Water Pollution Control Authority - Regular Meeting

Hey, uh, this is Mary. I can't hear anything, but Hold on, please. Yeah, I Hold on, please. Um, I just realized I was muted. Um, I called the meeting at 7:33. Huh? Um, I'm calling the meeting at 7:33. Uh, the first order of business is approval of the minutes of March 2025. Does anyone have any comments or additions? And please unmute yourself if you do. I have a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Second. Any discussion, comments? Anyone? Okay. Uh uh minutes are approved as uh as existing as written. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh all in favor say I. Thank you. All opposed. All right. Uh they're approved as as written um unanimously. Next thing on the agenda is a budget update and expenses. I'll give that to Andrea. Yep. So the um April report is um our budget our our only current expenditures or process this month was the CL fees at $111. However, we do have encumbered $4,060 for the remaining CSA agreement

that has currently in being processed. And then we've received a late printing invoice. Um, hence why we were circulating that to process our invoices. Um, so we have a little fee with that for 1641.89. 89. So we have those monies encumbered. Our remaining balance without the incumbances is $54,26155 and um with the incumbrances it's $48,55966. So we're about halfway through our budget. And we have a bunch of other things to process project which will be available for next um the next month's report. Thank you Andre. Sure. Uh, and then any questions? Andrea, Andrea, this is Mary. I just have one question. And at the during the March meeting, you had presented um your screen and you were going to share that with everyone, send that out, but I haven't received it. uh the breakdown of it. Yep. I sent it up during the meeting and I sent it to you again today in response to your email. So, if you didn't get it, let me

know. Um but it's not on the agenda to discuss tonight, so I wasn't going to pursue that. Okay. Thank you. I'll check my email. I'll check my email after I get back to you. I sent it to you again. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um for the chairman's report the CSA update uh a meeting with uh we have the revisions by uh our town attorney that were requested by board of selectmen board of finance. Uh they were forwarded to the uh beach associations for review and approval. Um, we have a meeting tomorrow at 3:00 to discuss their comments and to also add additional verbiage uh that protects actually the beach associations especially old colony um on who is responsible for the for the uh shared sewer note and uh how it's going to be repaid. Um so that is in its works. I would imagine we would have comments back to the attorneys um by Friday and uh hopefully have a final CSA for signing shortly thereafter. Um sewer project status. So, I wasn't planning on sharing this, but maybe I can bring it up for members that aren't here. I figured everyone would be here tonight. Um, this is a uh this is the best accounting that I can give

uh for the combined sewer uh shared infrastructure and internal uh uh internal uh infrastructure for whole line by line and a lot of people have had sewer project status right now is basically uh we have to go back out to referendum WPCA has to go out for referendum to request to spend more uh not necessarily borrow more but spend more um we have to have the CSA signed also. And then there's some other minor things. Um Arthur gave me a list right before the meeting. I haven't had a chance to review it, but I don't think those are the two major things. Uh so I want to I want to go over this in detail um because I want everyone to be clear on on the costs associated with this project. Um, the design stage for Woodwin Kern was $615,000. Uh, the construction was 8 the construction bid was $8,551,950 and that was our low bidder. Uh, contingency for change orders is $427,600. I would be shocked if we spent anything near that. there's just not that much that could be uh a change order on our internal infrastructure. Uh and engineering services that is to inspect and uh administer the contract is $855,000. So a total cost for the internal infrastructure is $10,449,550.

uh the state is going to the CWF grant is 25% and the state is going to give a a forgivable loan of 25%. So our actual loan value would be 50% of the $10,449 $550 um which would be $5,224,775,000. Um the shared infrastructure, the force main and byside bid came in at 9,893, uh723. The shared trunk came in at 5 thou uh 5,6880,740 and that is uh the second bidder on that project. The low bid on that project was $3.8 million and they have declined to perform the work. Uh so they lose their bid bond but we have to the second bidder has agreed to do uh the project. Uh the pump station came in at $4,96,770 for a total of $19,671 and uh $671,233. Uh again, uh CWF grants 25%, a CWF forgivable loan is 25% bringing the total construction costs of that project to 9,835,615.50. Um we have a a 5% contingency for change orders on the 19 million. I see I I made a mistake here. the the number should have carried through. Um 25 and 25. Well, no, I don't get you don't get uh Yes. Uh I would have gotten Yes. 25 and No, no. Uh yes,

I would have done 25 and 25 for that. So, that should be 490,000 or something. Um uh I'll change it here. Please just not let me Maybe it's because it's being shown. Can't edit it. It's all grayed out. Um so, uh that would bring that number, uh it's 5% contingency on that. So, that would bring that number to 983,561.65. Uh half of that would be uh about 492,000. Um and uh design and contract administration is 1,616,773. Half of that is $88,386.50. So the total shared infrastructure costs which would be uh the 19 million uh 671,233 thou uh plus the 983 plus the 16 uh6773 would be 22,271,576765. Uh half of that is

11,135,78383. 29.7% of that which is our share of of the shared infrastructure is 3,37,3 uh $327.80. Um so the referendum in loan repayment so total internal infrastructure is 10,449,550. The total cost of shared infrastructure is $3,37,327.80 for a total referendum request of 13,756,877.80. I would suggest that we may round that up to $14 million. Um the total loan uh anticipated loan is 8,532,12.80. Um a yearly payment at 2% per year to deep would be $521,79541 divided by edus. I'm going off the one that was uh submitted where we had 269. The yearly cost per edu would be $1939.76. Um I I got some of this information this morning, actually this afternoon, early this afternoon. Um, I wasn't planning on uh having uh a discussion on this, but time is is of the essence and so I would like a motion to uh amend the agenda to I'll do this under new

business. Those are the figures for for uh the revised referendum amount. Our referendum right now is 9.5 million. So uh which author So the referendum we have to get authorization to spend this money regardless of how much we're going to actually borrow. So even though our final loan value is a million dollars less than our approved referendum, the costs of the project are higher than our referendum by about uh 4.2 million. Um so we will have to go back out and request additional funds to spend that not additional funds, we have to request approval from the town to to to be able to spend that money. Even though by the time we're done the loan value would be less than $9.5 million. Can I ask a Yes. I'm not sure if I'm reading this right. It shouldn't the referendum be on the right hand side all the black bolded numbers added up. No. Why not? Um because the $9,835,000 that's bolded. Mhm. Um that is 50% of that number we only owe 29.7%. Right. Right. I Right. So So the just the 3 million the 3 million. Yes. 307 blah blah. Right. So yeah, the the internal infrastructure of 5,224775 in the in the 29.7% of the shared infrastructure of 3,37 does equal 8. It's it's added up

down below. It equals 8,53. Okay. Okay. Steve, do you have a spreadsheet you can send out to everyone? It's should be posted online. I'm not seeing it. I'm just seeing you. I'm saying Oh, cuz I didn't share it. Yeah, I'll I'll send it out. It's It's passed around here to everyone to review. Oh, I think I can, right? because some of it I mean so the way the contracts are written is old colony uh is funding the complete infrastructure project. They're administrating that contract. They they they've signed on the Donald. They've borrowed basically $40 million for their internal and shared infrastructure. When that project is fully complete and it goes to loan, D is going to take uh 29.7% of that loan and combine it with our internal infrastructure for us to pay. Um this is been we had meeting with bond council uh as well as town attorney. Uh they understand it. They agree that this is the correct way of accounting for it. And so this is this is the now it goes. Um I don't I I think that's the high end. Um there's a lot of stuff there's a lot of things in here that uh that are in a contract that don't necessarily uh get paid out. Um we have uh stuff in there for rock uh that we don't anticipate hitting any rock, but there's a number. placeholder in case there is rock. So, they might have

put 200 expected yards. At $200, it's $40,000. If we don't have any rock, we don't spend that money. It's just written back in a change order. Um, I don't think there are many change order opportunities on this project because of uh uh the fact that there's no real infrastructure in the ground there. So the likelihood of hitting something like a gas line or water line is that's not indic that's or that's that's not already indicated on the plans is is very very slim. So uh I I don't think we are going to have much in change orders. Um uh there's some savings on the shared infrastructure and there could be some substantial savings uh on a proposed uh change to how uh how the pipe near wells is is confined. um you know, as much as what I've seen, like $441 linear foot. Uh we have 2,000 ft of that pipe. So, it could it could be quite a bit. Um but it has to go through uh deep and then department of health. But, uh it's been proposed and I think they'll be working on that. Yeah. For that one. Um, it's it's it's for it's for any pipe that's within uh any transmission pipe that's within what 775 ft of a well. Right now it's double lined. Uh so when it crosses it's you put one pipe inside another pipe. Um wasn't that Miami mostly though? Uh it's Miami. you know, we have close to 2,000 ft of outpipe that has to uh follow the same thing. Um, so it's it's not it's not a it's not

a minor savings by any means. I think over the project over the whole project, it could be, you know, four or five thou four or five million savings. Um, so, uh, Miami Beach, uh, FA O'Neal looked into it specifically for Miami Beach because they have the most and they can't get, uh, Connecticut Water because they're under a moratorum about adding more houses. So, they're stuck. They have wells that Connecticut Water's under moratorium not to add more houses because they can't get enough water there to begin with. So, uh, Miami Beach is stuck with those wells. They can't abandon them. Um and so uh custo alternate ways and if it's approved I think that we would probably want to do the same thing uh to to to elicit cost if they're under a moratorum and there's a half a dozen or a dozen houses not hooked up to them in this project. What happens to those outliers other than Miami Beach? They have to keep their wealth and then they're going to have to pay for this linear that's kind of like what their head doesn't quite seem fair. Well, I don't think that I don't think that we've decided that. I don't think as we we we haven't specified that if you don't abandon your will. Obviously, if you have a choice to abandon it, uh that may be a different story. But if you have to keep your well, you have to keep your well. Um I don't know. I don't personally know if if they're under moratorum based on uh where, you know, they can't add curb stop. I mean, those houses that Connecticut Water Pass probably have curb stop in front of them, in which case they're probably counted as as a hookup even though they're not hooked up to the house, right? So, um, they

probably could hook up if they wanted to. You know, when the last time that was issued, uh, I I know they're under it now. Uh, you know, Miami Beach has been complaining about it. They they won't I don't I don't know. I mean, it's it's a it's two years ago Connecticut Water was bringing in tanker trucks of water to fill up. No, I'm just wondering whether new. Trust me, that's why Fourth of July had Miami Beach to it was an idiotic thing from uh the Department of Health. Plain and simple. There wasn't enough water. That well was not drilled to have it was drilled for Sound View, Old Colony, and Old Life Shores. Not Beach Farms, not Hawk's Nest, and and now Miami Beach. So unless I I would think that unless they get another water source um they're going to be hardressed to to add more homes. Now they could maybe hook up to an existing system that they have. I don't know their closest system is old Sabbrook I think should be pretty expensive that that would be cost that would that's the reason why Connecticut water came and drove the wells because we had wells right so I mean you say it's cost prohibitive but if they could hook up everyone in town it's probably not cost prohibitive but I mean I would think it's cost prohibitive right now uh you know you would think it's cost prohibitive to to run a natural gas line from Texas to Maine, but there are some that exist line. It goes by Martell. Um, but anyway, um, so those are the numbers. I I under new business, I think I would like to add uh a vote to to uh uh modify the agenda

to add a vote to recommend uh to the board selectman that we go out for referendum for $14 million uh to get the ball rolling. Since you mentioned Miami Beach question, are they going back out the bid for the sewer? That's my understanding. They're trying to get it out before the end of May uh April. And then what happened to all I'm shores? All I'm shores is uh they're not voting doing their due diligence and they're going to vote uh on increasing their their uh they don't call it a referendum, they call it a resolution. Um same thing uh resolution amount to a certain figure that I I don't know. Um, and I don't know why they felt it wasn't wiser to bid the job. So, they knew exactly how much they would have to do that, but they've decided not to. And so, they're going to have their resolution, I think May 14th. Um, and if it passes, they'll go out to bid, but I mean, the clock ticking on these. Oh, it's that's that's uh it's it's it's causing some problems. But I believe that if Miami Beach is successful in in getting their bid out, uh, Deep is going to award uh, all three and definitely have Allime Shores bid that work or do something else. I don't think that Old Shores is if if the three beach associates if if the three WPCAS are ready to go, I don't think Old I'm Shores is is going to be a factor in holding the project up. So, they could be out. What What's I doubt they'll What's the difference in the accounting? I mean, the original was at 9 and a half. We're spend We got to

go to refer 14, but we're actually going to spend less. Yes. So, The difference is the the other 25% that they gave us. Okay. All right. That's what I thought. Um Yeah, because it would have been unaffordable otherwise. Got it. Um, does the lack of having Miami that affect these numbers right now or is this Well, this is this is an old colony and some view. No, no, no, no. It's No, it's all four. Our our share is 29.7%. Yeah, but if we if we don't know what the bid's going to be for for two out of the four, well, we know we know we know what Bull Colony and Oline WPCA know all of the costs for their internal and shared infrastructure. The only thing we don't know is internal Miami Beach and internal OAM shores, which doesn't affect us at all. I want to ask a question, but I don't want it in the minutes. So, that's a tough one. We know that 100% of the beach communities are taxpayers. What percentage of them vote in old line? I don't know. Because this referendum is an old line vote. Correct. Well, those people don't know. They're not going to pay. So they would for the city. No, you didn't hear my question. The referendum goes to the town of old line for a vote. Only people that are registered voters in old line vote. No office. That's for office. If you own property, you can

vote. Yeah. Yeah. And so I I think that uh if we do go out to to to referendum, we should send a postcard out to the town telling them what the issue is and and explaining explaining it. Um so anyway, uh that is about the status of the sewer project. Um we're waiting for Miami Beach. We're waiting for Lime Shores. Uh the clock is ticking. Um, this has been the most dramatic yo-yo project I've ever been tired of. One day in class, one day it's one day at one day. Well, it's it's still on. Uh as far as we're concerned, we're going through our due diligence and we'll have we'll have um we'll have hopefully we'll have everything in place to award our contract up to deep uh several weeks before our referendum so that if the referendum is passed they could just sign and prove it. So just along those that thought if I may, I think what Dennis was trying to indicate is let's say the old lime shores um bails out or Miami Beach when their bids come in and then there's just a two. Doesn't that change the percentage of what the people in Sound View and area B have to pay for the shared infrastructure? Wouldn't we then be at 50% versus 29.7? That's my first question and which I think has an obvious answer to it already. But my other question is I don't know that any of the bids have been vetted and yet so we don't know which vendor is going to do which part of the shared infrastructure or even uh which vendor is going to do online I

mean sound view and area B unless you have an update on that. I I haven't seen that. We don't know yet either about the bids. We know that the bids came in for the DOT work and that we will be responsible for part of that, but I don't think those bids have been awarded either yet. Is that correct or wrong? Uh the do work is being administered by BL Engineering. Um most likely they have not awarded that contract. Um, but as far as what you're saying, uh, the biders have been vetted, uh, Mary, I'm using numbers that I'm 99% confident of the the bids that are, uh, the biders that that were going to that will be awarded the contract. Um, like I said, I've I've used the shared trunk as the second bidder because I know the first bidder was not uh didn't was not willing to undertake that project uh due to a mistake in his bid and the second bidder said they would. So, and and that second bidder is not going to be kicked out by us and O'Neal. They're they're an excellent contractor. It's Waltar. Um, they won't get kicked out. Uh so the numbers I've used are they're these are bid numbers. Uh they're numbers that I believe the contracts will be written for when and if they are. So to say that we don't know uh isn't true. Uh we do know. Um as far as I can tell, these are the numbers. Um if they change, they change them. I have to I'll have to change my numbers. But as far as I know, uh, all the biders have basically been vetted. They have not been awarded the contract because,

uh, D hasn't authorized award of the contract. Um, but these will be the engineers recommendations. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there any other questions? Oh, as far as it it's not obvious, by the way, uh, if it would be 50% or not. Um, we have a contract with three different well four four WPCAs have a contract that delineate responsibilities to each other. Um, there's no uh backout clause meaning we don't want to bid it. We don't owe the money. I don't know how uh a a beach association would pay for infrastructure if they're not using it. Um but that's that is not what the contract says. The contract says that each entity is responsible for this amount of of work being done. Um, but it also is contingent upon D approval and D approval may say to people it becomes unaffordable and we may not award any of it. Um, there's a whole bunch of working parts here that that you should think about prior to making a comment that it's obvious that 5050 would be what what would happen. um I don't know what would happen but uh there's more than just simple math in this in this equation. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Uh going on to my next item. Uh it's protocol for members. Uh, and I I

I'm I'm doing this because maybe maybe I maybe it wasn't very clear on what's expected as far as members are concerned. Um, so I want to review some of this. Uh, all members have have sworn uh to uphold the state laws of Connecticut when you when you gave an oath to join this commission. Um, as far as I can tell, I'm I am running this commission, uh, in accordance with state law, meaning that, uh, D has asked us to find a way of handling our pollution problem down, has rejected uh, most uh, alternate methods and has indicated that sewers are the cheapest viable option. We had a consent order. We don't have consent order. We do not have a consent order. An administrative order. We have an administrative order, which is slightly different. If we stop if we stop going down this path, we will get a consent order. But right now, we don't um have a consent order to to install sewers. We have an administrative order that says as long as we continue working uh towards installing sewers or handling our pollution problem which again they they've declined all other methods based on uh on a number of reasons. Uh they feel that sewers are the cheapest. So uh are all entities in this project under an administration? No, the three other entities are under consent. Okay. Okay. Maybe that's where my confusion was. Yeah, it's it it was uh uh yes, it it occurred actually at at an administration that we that I didn't

know. I I always thought that we weren't a consent order. Also, we're an administrative order. Um so anyway, um I expect uh the members on this on this board to work towards putting in sewers. Now you can have questions about how we do it, how we go about it, but you join the group saying that you would support state laws and we're following state law. So uh I guess I expect everyone to to support um furthering sewers. Uh the other thing is is that only the chairman is supposed to speak to outside agencies that we do business with. Only I as chairman and represent the WPCA in media or uh with engineers or with lawyers or with anyone else. uh you're not as a member supposed to call up our engineers, our uh uh consultants and request information. That's that's not how committees are run. Um if you want that information, you can ask me for it. uh we could discuss if I say no, I don't think that's relevant, but you can't go directly or you're not supposed to go directly to outside agencies asking for whatever you want. Um someone actually contacted Woodwin and Curran about the DOT bridge project and asked a bunch of questions that uh is Woodward and Curran didn't bid the project. Secondly, they didn't even design that work. It was Fussen O'Neal that designed the infrastructure. So, you're you're putting in our engineer at

a spot where they have no answer for you. Uh and they shouldn't answer. Um if it came to me, I would say that there are a number of things. the the the money the money that's included in the bridge work to do so the bridge the DOT bridge contractor is going to put in our sectional pipe in their in their uh uh area responsibility and the work eliminated um they that was bid in the DOT contract um we've accounted for that as As a matter of fact, uh I believe that there's a net gain, not a net loss from that contract based on other information that I have. Um that the actual cost to when all is said and done for the shared infrastructure will be lower than what's estimated now. Uh so I mean I I don't know what what to say. you. I I'm asking everyone to not go outside of uh of the defined chain of of communication and do whatever they want. I mean, it's just not it's not how you run committees. So, uh as far as the WPCA's responsibility, I think I I pretty much gave that first. We're responsible to adhere to state law. So, that's all I have for the chairman's report. Are there any other questions or comments? Um, I do know that this project has taken the majority of our time, but the town WQPCA is also committed to sewer

holdings in many of the other areas. So, I don't want folks to misunderstand what you just said because I know that you're upholding that part of this. Yes. Well, yes, that's that's correct. I mean we are responsible but we are also responsible as an ordinance directing your comments related to this project so I want to make sure people know that you support sewer avoidance too as appropriate to the charge of our commission. Thank you. Yes, you're absolutely right. As as a matter of fact, when I joined, I was trying to fight Jews until it became obvious that it wasn't um so I'd like to if I could speak to that for a moment. When when the selectman put me and Dennis Dennis and I on this committee, they didn't say to us we had to support sewers. They said we had to represent Sound View in the best interest of Sound View and area B. that was specific charge to Dennis and to and to me and to the town and you know that's why we also agreed and you agreed to form a subcommittee to look at alternatives to sewers which we did and seem to not go very far with that. So I guess I don't absolutely agree still that the only path is sewers. I think that there should be an alternative if the project is is deemed um unaffordable. Where do we go from there? So, we should have that in our back pocket and it should still be a consideration. The other thing I'd like to say is that, you know, we were put on this committee, as I said, to do a good job for the people in our community specifically. And to do that, we've asked several questions and waited and waited and waited for answers. And after a while, we can't really do our job without getting those answers. And I think you're aware of that of most of the questions. But, you know, we can talk offline on that or set up a meeting

next week with Jim and Martha to discuss that avenue further. Um, we did uh do our best to create an edu. Um, which you know, we also then I guess went out of bounds and got the report from Karen that this this committee, the WPCA paid for back in 2020. And we got the report um a second report from an authorized rep uh someone who was authorized and could do assessments. Dennis and I and all of us were amateurs in this game. We did what we could. We incorporated what everyone asked us to. But in the end, I doubt it will stand up when it comes to a court case. I think that we should have had that information sooner. It would have saved us and this committee and all of us a great deal of time if we had had the Karen report which has so much valuable information in it. And I gave that to you, Steve, to distribute to everyone. There's also the other report that we gave you. So you have two certified assessors recommending what should have been done and we've come up with our own solutions since we didn't have that information. But I'm going to stress again that we are amateurs and my recommendation is for this board to go back and reconsider the two documents that were presented and paid for by by the town um in regard to special assessments um for sewers. Thank you. You're welcome. I I'll I'll address that. Um so is there any public comment? I see a whole bunch of people online. Uh yes, Jim. Like to uh yeah, I'd like to ask a couple questions. Um what is the status of the sewer ordinance currently and are we going to get that

straightened out before we go to referendum? A comment. I heard it question. What what's the status? Sometimes we don't answer sometime sometimes we don't answer uh you know uh we've we've worked on it and it's almost ready to go out u we don't need a sewer ordinance prior to referendum. We don't need a sew or until the system becomes live. But that's on my on my yearly goal here is to finish the ordinance and and get it uh voted on. Uh, second question. Uh, so you've outlined the costs for our internal and for our shared. Um, and if you could forward that to us, that would be great because I I got most of it, but I kind of lost you at the end. Uh, so if I could just get those numbers from you. Um, and that that leaves us with um our connection fee to East Lime, our connection fee to New London, those are onetime fees. Uh, where do those fit in? How do they fit in? in our calculations. Yeah. I mean, where where are they? I I have I have that, Jim. We've we voted on this, you know, years ago as a WPCA that we're going to include those fees as part of a user fee on a yearly basis because that's how it's it's paid. Uh that's how it's paid. It's paid on a yearly basis, financed by City New London at 2.75%. Um, that's what we intended on doing as a WPCA years ago. We never included those uh tie-in fees as part of it. As far as I'm aware of uh uh Rich Pagas got council opinion on that and he said that

is a viable user fee. You do not have to include it as part doesn't have to be paid upfront. It so it can be paid as a user fee or it could be paid uh in the assessment. Some some WPCA's are going to include it in their assessment. We as a WPCA decided not to. Will that be included in any calculation on affordability or is it factored out? As far as I'm aware, it's not even it's it's does not have to be included in the affordability. Wow. Uh third question. Did you uh make any progress of getting the archaeological survey from Woodward and Curran that we talked about? The what? The archaeological survey from Woodward and Curran. Yeah, as a matter of fact, I Yeah, Woodward and Curran forwarded that to to uh Fussen O'Neal. That was that I've gotten everything I forwarded everything to Fussen O'Neal and they were looking at it. As far as Fuss O'Neal was concerned, those were not areas of uh interest, but they did take another look at it. I can see if that was followed up on or not, but that that information was forwarded. uh they had an ar archae uh archaeologist look at those areas. So uh we'll we'll obviously do whatever the state or or uh a private archaeologist indicates. I mean we have archaeology fees included in in woodland current price for uh uh contract administration. So uh it's just a matter of making sure that they're done. I wasn't questioning uh their integrity um or whether they were going to uh adhere to it, but I I'd like to see the

report. I think we talked about that in the beginning and you said you would get a copy of that report to us that which was forwarded to Fuss O'Neal. I I don't I don't All right. I I'll have to see if there's an actual report. I think they just go out and look at areas that could be of interest. I I'm not sure there's I mean there has to be something written. I'll get you whatever Woodward and Curran has. Uh Jason, I think is on is on the uh on the meeting. So, uh Jason, you want to chime in here? Um yes, there there is a report. Uh so I can forward that to you, Steve. Um, yeah, it dates back to I think uh 2020, but uh obviously not much has changed uh archaeologically since then. So, okay. Thank Thank you very much. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there any other questions? Public comment. Um yes, Paula. Paulo Paula Milo 15 and 21 Portland Avenue. I just want to say that um Mary and Dennis are speaking on behalf of Assam View an area B residents. As Mary um stated a few minutes ago, uh we are community. We as a community have given them permission and support in doing what is best for us. So I would urge you to please listen to them, look at the reports, look at the research that they

have done and help them to find another solution to sewers. Thank you. You're welcome. Is is there any other public comment? Okay. Not hearing any. Uh that ends public comment. We'll go to old business. Uh I handed out uh edu calculations uh that Mary and Dennis forwarded. I printed them up, handed them out. I forwarded them twice. So everyone should be familiar with these. I believe we did not have many problems with uh any of the residential properties. It was commercial uh multi-use or mixed use and uh empty lots that uh we wanted to address. Uh do you want to pass my letter to members of this commission and just I'm going to speak about it. Uh, no. I I I this isn't this is my speech today and my letter to you. You can you can say whatever you want, but you can't pass that around. I'm sorry. I can't because it's not it's not in the agenda here that it's not agenda. It's my letter. Okay. So So you didn't want to email. I I wish you I wish you would have emailed me and I could have passed that around if I felt it was it this is why I didn't do it. Okay. Well, I mean, it's not your decision. I understand. I will not I will not

allow that letter to be passed around. You can say it, but I can't have you pass it around. It's not on the agenda. This is It's not under correspondence. It's nowhere. What you're saying is not legal. I can pass letter what I'm going to speak about to the commission. You cannot stop me doing it. I I can. No, you cannot. Dimmitri, please. You cannot. You You're It is It is inappropriate. You are making your own law. No, it is. You cannot do that. It is inappropriate. And I want that to have in the news. There's nothing There's nothing in here that says, "Look, see under new business chairman's response to Mayor Dal's email." I put that in there because I wanted to talk about it. If you wanted to talk about this on a personal level, I'm going to talk about it. All right. You can talk about it, but you can't pass a letter out from you personally to our members. Members, is that correct? What she's saying under the Freformation Act? I think he's right that it's got to be on the It has to be on the agenda. No. is correct. I cannot member a member permission. Not during the meeting. You have to approach him prior to the meeting. I'm going to read my letter. You can read it. Okay. I'm going to read my letter and I want this letter to be in the meeting. Okay. I I will take after you read it, I will take it so that Erica can put it in the meeting. Yes. Okay. I'm going to speak about your your like your acting because you're changing your mind. You're saying one thing and after you change to another thing. Is this following the agenda? Are we on? We are on discussion of edu calculations for mixeduse commercial and vacant

properties. Um, can we can we have a motion uh to accept the .edu calculations as presented and then we can discuss anything that we want to change but we should really someone should make a motion to accept the edu calculations as presented. I will not make a motion as as far as Mary and I are concerned there's too many areas of um doubt and um Woodward and current layout and the the aspect of there's only two beaches on this thing right now. There's not four And uh you can we gave you the the edu calculations that we did and we've been on this thing since day one and uh we're tired. This is this is you can do what you want with that ADO calculation but I will not make a motion. So are you anticip we only can talk about baby Jesus section you can the report is here you can talk as much as you want about it okay how do you so should I chime in or wait I don't know what's the procedure I think I think I' I'd like to wait if no one's going to motion to well It doesn't say a motion. So yeah, you can go ahead chime in me. Okay. System. Thank you. So as we said before, you know, we're amateurs. We did the best we could. We incorporated what you, Steve, and everybody else suggested to

us and we looked at it again. And then after we got the report from Karen and the other report from the other certified assessor, we don't think it'll stand up in court. If it comes to that, we think that you will be facing major lawsuits. So, I can't I can't even say after all the work we've done, all the research we've done, that that's the correct way to go. I think that this committee should take a a pause on edus and look at what the professionals provided you first and then come back. That's my opinion. Thank you. You're welcome. So, could you explain a little more clearly your rationale behind that, Mary? Oh, because we finally got the report. We've been asking for it and we were finally able to go out and get the report from Karen that was commissioned under Printagos for I guess $25,000 back in 2020. And that has some really valuable information in it that would have been so useful um five or six months ago when we started three pages. So we've read it thoroughly and we also looked at the other assessor's report that was provided to the WPCA and we think they both have valid points points that are missing. I mean, we did what you guys suggested, what we thought was right, but again, we're going to say we're amateurs and these are the professionals. So, this is um on the discussion for an agenda item. Could you highlight some of the differences? Well, for one thing, for the single family uh properties, Karen suggests that the betterment fee is strictly related to what it would cost to replace that septic system minus the value of the septic system and minus the the cost to connect the homeowner's cost. So for

me, my the quote that I got to connect from my house to the curb, which is only 50 ft without obstructions, my written quote was $8,960, and that came well, I won't say where it came from, but I can provide it to you if you like. So there's other things in there that we did not consider because again, we're amateurs. Um and then he does break down differently uh assessments versus uh for the condo associations assessments for the mixed value mixed properties and for commercial and for the vacant lots. We still have outstanding questions. Uh we've spent considerable time working with our Melinda at the assessor's office who's been wonderful to us um providing as much information as she could in regard to the vacant lots and what can be considered buildable later and what cannot. And there are still some outstanding questions she cannot answer because they have to go through zoning. So, we have a call out to Paul Orzel to get clarification on those lots and they are significant and it does make a significant difference um in the long run. And I look at each one of those questions as a possible lawsuit against this committee, the people in it and the town. And so, for that reason, I think with prudence, this committee needs to take a breath and read those reports that were provided to you by experts. Thank you. So where do you think we will be as you're reading through those reports and this proposal and as for a timeline to come up with a workable UDU number? All a special meeting. Um Steve has both reports. He can get them out to you tomorrow. I guess I can't get them out to you. So he can get them out to you tomorrow. Take two weeks read them. Think about them. Come back in two weeks

and talk about them. But going into um approval or something that is written by us without input from experts, it's it's just, you know, no, we can't I can't I can't support it. And I've spent considerable considerable time on developing ADU um calculations. We appreciate that. And I know this committee commission has done over the years a lot of work on the edus also, right? It would be very helpful to highlight um points of of where you think there's a discrepancy or room for improvement or where you think there's a vulnerability in this assessment. If you could if if the task force could do that, it would help us move forward. So I think Jason's on the phone with us and Mary and I just on two streets found 28 discrepancies. Either there wasn't a lateral, the lateral was put on somebody else's side property and missed a building altogether. I mean, these are these are charges that that the residents have to bear. If if a lateral is missing and it's going down the street, what's it going to cost them the day that they have to put in the ladder? Just the same as anyone else. But, but there's there's a cost associated with this stuff. Now, you know, if it was two or three, what do you have an engineering degree, Dennis? No, I don't. I have common sense. All right. So, you you don't have an engineering degree? No. No. Um, but the you you said our engineers our engineers have missed 20 in two streets. 28. 28 in two streets. It's true. It's true. Steve, if you look at the diagrams, they're not that hard to read. And you can see where the laterals are missing for certain

properties or where they're in the wrong place for certain properties. I mean, in particular in regard to the vacant lots, which isn't u the fault of Woodward and Curer, whoever drew up those diagrams, it's really because we just came to the table as a committee in the last two months to talk about the vacant lots. So, some of them have laterals where there shouldn't be, some don't have laterals where there should be. Those are changes that need to be done and I think should be addressed before you start going out. I mean, we know that there's problems there, but again, no, he doesn't have an engineering degree, and I don't have an a degree in assessments, and neither does um any of us really. And that's why, like you're saying, volunteers. We're all volunteers, Mary. Yes, we get we get that. We're all volunteers. We get that. So, that's why we're saying we should review what the experts are saying and have been saying to you. Okay. So, so regardless, so the goal of of our collective decisionmaking was to have a standardized formula for all of the like properties, single family, uh, mixeduse, commercial that regardless of the size or regardless of of whether the assessor feels something should be treated differently, everything is the Everything is the same. So that you run a formula and this is your assessment. That is much easier to defend as a WPCA than having special circumstances strewn throughout a 100 homes. That's that's then it's just a matter of whatever we feel like charging. This way if you fit into the formula, that's your assessment. We haven't we haven't looked at your property and said, "Well, that's

a 6,000 square foot home uh with two bedrooms. You get charged more." Uh, everyone didn't like Frank's uh uh calculation method, but he was trying to incorporate a lot of what uh the assessors were saying. He did take out a baseline where the the baseline was this, which would cost a minimum to put in a septic system. He did have uh square footage. He did that. No one seemed to like it. As a matter of fact, we you guys came on board and said you did not want to use that .edu system. So, the goal was to to have a formula that would treat all the like properties, all the properties of the same category the same regardless of what they are. because it's far easier to defend that than to have exceptions and outliers throughout your whole uh system. So, those are assessors. We're not talking about exceptions here. We're talking about following what assessors who are licensed in this business are recommending to you, not what we as amateurs came up with. We're not talking about exceptions for one property or this property or the other property. Not at all. Excuse me. Keep hearing about assessors. What does an assessor have to do with anything? I it so we Rich had requested an assessor to see basically if the project would be affordable. That's that was the reason for the the report to determine whether after the sewers go in will will the assessment value pay for the project. I mean, if if if it's if the assess if we have to pay

uh if the if the assessment was $40,000 a person, that may that may have made it uh unaffordable, in which case we could go back to the D and say based on this, but that the assessment was just an idea of of how much the property value was going to increase it. We didn't ask him to to determine an .edu calculation. It's up to us as a WPCA to develop how we determine edus. Um it's not up to an assessor or anyone else. But he did he did give you that report. I have to excuse myself. I'm sorry. I have to go. I have a four-year-old here that I have to put to bed now. So I think you've heard what I had to say and I I'm sorry. I have to excuse myself. Um John, what the appraisals wanted to quantify is the costbenefit analysis. Without the costbenefit analysis, if if the if the assessment is so high, it cannot pass state statute. State statute says that the the costbenefit analysis can't be egregious. Okay? And the only way you can do that is by the appraisal of the properties property or properties. And that's and that's what Rich was trying to um glean was that and um and this the second appraisal was was for that also. Well, the second appraisal, however, wasn't done by old line. No, it was done by concerned citizens of Sound View. Correct. Exactly. Okay. Paid for by paid by paid

for by residents of Sound. And what was the purpose of that if you already had one? We didn't have one because we asked one for Rich for for the Karen report and we never got it. We asked back last September for the Karen report and you never gave it to us. So it's it's something that we wanted to look at what they had to say and what what we what our guy had to say. I don't I don't see the relevancy between the two of the two documents. Hold on, Rob. To Steve's point though, that doesn't have to do with the edu calculation. No, it does not have to do with the edu calculation. Is how we're going to apply everything equally to all the properties. Exactly. What the properties are worth is not you're not talking about work. You're talking about benefit assessment. And that's what the state statute goes after. If when you're going to court and and I go in and I say, "Yeah, my house is this, the benefit for me to have sewers over septic is this is what the town is saying." And the state will say that's too high, too low. You're right. You're okay. Uh and that's the reason why it was done. So Dennis, you know, I'm getting I'm I'm I'm a little confused at the conversation today. I'm hearing a lot of court being thrown around. I'm not hearing outcomes of projects and I'm not hearing a summary report like it's it's kind of intangible stuff that's being said here tonight. I mean, I need something concrete. You have you have our thing. I have this, but but why isn't this acceptable anymore? Like, what? I didn't say it wasn't acceptable. M I said you won't endorse it. You won't you won't endorse it.

So what are we doing? You're not supporting your your calculations. You can take you can take that and you can you can sit there and and glean through that thing and it is what it is. That's what Mary and I worked on. Okay. So, and I hear you got new information and I hear you're both upset about it. How is that? What's the next step to marry this new information and this hard work which is like our third goound at edus and try to come up with something reasonable and acceptable I suggestion of of looking at the Karen report looking at the NAU report and and just looking at it and reading through it and understanding what a professional is saying about sound view and your miscellarious area B. These are professionals and our profession our profession current basically said that that a residential property will go up between 10 and 12%. after sewer. So, so based on that, if you go to my calculations somewhere here, if you go to my calculations, uh, excuse me, who said who said go up by 10%. Who is this? This is Bill Randazzo. Okay, Bill, uh, you're a guest in in this meeting. Uh, please don't chime in. Listen. Right. Really? Yeah. Please don't chime in. Really? Um,

yeah. It's it's it's a it's a commission meeting. It's only open to members. You're welcome to listen. You're welcome to make public comment when public comment is available, but that's that's the extent of it. Um, I'm sorry I wasn't clear on I was here during the public comment, but you brought up other stuff after that and that's I I asked if there was I'm sorry. I asked if there was uh public comment. I asked twice if there were any others. No one had it. And so that's it. I'm going to have to mute you now. Um, so the yearly cost per edu, uh, well, remember what we started that was 1,200 bucks. Yes. And and uh it's now almost 2,000. It's almost 2,000. It wasn't 1,200, but it was close. Um I think it was 1356 but uh there were there were items that I was not aware of as far as the internal infrastructure as well as we didn't bid it. We hadn't bid anything. One of the reasons to bid it was to find out where the numbers came in. Um they came in higher than uh most anticipated. um 8532102 divided by 269. All right. So, an edu is $31,000 um financed over uh 20 years equals about $40,000. So, if you have one .edu, uh, if your house is worth $250,000, that would cover that assessed value at

12%. There probably are quite a few houses that that hit that benchmark of $250,000 down at the beach. So, I don't think that we're off in our calculations as far as going above the 10 to 12% value of a home. Um, how you get there, you can do it a number of ways, Dennis. Uh, but we tried to have a formula that would be easily understandable and uh uh consistent throughout the uh categories of properties that we have. You have you have the formula. All you need is somebody to make a motion. I'm just not completely. Okay. I have a couple questions. The vac have been brought up a lot of times. Mary alluded to a state statute that said something about having to be hooked up for sewers. Can you um give me more information about that? it. The vacant lot has to be buildable in order for for it to have a lateral to to uh do that. Down in view, there's two areas. There's the upper end of view. Okay. And the lower end of view is SBVD, separate zone all together, right? And within that SVBD, you've got commercial, you've got mixed use, and you've got vacant land. So, so that's where that's where the problem is where we're saying we can't go to the assessor because she can't give a definitive answer because then Eric Knap is the one who makes that decision whether that house that land is buildable or not. And if it's not

buildable, then it should be out of the equation for for um correct. But we we decided as a group that anything over 5,000 feet is buildable. Anything over 5,000 ft. Well, guess what? There's not very many that are over. Okay. But whatever he will say, but Z you have to get you have to get zoning's approval to go through that. Right. So there is such a thing as back assessment. If we don't assess a property because it's non-buildable and zoning says it is buildable, we're allowed to assess that. Zoning says buildable if you have 10,000 square ft right in our 10 zone or we're in our tent. There's a lot of lots that might be grandfathered in. Okay. So, what about I'm on a 5,000 square foot lot. Yes. Mary is on a on a 10,000 square foot lot. Okay. Okay. She could she could she has the the land available to do it. Not 90% I'd say maybe 85% of sound view is on 5,000 square foot lot. Right. Very conducted. Very conducted. Very dense fully populated. Right. So are you saying since you brought it up this other lot that's 10,000 square ft? Right. That's a buildable lot. That's a buildable lot. Right. Does she get the option or can she be denied a hookup? Does she get the option of an assessment or can she be denied? Tell me about this law. She can uh uh uh be assessed and and have a lateral put in and and be like the rest of the rest of the neighborhood. It's it's the houses that are 5,000 foot lots whether they're

vacant or not doesn't qualify. We cannot The town has the ordinance that it's a 10,000 square ft minimum. We got grandfathered in at 5,000 square foot. Okay. Okay. And and that's and that I can't do anything to my property but go up if I get variances and everything else. Okay. So, out of these eight, did I see eight buildable lock? How many of those fit nonvariances? Like, how many of are those all 10,000 square feet or bigger? We you have to look at um we have we have one on Portland Avenue. there's a house there and he owns the land next to it. He doesn't know if he wants to put um a house there or keep it vacant land, but it doesn't matter. But but if he elects not to have a house there, it does matter. It does. It the lot if it's buildable and it's a separate and it's a separate lot. Well, that's the reason why these things have to go through zoning. Zoning is the only one that can make that determination. Well, that's what about the if it changes hands, that's the difference, right? I mean you have to you can count on one hand the number of the number of uh sales by by longstanding residents long and I'm talking longstanding. All right. So 23 acre is over 10,000 ft. That's yeah it's about 11,000. So that one would get that one

will get assessed that would get assessed in edu. I don't I don't understand all these all the ones here that you have have been assessed properly. Yeah. And what what it doesn't reduce the amount. It you've included those above 10,000 square feet. You you have excluded those below uh uh below 10,000 square feet. If they if they are able to build on them, we are allowed to go back and assess then then there has to be the owner has to go through zoning and get a determination whether or not that he can build on that lot and zoning does not allow 5,000 foot lots anymore. Okay. I I don't know what what are you arguing about? Another thing that I don't understand later and they'll get assassinated. But right now it doesn't matter. Well, there is some some empty lots have a parking. Okay. and they don't want to turn them into the building and you are send them and the time they build it and they don't use it. Yeah, but that's not our that's not our prerogative. Our prerogative, I mean, our our mission is if you have a buildable lot, a lot defined as 10,000 square feet or above, and our line goes by, you're going to get a lateral because that's a buildable lot. Whether you want to do a house on that is beside the point that land increases in value immensely because now they can build up as large a house as only will allow them to and their sewage goes to New London. They don't have to even have space for a

septic system. Sometimes you have to check if this lamp is located in an area where it's less than more than 100 ft from the brook. Because if you are 50 ft from the brook, you have 20,000 square feet. You cannot build I I How did you do it? I don't have to do that. Yes. Yeah. There's one I don't know if that's a brook. There's one right identified easily. Yeah, we usually we usually set this page. What we did is we used addresses. It's the last page actually. I I just wanted to see who's exception. There are no exceptions. Well, but he's saying I'm trying right. I don't I don't see any exception here. You've you've accounted for lots above 10,000 square feet and have not included lots below, right? As vacant for vacantly. Okay. So, I would I would have to say that those are included. I I find no problem with that. So, this last page, it says mixed use. These are the vacant lots right here. No, mixed use is No, no. What page are we on? I This is my last page. Maybe I Well, maybe they're trying to different. I'm just hearing what they're saying. Oh, here it is. Okay, it's written. So, these are the EPUs. So, I I just have to say that this I think people are are trying to make this convoluted. This process is to determine

how much an edu a household or or piece of real estate has down at the beach. Um, I don't care what the assessed value is really. I want this to be as fair as possible to as many people as possible. If it goes above the assessed value, then then that's something else. But our our goal isn't isn't to try to confine houses into a category where the appraised value falls within what we think the appraiser would say the the value increased. The goal is to find the most equitable way of assigning of assigning uh cost to the project via edus. So whether the assessed value doesn't meet the requirement or does really shouldn't determine how fair the the c the the calculations are. It it it doesn't matter how much the job costs in determining how fair the formula is to allocate expenses to the people using it. I I don't I don't understand the the disconnect in in that. I would agree with that. Just Yeah, there isn't a report that was for one thing to try to come up doesn't have any impact on the ED. Well, the only calculation it could come up later if I mean down the road if if there's a fight over the appraised value, but that's down correct. So it it's just throwing mud into the water. It's the way I look at it. And I'm one of the newer people on it. It's just the water

using older reports that really aren't intended for this purpose. What's your question? So as I'm looking at this last page because you mentioned the baker was a problem. Um I Okay, I I heard that. And a lot of these you put zeros because they're not buildable. There is one that you're assigning one edu and then there's a question mark. Are you building condos? So what are you going to do with that lot? Assess it post planned. So like you're going to assess it for one, but if a plan comes in and they have more EDUs, then they get reassessed. We discussed that before on paper, correct? They get reassessed. I understand that. I understand that. But the the the question the question we were asked to do is to identify vacant lots. And we identified vacant lots. And we went a little bit farther to see if they were buildable lots. Okay, that's good. And if they're buildable lots, the problem is is that we now have to incorporate another commission to give their thought process of whether or not these No, we don't. No. As far as we were concerned doing doing this report in due diligence, I hear what you did. Why do we have to why do we have to because you were doing we were doing exactly. No, if they're if they're over 10,000 square feet, then then we have to assume they're building, right? But the person may say, "I'm never I don't care what they say, though. The the the land the land, right? Whatever their intent is doesn't whatever their intent doesn't because you don't have a T. No, they're going to have T's. Whatever their intent is should not concern us. If it's a

buildable lot, it should be assessed. One edu. Um, so really this should be nine because you don't carry a one on a half of half a acre of land there. Uh, uh, 290 Shore Road. That should be at least a one because uh, why isn't that uh, Steve? Do you know if those lots are considered by the engineers to put pipe to the property? Do you know that? I I don't I don't know that. But it it doesn't matter because the engineers will be requested to ensure. So, by the way, uh so everyone's clear, uh it's it's been agreed to and in the contract that uh the engineer will go to each house and ask where the lateral where they want their lateral installed onto their property. I'm sorry. I went to Woodward and no one in the in the contract in the contract documents, the contractor is responsible to determine where the owner wants to have their lateral installed. All right? So, it's not going to be installed on the side of the house when their lateral comes out the other side or they can pick wherever they want. It doesn't matter. Um so so those are based off of the best available information which is basically septus systems on file in the town hall. So they've developed their their drawings based on what information they could gather from town hall. As a contractor we want uh to make sure that the lateral meets the owner's needs. It's installed somewhere on that property line. it's installed. It doesn't matter to to a contractor where

it's installed. It just doesn't matter where the lateral goes versus where the s the pipe coming from the building is. Correct. I'm saying, Dennis, it doesn't matter to the contractor where they install it on the property. One foot off the property or one foot into the property uh from south to north or 10 feet. They have they know that they have to put a lateral somewhere in that house and they go ahead and that's they they ask these questions and it's actually a form that they have to fill out for everyone. I requested that uh as a uh request from Jim Lampos uh uh 6 months ago I requested wing and current to ensure that the contractor has to go and verify the position of the lateral before it's placed. Okay. So whether they're drawn incorrectly or not, I doubt if 28 are are incorrect. I Steve I've I've been I looked at two of the three streets and the third street I was sicker than the dark and didn't come down here to do it. Okay. And the square feets are in a different um unit of measure, correct? You have to multiply those by a thousand. No, by four 404 those I think the square foot should be acres. The square foot should be acre. So 23 * 44 is 9,400 I think. 43560. 43560. Thank you. That was already so because the square feet on the other ones are actual actual square foots. Yes. So if you converted these square feet, do any of these allow more than one building that lot? No. So none of these. So how the

only something else they can have one building? I can I can name a condo on the corner of Swan Avenue and Botchi Lane that's got three houses on it on one side and two on the other side. Yeah, but that's grandfather then. Exactly. But what I we don't know what 58 does. We're not gonna gentleman that was on the telephone before, Bill Randazzo, he has he has a plan in place for his property. And that's and that's all fine, right? We don't know. But we do know is that it's buildable. So it should be assessed at least at least one at least one unit. At least one. But are any of these ability to have more than one? They're only going to assess one these empty lots. Well, well, in formula, they would get assessed based on what they construct. Right. So, six bedroom, right? It's an add-on. It's an add-on to the original assessment. I would like can we can we recognize three please? I would like to propose one thing make it for sure with empty lots. Why don't we show those empty lots to the zoning and get from them response that those lots are buildable then in the future people will not have problems that those lots you come I charge they charge me for sewer and you don't let me put a house on it because there is many things could be piece of land 5,000 10,000 square ft and it has very narrow land. Mhm. Could be different. Yeah. Could be just very close to the neighbor

from both sides. Yeah. So you cannot just just vote today for that reason and then make it law because if you voted this is the law. Well then that would that would be a hardship. I I would I would say that that there's a there is a uh an appeals process that we have that's written in in our sewer ordinance I believe but which hasn't been uh completed yet but we would follow that if these people can show that their lot is not buildable there is no appeal process what this is the the end of the story. There is an appeal process. There's an appeal pro you you as a as an individual could come to the WPCA and appeal your assessments based on whatever reasoning that you feel. Someone else that has a 10,000 square foot lot that that zoning says can't be buildable. They could come and say this is not a buildable lot. We would have to review it and vote whether we believe that it's not buildable or not. appeal zoning, but you cannot appeal WBC. You can't. You can. Yes. It's state statute. You can. I know that because I I I've been on a commission for 27 years. This one? Yes. Yeah. And I know I went through many many hearings in different towns too. Okay. It it is appealable. Who you going to be appealing? Who you appeal? with the zoning board of appeals we have but we don't have appeals. You appeal you appeal to the WPCA and if that doesn't work there's another mechanism where you go into arbitration there is there is Dmitri believe me we

we have followed we have followed basically the state statute for appeals we don't have appeals doesn't have appeals for WPCA we don't have it now but you're you're going to have well it's in our ordinance that hasn't been approved yet but yes we are going I have it that that's not a dem a a republic or a democracy. It could be a group of people on the field. It's all spelled out in the ordinance. Who would be It's It's spelled out. It's very specific. It's very specific. Demetri, ordinance hasn't been approved yet. Well, we're we're getting way ahead of ours. It's a chicken and I think we're way But we're governed by the I don't even have this done yet. We're governed by a much bigger body. I I need a motion. All right. I'll make a motion that we approve the EU calculation as presented by Dennis and Mary. Is there a second? Is there discussion? Discussion is these um this you mentioned, right? I say we add at least one for that 290 Shore Road, I guess. Yes, we have to include that as one. And if there's any lots, well, we already talked about that. If there's any lots that can put in more than one structure, they'll be picked up in the um future future assessments. Yep. Uh only two down there that are in that vein. The old Morocco and the property next door and the property in that and um 58.

Yeah, that's it. So auctions there. Um no no mine's 30. The community center is 30. Did that get that got assessed? Right. That would bring it up to 270 with that one property. But I I'm uh still uh I'm still a little um is that what was our original? It was up to 269. We added one property. So that would be 270 which is that's what which is what we're confirming at. That was the target that we had, you know, and we tried to tried to look at all the information we got. This is really difficult. I know we've taken a lot of paths about this. There is no oneizefits all template that anyone in the state has used. So, we're doing the best we can. The only thing I could I can equate this to is taking a street in Philadelphia. And that's what you know, this is not as bad as Philadelphia, but it's close and then it's so congested and and you can reach out. I can't reach the gym so I mean it's it's that kind of situ. So Demetri, would you would you like to read us your letter? Yeah. Is this about Indians? I think so. Now, can I pass my No, you can't pass it up. You can give one to me so I can include it in a minute, but you can't

pass it up. It has to be. If you include the meeting, can I pass them after the meeting? You can do whatever you want with them after the meeting. Okay, I'll give it to you after quietly. Make sure that you all hang around for me. The subject of EDU is continuous and potentially costly topic. The whole WPCA should develop a method for recovery of in infrastructure cost and possibility of usage fees as well. The method should make sure everyone is charged fairly and no one is overcharged. We should consider that the final construction cost will depend on the cost of engineering contractor labor plus materials. The finished result will bring the inlet and the solar pipe to each building including in this project so that every building can have access to the sore system no matter the building size location assessment usage and any other considerations. This will allow every building to be fully compliant with the state health code. This type of construction infrastructure would benefit every property equally without discrimination. And since there is an order for the state DP to stop pollution in our town, the system will make sure that no one can avoid being hooked up to the sewer

pipe. To be fair to everyone, I believe there should be no difference in price between commercial and residential buildings unless the commercial buildings has public bathroom and also there should be not to use charge to mix use commercial properties unless they have public bathrooms. This is my opinion and I am asking WPCA members to consider those points respectively. Mulchinsky member WPCA since 1997 how does that affect the mixed? Is that what you're saying? I'm saying about mixed and I'm saying about commercial properties. Yeah. And I would like to ask what is the difference in the value or what between commercial property and residential property. I have a garage that I cannot put residential property in my garage. I would be glad would be more valuable to have residential property instead of garage commercial. I cannot do that. It's a zoning that does not allow that because of zoning and my garage is commercial and that's zoning and I have two two buildings. Yeah, I'm I'm sorry. I'm talking about myself. Yes, you are. And there are many other properties like mine that has a commercial. So, this is my point. So, isn't this more of a zoning issue, Dimmitri? So if you went to zoning and you got your zoning changed, then you could get your zoning without approval

