition to testing wells that might seem more persuasive to Deep including one who's offic's nitrogen advisory committee and therefore has some clout deep and and [clears throat] one of those ways is simply to try to test whether nitrogen is actually going into the sample authority here is not based on data. It's based on an assumption. If the town puts forward an alternative plan that has some actual data about what the nitrogen loading is or is not occurring and Deep has to counter that with an assumption based on a contrary assumption. you know, that may have some more power in convincing Deep to open up um and and and consider some alternatives, particularly since Deep doesn't uh as Jim said, doesn't um regulate uh septic systems up to a very large amount. And [clears throat] and yes, Deep is very very pro I mean they're very very pro sewage because they want the money far behind New York and Massachusetts and considering what's happened in technology in the last 10 years for septic systems. So Connecticut's really a little 10 years in the past on this and trying to open up a new discussion about it with the kind of testing that may be a little bit new, you know, could be very effective. The time to build that case is not to wait a year and see what deep says and then litigate. The time to try to build that case is

through testing that John Mess suggested and others have suggested. Do it now. try to do it as cost effectively as possible and try to do it in a way that's convincing to the extent that just testing wells again is not going to convince deep than people who know more about the testing and the testing might be useful in in trying to advance a testing program that would be more persuasive to them and might sort of go to the heart of their weakness which is they don't have an actual case they have an assumption They have to look at the number of units and things like that to make that assumption. But if there's data that contradicts the assumption, that puts them in a very difficult position.

Part of the problem was initially to the inventory we have 270 edus because initially the study done by I think Woodward and Curin or Professor O'Neal said we have 270 units here. We do not. We have two around 220 properties properties not 270. So again that leads to the assumption of density being an issue. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. But I agree with what you're saying. If there's a better way of testing that's affordable, we should pursue that 100%. In addition to opening a real dialogue with DEEP, I don't know that the town has ever had over the last few years any dialogue with the two or three big environmental groups that are DEEP's constituency

who are and if you talk to them, Save the Sound and

Save the Sound of Nature Conservancy Connecticut are the two principal ones plus uh couple of others and and they are somewhat sympathetic. They have pioneered in Massachusetts and New York pushing the new generation of technology for septic systems. [clears throat] So they may be sympathetic. Deep responds to those people and if they're supportive of the town trying to explore this [clears throat] in a more effective way, a faster, cheaper way, then Deep's going to have to listen to those people, too. So I think it's important that the town has, you know, communications lines with those people.

Save us out in what was the other organization? Nature Conservancy, uh, Connecticut has, for some reason been a big the other big organization, region organization that's been trying to cut down on nitrogen to the sand. And and they're a group of smaller groups, too. Great information. Can I just say something about that? I know the Nature Conservancy um has groups that go out to Griswell Point and the shorelines and they pick up litter. They're very active in this town.

I met them. We we did talk Mary and Dennis, you know, to the uh the we brought in the person from over in Old Sabbrook. Who is this? This is John. John, thanks.

And we we did we did bring in somebody that deals with alternate and and um more modern systems and one of the leading experts is over is over in um Old Sabbrook. So there there is that technology there. But his comment to us was you need to fight deep with data as I recall Mary and Dennis and um he said you know you guys lost the battle when you gave up the data x number of years ago and he said you're you're you're

if you're going to you know again I I think the thing is you've got to fight them on data and if they don't accept the data then I think we're lost. But his his point was you have to fight him on the data side because there are systems out there and we we looked at them and he feels that the tail sort of blew him off several years ago. Dave Pots. Yeah. I think I think I think the old I have to say I was there and I do agree with that at the WPCA at that time the majority didn't listen to what they process. We have a new board now.

Steve is Steve on the call and did he raise his hand? I see someone raise their hand. Anyone else online or uh want to speak? I think Steve had his hand raised. So Steve, if you want to unmute. Just saw Steve Tsunami. Yep. Raise his hand.

To the other meeting. Hello. Yes, Steve. Go ahead. Can you hear me? Oh, yes. Yes. Hi. Hello.

I have unmuted myself. So, you know, if you're going to look into alternate systems, Deep has two qualifying things. Most longlasting, cheapest for a better a better word system. So, if if you're going to Sorry about the connection, I was on the phone earlier, but I couldn't call in. Uh if you're going to look for alternate methods, you should get a price on how much those alternate methods are going to cost. If it's more than the sewer system, they're not going to pay for it. And if you if you go down that road, if you go down the road of proposing different systems, you're almost admitting that you're polluting. And so once they once they decline those systems, you will be forced to put in sewers and it'll be much cheaper. You could almost and this is a pretty good uh So the reason Mary was correct, the reason why the number went up is because they were the deep wasn't taking 25% first and then putting 15% into the shared infrastructure. uh 15 million. They were taking 15 million out and then taking 25% of that. So we would owe about 3.3 million if it was 25 million. Um so we're going to be stuck with that bill. There's nothing in the CSA that has a backup clause. The bill the the CSA was signed current CSA was signed by the town and Rich Prenagas and the beach associations. the town is responsible for that money.

Um, so that's 3.3 million. We have design costs of $615 million. So we're at $4 million that now the town folk have to pay for not users because there are no users. So once those are paid then the system that's going to be installed once it will be I believe it will be uh will just be the internal infrastructure which some view residents I would assume would pay for but I don't I don't know how much money you're going to spend on attorneys. I don't know how much money you're going to spend testing. uh it's expensive and the only other thing I can say is if you're going to spend money on testing what I'd like to see is something that says once the test is done if deep says it's negative and you have to install sewers that you don't go through this rigor roll yet again for another decade and then claim that the testing is too old to use. If the test come back negative, put the sewers in. Thank you.

We have to switch over. Thank you, Steve. We uh we have to conclude this meeting. Uh WPCA meeting is going to start in a minute. I have a motion to adjourn. Make a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor?