Water Pollution Control Authority - Special Meeting

All right. Um, it is uh 7:32 October 20th. I'm going to call the meeting to order. Uh, President or Brad Jüks uh well via telephone or teams. Mary Dailyaly, Brad Jüks. Um, we have a couple of guests. Uh, here are Rob McCarthy, Demetriki. We got a shirt that

John Blick and uh Brian Cornell and myself. Uh I can have John become a full member tonight since we are minus our contingent. So uh he'll be voting tonight. Um, first thing is to uh uh approve the minutes of September. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions on those? I do. This is Mary, if I may.

In the minutes, thank you. In the minutes for September, you noted that was it Corey I guess asked a question about alternatives or what we had done as a subcommittee, me in particular, um as an alternative to sewers and you felt it was important enough to put it into the minutes. We answered that. I provided an answer. I think John provided an answer. Dennis provided an answer. None of the answers made it into the minutes. If the question is important enough to make it into the minutes, I think the answer should be too. Okay.

I don't write the minutes. I comment on them. So, do you have an amendment to these minutes that you'd like to make?

Well, yes, of course. When after the question was asked, I responded that we had brought in Dave Pototts that we looked at Clinton and Old Sabbrook and um a couple other surrounding towns. We looked at Stonington. We looked at other states. We looked at alternatives that are now legal and accepted by uh Deep that are more affordable now than they were 15 years ago and do do a better job of reducing nitrogen than they had back when this project was first started. and I would like that to be included in the minutes. Thank you. Is there a motion? Are there any other comments? I'm not quite sure actually. Go back and look. Make a motion we accept amend it. Is that what the vote is? Is there a second?

All right. All in favor? I oppose. Okay. Okay. So, uh, Bill, your response added to this week's minutes for last month. Thank you.

Uh, not hearing anymore. Uh, I haven't been uh I have a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Make a motion favor. I posted again.

Uh budget and expenses update. Um Andrea couldn't make it tonight. Uh the port information is generally the same as it was um before. Um the one thing that you all may want to look at or review is our CWF funding that Mary Daily had requested. Um not much to see there. We borrowed about I don't know 500 in $5,000 or so. Let me try to pull it up. I sent it out in me. You see that? Um, I'm sorry. We've we've borrowed uh well, we've our cost on the project are $524,595,000 right now. Um, but we have a contract with current 615. They just haven't been paid yet and we're trying to figure out why. Um, those bills should have been paid a while ago. Um, of that, uh, $131,148.75 in grant money, leaving us a loan balance of $393,44625. And on that, we've incurred $12,240 of interest, which would bring uh the total to around $45,000, $46,000.

You can keep it. You will hear it maybe. I just didn't have that. Um, are there any questions on that? That's money we owe. Uh, whether we go forward with the project or not, that's money that has been spent, you know, but we we about $45,000 of AR debt. Um, are there any other questions on the budget? I know I didn't get a great one. I the numbers really haven't changed much since last month. Not hearing any. I'll go to chairman's report. I have a lot guys. I'm sorry. Um CSA status. Uh the CSA is in final write up final review uh with our attorney and as typical uh I haven't got it when I've requested it. Uh over the past month, we've met with the beach associations and Jim Lampos, who's representing the town of Gold Line, to hammer out the final portion of this agreement. O line shores very active uh in giving their comments this time around. Um the agreement really haven't changed much since four. It's a lot of wording, a little nuance. Some things uh are are just like legal things that we're letting our attorneys go through. Uh one was the town wants to be uh indemnified u by the whole colony. uh and I don't understand exactly why since old colonies aren't taking on all the risk

but um I don't that that will not go through with the beach associations are old colonies so I don't know the end end result but uh that will be probably one of the major sticking point but besides that the rest of the document is relatively cleaned up and ready to sign um But about the CSA status, this CSA is a revision of an already signed, newly executed CSA between the town and the beach associations. That document indicates that town of O line is responsible 29.7% of the shared infrastructure. There is no out clause. There's no if you don't go through with your project, you don't know the money. It's a CS8 that was signed back in 2020. I think uh the first select woman does not I don't think recognizes the authority of that document. Um she said that the EP won't go forward with awarding contracts to each associations without a use. I've been told by the EP that that is exactly what they're considering is giving $15 million to the beach associations to fund the infrastructure portion and eventually having us hook up, but we would not get any of that $15 million. Um,

the time to move this project along is now. It's not in two months. Once the beach association signed a contract, that money's gone. I've been told that. So, that's $4.25 million of grant money. grant money that we have nothing for that will be gone will have to be borne by the taxpayers that will line you hook up because that's really taking up part of the cost of assessment and you can't assess more than the increase in the value of the property. So it's something to think about but it's a contingent. I have a letter from Martha email that uh lays out a whole bunch of things that she wants that we have to do for bring this to it. Uh as you as you're aware the town hired a financial financial analysis to HRT advisors to look at how much this project will cost. uh she want those numbers discussed and approved by this commission. This vote should be reflected in the minutes. Now, I don't know exactly why we have to approve any of count's numbers, but they coincide with mine as I will show, so I don't have any problems with it. But they're just the hard numbers are the hard those don't change. It's all the unknowns that are up to anyone's estimate. uh she indicates the cost sharing agreement should be finalized by the beach associations. It pretty much has then the cost sharing agreement should be sent to the town attorney for review and language cleanup. That's what's on now. Uh we'll have one more time to

review it. It comes before the board of selected for approval so that she can sign it. The sewer warranty should be approved by the boss at the same time. Sue Orange is done and uh once the CSA is approved, the WPCA can request the referendum be sent out. Uh the BOS and BOF approve the request. Uh this is this sets the clock in motion. But the plan must be in place prior to um I have spoken with Martha about this and now they're saying that the earliest that we can have a referendum based on tabulators. Our tabulators are locked until 24th. Municipal recount will most likely be held on the 10th or 12th of of November. The 11th is the holiday. We are all willing to work together to make this happen. um they're looking at sometime in January for a referendum, which is too late. So, I did not accept the reasons because it seemed kind of crazy that you need tabulators. So, I called uh the Secretary of State's office and spoke to an attorney, Lewis Button, from the Secretary of State's office. Dear Mr. Tsunami, it's a pleasure to speak with you as well. In answer to your questions, first there is no requirement that tabulators be used for a referendum. That is strictly a decision to be made by the municipality itself. The municipality to use the tabulators, but they may also decide not to use them. Second, essentially yes, any tabulator used in election must be locked down for two weeks after the election. Then it may be opened and used for something else. Of course, if a tabulator is used in a November election, it would not

necessarily be ready for use exactly two weeks after. The tabulator must receive a new memory stick and any balls must be both tested to ensure that everything's working properly. While these things are not likely to cause significant delay, we do not wish to point out that the table may not be ready exactly two weeks. So, there is another method referendum and it's paper ballot. You go in circle yes or no and you leave and you count the votes. You don't have machine count. You actually count that. Uh I've discussed this with the registar voters. Uh she seems adamant that they're too busy to do that. And my my position is that they're here to serve the town needs and you're talking about $4.5 million or four and a4 million dollars. I would think that they would try their best to get this done so that we can have a referendum and not lose out on that money. But I don't make that call.

Steve, I I just remember since I've moved here in 21, I remember it's at least using one paper ballot for I think a schoolboard budget in 20 or 22. I remember doing paper So, it's not like it hasn't been done in years and years and years. I discussed it with Martha. She she said she'd get back to me. She says they don't like that attorney. They were going to get another opinion from an attorney. What time do you think is plausible at this point though? And just because there is the election there is so I think in December

which will get us in before Yeah. I believe that DEP is willing to sign contracts in January with the beach associations. Um, speaking of which, if I may, I've been trying to follow where the beach associations are and their review of their bids that come in and that sort of thing. And sometimes I feel like I'm going off a cliff cliff listing. Um, are they all squared away? I don't think they are yet. Well, the shortest bid last week, two weeks ago, the ninth,

um, their numbers came in within their referendum or within the resolution. So, uh, as far as I know, and I know I've spoke with with some people they are pursuing going forward.

Um, they have questions about what happens to them if the town backs out. So that now that's the big question from all the beach associations. What happens if the town backs out? Um they've done calculations. If they get all the $50 million, it's almost a rock for them. Uh without it, it would probably cost them another $200 a year each resident in the beach associations to fund it. But if they get all that money, um it's it's not that much more. Um D says they need at least three people in the project to award. Uh Colony, Miami Beach, all I'm sure is as far as I can see a three. Um, I think they're being pretty upfront with us. I don't think they're lying. I don't think they're I don't think they're trying. I think that they want us to put this in. I've been told it's still important. Out of all the beaches down there, they feel that Sound View is the worst because of population density, because how low it is, because of high water table. uh and said the pollution problem doesn't go away.

Pollution problem. So, may I ask I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but may I ask along that line, has Miami Beach increased their bond? Because I know their bids came in higher than what they had bonded for. They didn't increase their bond. Uh they reduced some of the other scope outside scope. The sewer actually did come in within their bondage, some of the other stuff. And now I believe they're looking for other funds to do their drain pipe on their storm sewer which is like $2 and a half million dollars. Uh but but uh the sewer did come in uh within their within their scope

and the paving or without paving. Uh with pave well I don't know if it's full pavement or not. Uh but there is pavement in there. I think all I'm sure is I think it's going to go with full pavement. Uh that's how much lower they came in at. Um I don't know about uh well I think that Scott said he wouldn't do full pavement pavement if they weren't going to do all their drain. They would do it at the drain dock. So So is Scott considering are they considering not doing storm water management over there then? I

I don't quite know Mary. Uh, I I know they're looking for funds. I know that they're they they are uh pretty set on doing sewers. I don't know what else they're they're set on doing. I'm not, you know, I don't not a member of Miami Beach, so I I don't quite know. I'm just giving you what I know, and that is that they've reduced the scope, i.e. some of the drainage to get that referendum in so that they can do their sewers. Right. So the next uh the results of the account form uh this is a separate attachment. Um, this was presented at the board of board of select men a couple of weeks ago and uh I called up the day's attorney not attorney reporter because I felt that uh he misrepresented all the numbers. So I want to go through his numbers and my numbers. So from my presentation to the town, my numbers were $1936.76 cents for finance fees over 20 years at 2%. $23066 for uh hookup fees to East Lime London. And then I had a range of $38,252 to $56452 for user fees. That gave a range of $2,552.94 to $2,734.94 uh as the as a yearly fee for 20 years. After that, it's just a user fee. Uh but

that's the range. So they hired an accountant uh an independent accountant. He went through uh some of these uh things. Uh he did a risk analysis of carrying contingencies. Low risk was less than 5%, medium risk 5 to 10. Hot risk 10 to 20. Construction contingencies should take into consider consideration unforeseen site conditions. Material price indications design modification. Weather delays. connection charges, property owners cost to connect. Um, that's not included in that because we're not responsible for those dumpers. I don't include the property owners. I know it's a cost, don't get me wrong, but it's not it's has nothing to do with the WPCA in their analysis of how much this project is going to cost to construct uh on a on a group basis. Um the end results were that uh the total construction and connection charges at a 5% contingency was 2241. Now I did not know that the second uh that the first bidder on the pump station backed out which increased that number $855,000 on the pump station. So, I was using uh a figure that was um off, but I'm sorry. So, the infrastructure was $20,10,000 uh 2010. The the infrastructure portion is 2010 versus my 1939. So, I added about $70 to uh that that $855,000 added about $70 per year per user. um his connection fees to New London and uh East Line amounted to $231.

I had $2366. So that number was was pretty close. And then uh he has a statement that he just used DP's figure of five uh 56452 because it's estimate and who better not estimate that than deep. I mean, uh, so his figures came out, um, with a 2% cont with a 5% contingency, um, 500. He had a total of 2241. I had a total of, uh, I had a total of 2170 and he had a total of uh 2241. If you add the 564, we'll go with the highest amount to each, you get 42 on my side or 13. You got 2734 versus

2806. 28. Okay, I have five, but all right. 2805.

I went through the numbers, too. So, it's about a difference of $65. Um, I I think that number one, I think it So, the article today said that uh the accounts numbers was $1,100 different than mine. $1,100 different. And I think that's uh misleading to say. Um, so Martha wants us to vote on these numbers. I don't know what you say, but I would say I would I guess what I would like is to say that in all future correspondence or presentation, we should use the uh accountants figures of 2805 total yearly cost to the residents. I mean, we're voting on, you know, the hard numbers are the hard numbers. Those those are easy to figure. I don't know what she really wants us to hold on but

which includes the annual emperor of that. Yes. Yes. The 564 includes the own fee and all that other stuff which which Carlos believes would be lower but that's what the accountant presented. Uh I feel fine about endorsing it. Uh I believe that his numbers came very came up very very close to mine. uh and that uh Martin seems to be a little wrong his calculations. Um when you talked to the reporter for the day, what was his reaction to how you felt about You said I should have been at the meeting

to to uh argue. That was it.

That was it. Because I had a half hour to publish report. I just put down what they said. It's not in quotes. If they if it was in quotes, then that's a different story. But that's that's what that's what it was. Um, so, uh, I think I think what Marlin wants is is an an official number. And so I think we should use or craft a motion that that has uh the official number of costs at $22,85 for which includes all user fees, hookup fees, and construction costs financed at their respective rates. Just as a side note too, I also listened to the board's selectman meeting and I also read the letter and just it's a important point. This guy, Mr. Merritt who was at the the referendum who was at one of the meetings the comment from the accounts was that they couldn't verify his costs and they couldn't verify Jim Lampos's estimated costs that that Jim Jim's comments he had concerns but he couldn't quantify them. So I I mean I went through all the numbers and I listened to the board select meeting and the 2805 is is close to all the numbers you had.

Does anyone want to make for a motion then to go with 2805? I'm looking for a motion to go with 2005 that it's an estimated yearly cost to each resident of 2805 which would include O andM uh connection fees and construction costs by the respective amounts. I'm not arguing the amount but the statement per per property because as you know we have 70 270 edus so there are several properties that are going to pay more than one edu per

so we need to clarify that and make that clear that the 2,85 is per edu and not per property that's correct thank you very much Mary yeah I think people get confused with that since the correlation with the three private beach associations is a one to one pretty much and we are the only exception for the most part that has extra uh edus that have to be paid. So we need to make that clear to everyone that it's not per property.

Correct. It's per edu. So when we make the motion make sure it's in format. I'll make a motion that we go with the accountants numbers of 2805 per EU which includes the annual onm the connection fees and construction costs at the respective times and I'll second the motion.

Very good. Is there any more discussion on that? when you present it to the public. I just think that in all fairness, you should also stipulate what's not included in that edu, which would be the hookup fee. I'm not sure if the maintenance contract with East Lime is included in that. Whatever you feel is not included in it, which should let me just finish for a second. Whatever is not included in the EDU should be stipulated so everybody knows what's on the table. Thank you. anything outside of your property is included right the connection fee is included what a lot of that was that it's just not the construction

it's not it's not the hookup fee it's not your private contractor that goes on your land to hook you in I understand that Steve I just want everybody to understand the same thing anything outside I do understand what you're saying I'm saying that we need to make that clear to everybody repeating Thank you. Cuz you're not listening. But okay, I was answering your question. Oh god. Let me mic myself, please.