zoning for people. All right, but that's different than us. We're talking about a post a type of property the way it currently is and there's a lot of mix zoning which is an enhancement to anybody on Harford app. Commercial zoning gives you a lot. Why should be more use on a commercial property than on a residential? Tell me why. I can take that. Yeah, we could. Because because your assessed value will be higher because the commercial the commercial use of that property, hotel, uh rental apartments, uh is allowed on a commercial property. And so the assessed the assessment of increased value to that property is more than it would be on a residential property. You were talking now about assessed volume and before you said it doesn't matter assess volume. You're changing your I'm not Dmitri. Demetri you asked why the formula didn't change the formula. The formula has not changed between commercial properties. It's the same. Do you remember saying at the meetings? Yes. that military should not be considered that way because I don't have I don't have a public bathroom in but you could you don't have a you don't but you could your property it's not a personal thing I'm not you can you feel I feel this way I'm saying and this is my point and I said and I and I read it Yes. In reverse and 25 years, you're not seeing the the bigger picture. That's some of the problem here is we're not

looking at the bigger picture. In 25 years from now, that property could house eight units. You should consider what's today. Not you can't consider that you're building a system like this. No, you should. You can't consider just that. No, you should. You are talking you're talking again about 25 years from now because we're protecting we're looking at the town as a whole. We're protecting the town. We're protecting our become commercial too and you can use it for commercial. Then then at that point I will have to I will charge now in 25 years your car. I mean, so so Dimmitri the we we asked we asked Dennis and Mary to come up with and you were on it. Yes, you were. However, right? Well, um, so in any event, in any event, um, they came up with a system that we're voting on now, and I gave you the reason why commercial property is is being, uh, allotted more, and it's it's it's because of of the potential of the potential of the property once it gets sewers. how much I mean we can't say that a residential property uh is going to increase $100,000 because it has to be reasonable. What we're trying to do here is determine what's a reasonable amount. You have a commercial property that once a sewer goes by I'm sure uh is worth more than it was before the sewer goes by. And so yes, Rob. Well, then ultimately we're voting on a system. We're not voting on your individual property. If you have an issue with how your individual property is going to get assessed, then when the time comes,

which is after the ordinance is in place, you can appeal it. So, you shouldn't be bringing this up because of your individual property. You should be bringing up what you have concerns about with the system and how the system is applied to all properties because that's the system. So, and I want to make sure that that the the motion is correct. This is this is a system to determine edu values to properties. It has nothing to do with the cost of an .edu. We can say so there is a component that we're missing which is uh a connection fee. Now, we could roll the connection fee into the into the .edus or we could take it out and an .edu would be worth less. But there are going to be connection fees um for people that haven't been uh that haven't connected um or have a vacant lot that want to connect. There's a connection fee. I mean, that's a a normal thing. So, this is a overall way of determining edus. The next step would be how we want to assess the edus. Do we want uh uh a component of of uh a connection fee the assessed value and this is what you're going to owe. We can allow maybe to to move the connection fee into a a long-term loan. So, it's just divided out evenly like it would be here or you can just pay the connection fee up front and then uh so there's there's a number

of other steps but this is a calculation to determine the value edu value of each property in our district and so uh we don't have Erica here to repeat the motion uh but could we um refine the motion so that we know exactly what we're voting on. I said that a motion to approve the system as developed by the .edu calculation system as developed by Dennis and Mary. All right. Very good. And it was seconded by Is there any further discussion on this? The only thing we said we were going to add the council right is uh uh yes. So add one lot add at one lot for 290 and the caveat that there'd be an assessment if the rent was used differently it would be uh no no we won't put that in appealable um 290 short well I think we have to make sure to eat would be 270 yes I think it has to be in the minutes so someone is aware that you know they're going to be assessed if it's more than one for this calculation I don't think there should be in the motion. It was in the discussion. So, it will show discussion and it will show and it'll be in our orbits and I'm sure we'll see a lot of people. Um, all right. I'm going to call the motion. Uh all in favor of of uh approving the motion uh with the uh additional edu uh please say I I

uh Corey I Rob I uh Audrey I uh Dennis abstains which uh technically you should have a reason for abstaining conflict of interest. I just don't feel that the the um all the information is there to to give a uh an okay to our That's okay. Um Demetri, are you up again? Mary's a voting member and she left the meeting. I didn't I didn't swear. I didn't you I didn't swear. They swore at me downstairs a lot the last month or so. Sorry about trying to get my FOI information. Well, I didn't swerve. That's right. We had seated. I I didn't see you. I I Oh, so I haven't I haven't seen I didn't vote, right? He hasn't voted. I But since Mary Since Mary's out, Ry's out also. Um, I I probably should have uh seated both. Uh, I haven't and uh I don't have to unless I don't have a quorum. One, two, three, four. I have a quorum. So, I don't necessarily have to see. You don't have a I don't have a qued. Yeah. I have a I have a quorum of people that vote here. No. One, two, three, four, five. What? Five? I voted against it. Okay. He didn't want a quorum. So, he five members that the motion passes three to two. Oh, you vote. I don't I don't vote. Three to one. Three to one with one abstension.

Okay. Three to one with one abstensions. All right. Uh, I I would like to thank I would like to thank Mary I would like to thank Mary and Dennis for developing uh I think a fair and equitable system. You're I agree with you but it's a basis. You can say that. I don't know why you're upset about Wait, wait, wait, wait. um new business. Uh I would like uh Mary Mary Mary and I guess Mary with Dennis I don't know she she mentions Dennis in in the email uh has has requested some things and I I have to publicly I think respond to to these because uh I I I think it needs to be uh responded to in a public manner. Um, it starts by saying just reviewing the minutes from the March 2025 WPCA meeting. On March 15th, 2025, Dennis and I provided you with a draft of edu calculations of modifications that you and the WPCA board requested. We ask that you request the WPCA clerk to make paper copies if required for distribution at the April 2025 meeting and to distribute the spreadsheet to the entire WPCA board for review. Please follow up on this. Dennis and I asked for an accounting of the 4.1 million that chairman Pendergast had publicly stated in a 2022 CT Examiner press release had been spent on the sewer project. And you stated you would ask Frank Noi for that accounting. Please include that accounting or Frank's response to the agenda for the April 2025 WPCA meeting. We asked for a copy of the current report that was commissioned in 2020 by Prenagghast with

a $25,000 retainer and you responded, "Please contact the town IT person, Tom, I think, and request access to the WPCA Google Drive." You could go through all of the files that I'm aware and I not have to request anything from me. We did. Tom Meyer knows nothing about a WPCA Google Drive, but we were able to obtain a copy of the report from Curran which we sent to you. Please share that report with the rest of the WPCA board. Dennis and I told you we identified several errors in the SV sewer diagrams. These will require change orders and we believe that expense should be identified and included in the build and edu formula as should the cost of the dot bridge reconstruction and the cost to retain police on 156 for traffic flow since those costs were not included in the bids. We also believe that contractual fees to connect to East Lime in London should be included in EDU calculations since these are fixed fees required for the build and not dependent on usage or flow. You must contractually connect to the complete construction even if all properties in Sound View area B opt to delay hooking up their private properties for several years. Please address these issues at the April WPCA meeting. Please let me know if there's anything further you need from me or Dennis DO DOT bids, etc. prior to the April meeting so we can be of service. Thank you, Mary Dailyaly. All right. So uh I did pass out copies of the summary and edu calculation sheets as requested. Number two, I am not rich in my audience answer for him. As I indicated in the last meeting, I believe Rich was referring to all funds expended by the beach associations and old line WPCA. I do not intend to request nor do I believe it is appropriate to request internal funding

information from three entities that do not have to account to the OIM WPCA nor the town. Concerning the shared infrastructure, I have provided the anticipated costs for our share based on data provided by Frank Noey. Those figures are itemized in the revised referendum summary that I passed out earlier tonight. As far as the other costs that have been paid to the CSA, we as a group have reviewed and approved all invoices sent by the CSA to allow Oline WPCA to become a full member. There is no need to provide this information as it has been reviewed and was paid out of OIM general fund which is borne by all the taxpayers at O line. It will not be added to the cost of the project. The current report is not relevant to our discussion on edu calculations or any other business that we may have. It was performed in 2020 prior to re-evaluation. The assessment of each house will be determined by a combination of edus and t-in fees that will be determined by the oon WPCA after open review and discussion. If any member wants to review the report, let me know and I will provide it to you. Number four, I don't even know where to begin on this last item. No contract has been signed and therefore no change order can be written. Change orders as a whole are accounted for as a contingency in our contract, but there are many items that are included in the contract that may that may not be used such as rock removal, unsuitable fill, etc. We do not need to include any of these costs from the bridge work being performed on 156 since we are not the funding party. Okamony Beach WPCA is funding and administering the contract. We as a WPCA have decided not to include Eastline and New London hookup fees into the project costs as they are soft costs that are payable over a 20-year period

and can be build as part of the annual costs. I would like to take uh let's see, Dennis and I oh sound viewers uh I would like to take this time to review protocol for the WPCA. uh only the chairman is allowed or vice chair if the chair is not available to carry on and represent the WPA in business and media. Individual members are not supposed to contact our attorneys, engineers, consultants, etc. without obtaining permission from the chair. This group cannot function if anyone feels free to speak to and request information from anyone that they want whenever they want. I am aware that one member had contacted Wood and Kur requesting information on the DOT bridge project. Woodward and current has nothing to do with the DOT bridge project and is not the engineering firm that developed the shared infrastructure plans. Members are supposed to respect the chain of authority and should not be contacting outside entities that the WPCA does business with. So I've been asked many times for complete accounting of this project by uh members of this committee. Um, I've tried my best to give a complete accounting of the project. I have given this uh new summary based on all available information that I have at the moment on what it's going to cost to go out to referendum. Uh, not cost, but what the referendum should be and what the loan value will be at the end of the project. Um, I don't know how much money we've actually spent on the project. It depends on how you account. Uh, we have a general fund uh that's budgeted every year by the board of finance that we spend money from. uh a lot on attorneys, a lot on consultants, a lot on

uh uh really a lot on attorneys. That's most of our expense. Um those attorneys are employed to review documents related to the project. Are they direct project expenses or are do they go against our duties as a WPCA to follow what the state is asking us to do? I don't know. But it doesn't matter to the people of sound view because those costs are being borne by all the taxpayers in a line. They're not going to be forwarded on in any part of uh a a yearly uh uh assessment. The assessment data is in revised referendum summary. Um it's it's what will be included in the referendum. It's a it's a it's what's going to be included in the project and what's going to be financed by uh CWF funding. I I don't know. I I don't even know if we have all the data in town. Um if anyone wants that accounting, you have to go to the town. I don't have I don't keep books at my house. I have none of those things. I If you want that information, contact Anita, contact Martha, contact BJ Bluebomb. I don't have that data. You could look at our financial uh data for the for the years that we have it and see how much we spent and say probably 95% of that could be allocated to the project. I I I don't know of an exact way of telling you exactly how much money has been spent going forward. I don't have uh lime shores, old colonies, or Miami beaches internal infrastructure plants. I can't speak for Rich except to say the 4.1 million I believe was a combined total of all entities doing all their projects. I will never be able to

account for that money because twothirds of it isn't ours. They have no no reason to supply us that data. Um I do have data. Uh it's a contract with Fussen O'Neal of $1,616,773. Um that is their cost for design administration of the internal infrastructure. Frank, you know, forwarded that to me today. Um so that is a cost that's included in our accounting. Um the other miscellaneous expenses we've approved as a board and have paid as a town. Um there's that's as much as I can give at this moment. As far as saying that I would provide an accounting of the $4.1 million that is absolutely incorrect. I never said that. What I said is I will start asking Frank Noi, which I did, to start forwarding uh uh the bank statements for the shared CSA bank account so that we know what's going in and what's coming out. That's all I have to say. And town records have been purged. We only have three years. I tried to dig through them myself, but it it again it it doesn't matter because those are general funds and will not be borne by individual SU residents as as the project goes forward. So the relevant information we have, we know exactly how much or pretty close to right now what the cost will be. Thank you everyone for your patience. Yes, Rob, the referendum. You want to add the referendum? Oh, the referendum. Thank you very much. So, I would I would like a motion I would I

would like Thank you very I would like a motion to uh add to the agenda u a motion to approve uh the revised referendum summary uh to approve the revised referendum summary amount uh of 14 million. Let's let's round it up to $14 million. Uh uh and then request uh the board of selectmen and board of finance to go out to referendum for that amount. So I say yes to the motion to add to the agenda and then yes to the motion. Well, we have to get the added to the agenda first. Uh does so a second? Yeah. Motion second is referendum added to the agenda. Does anyone say no? Everyone say yes. Yeah. There it is. Okay. All right. And then and then uh can can you do the 25% thing in your spreadsheet? Are you able to edit it? See change. No. Carry carry it over. It doesn't I carried it over. I carried the the 22 million Rob at the bottom. Yeah. I carried that through to 11 million. So, and then multiply by two 2.97, right? You see that? Yeah. It's on the right hand side. That's right. What did I do here? 25% 25%

5%. The contingency with this that's been met. Well, that doesn't make sense. position is good that way. Eagles 91 Okay. I I didn't check it in the opposite direction. I'm g Yeah, stay safe. Um, all right. So, uh, so we can make a motion. So now we can make a motion to 14 to new referendum. New referendum. You making that motion, Rob? Yes. So a second. I all All in favor? Discussion. Oh yeah, there's discussion. I'm sorry. What happens to the 9.44? That's already 9.5. 9. Do we add to that, Martha, or do we Well, do you need an addition? No, no,

no. I need I we need an additional $9 and a half. Okay, we're going four and a half million. All right. to ask for an additional it's not good. Thank you. Seconds now. Is there is there any discussion? How does that put a rough four and a half? We're not going to spend four and a half. It's going to look less. Well, because we're going to we're going to spend it for that's so we're we're going to spend 14 million. Really? We're going to spend 13,756,877.80. That's But the town of old line out of pocket is going to the town of Lime out of pocket pays nothing. It's all No, you're going to get better. That's got to be in the referendum sometime million dollar. We're gonna back get back 50% of that. But but more than that, we don't even we we don't even we don't even spend the money. We don't bond the money. It's it the bond. This is this is just a strictly spending authority. It's not even bonded by the town. It's backed up by CWF. Correct. It's not much at all,

right? Well, they come up with something to explain. Correct. Yeah. I think the way it's presented June really but I think I think that what we say is we're we're looking for authority to to to to spend up to $14 million with state matching funds reducing it to seven. Yeah, that's good. Yeah. Or thereabouts. Yeah. Right. Doesn't reduce it down to seven because it's that's why that's why the internal the the shared infrastructure is separated out. Um but in general yes I mean we we should be very clear on our final liability of this project and not just say we need to request to spend that. Um is there any other discussion? I have a question. Yes. Boxside plant by oxide. Yes. Plan is to put it on Gorton Avenue extension. The plan is wherever it shows on the plan. Yes. Okay. Well, that's not what Paul I'm sure is. May they have a legal document that says it can't be there, and I went through this with zoning. Wherever it's shown on the plan, we have approval of via zoning. There'll be a lawsuit about that. That's and will that because now it's in actuality it's saving money because it's less the pipe is within 20 ft of the force man. I I don't know, Dennis. You know where the red houses the two Dennis Dennis I

I'm sorry, but I don't even know how this But I'm saying, you know, these are these are things that, you know, we we find out this information. Well, we don't even know it. I don't know it. You're telling me this. Someone against someone against putting sewers in is telling me that we can't put the dioxide where where we have I said it's online shores. Okay, hold on. We have a motion on the table. Let's vote on that. All I'm saying is is someone that's against sewers is telling me, "Are you you're against sewers and you're telling me that you could put fire station there." So, one said, "Hey, you could do it." When they were deemed that property, it was for recreational use. There are people from multi-persce who do not deal in a bio station. It's recreational use and therefore there's two differing opinions from two different lawyers. How does this how does this affect the referendum? Just saying how does it affect the project? So, you know, this is this is this is, you know, it is it is draining to go through this on a on a monthly basis. You're you're bringing up stuff that number one, I'm not aware of. And number two, it's not my responsibility to figure out. I You want me to talk about hypotheticals? If we can't put the bioxide anywhere, I don't know. Maybe you put it in East Line. I have no clue, Dennis, but I'm not the engineer. You know, for I'm telling you that I've looked I've looked I've looked at a document I've looked at a document that shows that we have zoning approval for that location. The price of this goes on

all of us here, the four of us, not the rest of the not the rest of the room, the four of us. So consequently, if if I have a question about what happens with the bio station, if old line shore is telling you to get it off my property, where are you going to put it and how much is it going to cost? Obviously, it's going to be a change in Fuss and O'Neal's um plan. And if it's a change in bust and O'Neal plan and they've already uh uh assigned a low bidder, is it because does it become a change order? And if it becomes a change order, how much is it going to be the difference? That's all that's all I was questioning. I'm not whether I'm here as a a a proponent or an opponent of sewers. I'm here for the residents of S view, right? I'm here for all of the town as well as you should be. I don't believe your oath that Mary said said that you're going to represent only sound view in area B. I believe it said that you were going to res represent the town. And don't you think that that's a valid question to ask? I think it's a I think it's a concern. I think it's it's I don't have any documentation except for the document that I reviewed with zoning that says we have permission via zoning to put the bioxide where it's designed. You're telling me about some other document that it wouldn't be a lawsuit between us and and Oine Shores. It sounds like it's an internal thing with with whether the the president had validity to sign that agreement or not. I don't know. What I'm saying is this is construction. Let me finish. Let me finish. Whether or not it's true or not, it can affect the project. And whether

you like it or not, I'm here because I am a resident of S View. And it was Martha that put Mary and I on here so we could represent Sue because there is nobody else to do it. All right. So, we have a motion on the table. We have a motion on the table. I'm I'm We have a motion on the table to to uh for uh to to increase the referendum amount by 4 and a.5 million to request uh the uh the board of selectmen to to go out the referendum. Uh is there any more discussion? Did you voted today? No. Um, all right. We want to close off discussion. All in favor, uh, say I. I. I. All opposed. Abstain. All right. So, uh, the eyes have it. One, two, three, four, two. Uh, one, one abstension, uh, which is Dennis Mo. Uh can I motion to adjurnn? One close. Meeting adjourned.