So, uh, is there a second? Was there a second? Yes. Uh, is there any more discussion? All right. Uh, let's call for a vote. All in favor? I I can't vote. I'm sorry. As an alternate, I'm sorry, Ryan. I thought that you you're sworn in now, too. Okay. I I thought I I get lose track on who who's a alternate. Who's Are you Are you an alternate? An alternate. All right.

Uh so you can you can vote. Brian fest Mary. I I uh Brad,

Brad, he's muted. He's unmuted now. Brad, affirmative. Yeah, I'm not I don't understand. Thank you. I say I

motion passes. Uh oh. six to nothing. All right, that's great. Um, I touched upon this. Uh, all I'm sure is bid results uh came in favorably. Uh, it looks like they're going to go forward with it. Uh, and they had, uh, some good numbers. Uh, project status. Uh the project status I think is is for us is is in a critical stage. Uh I believe the beach associations are going to go forward with it. We is going to award allow them to award the contracts. I think they're going to sign uh NE will give them $15 million to offset some of our uh costs to get that project in. And uh I believe DE will also pursue forcing the townable line to go forward. Now people can say well what give us an example when I don't know when. All I'm saying is is the statement was the pollution problem doesn't go away whether you do the referendum and pass it or not. It's still there. So I I don't think this situation is going to go away. I think in 20 years it's going to be more expensive. I think in 10 years it'll be more expensive. Um I think this is the best deal the town would ever get. 50% of costs being paid by the state. Um, I don't I don't understand the the I don't understand why pushing her off a

couple of months makes sense when there's so much at stake, but um I'm not I'm not in the leadership role. Uh the referendum status is basically what I've said. Uh I believe we can have a paper ballot and get this done much sooner than June 10th. I've been told by town registar and uh town selectman that sorry the tabulators are taken uh and we're busy. Uh there's a item here actions of committee members. So, I just want to remind everyone here that this is a a a forum to discuss water pollution control. And while sometimes people may eat it, I would like to leave personal comments and insults out. Uh there was a member uh last last uh se uh in September's meeting that was told that they live in a swamp and I don't think that um I don't I don't think that has anything to do with what we're trying to do here. Um so it it came in response to saying I had to put a specialized system and it cost me $60,000 and The response was, "Well, you live in a swamp." Uh, there's no that's not the that's not I don't want to run a meme like that. Um, there's no there's no reason to to to say that. And the guy I mean, I just don't I don't

agree with that behavior and I'd like people to try to watch what they're saying. Um, and the last thing that uh I have is that I've I've uh spoken to the beach associations and Jim Lamp post about how to how to go forward. Jim's insisting on sound representation. Uh, the CSA is is cluttered with ways to get sound view representation in because someone from this WPCA supposedly would not represent Sound View like someone in Sound View. I disagree with that, but uh, regardless, it was something that I agreed to with Jim because I need the CSA done. So, uh, I I talked to Jim and I brought this up probably 10 months ago. I wrote a letter to uh representative uh deon pardon um asking if he would consider writing legislation that would exempt the municipality or I think it's the municipality requirement or town requirement to form a WP a regional WPCA. Um I didn't do it on slide. I sent that letter to Martha, Jim, I think everyone here. People thought I was trying to do an end run. I wasn't. I was just trying to think of the best mechanism to run that system after it's built. Uh I believe that if the town would uh

back having mutual water authority, it would solve everyone's problems. Number one, it would be made up of sound view. shores old colony in Miami Beach, they would have say over their whole system. The town doesn't have any of it. The town wouldn't own it. Uh uh South uh Sound View and Area B would own their portion. Um they paid for it. We wouldn't we wouldn't own it. uh it would have all the protections of of state statute versus a corporation or some other governing body. Uh they would have their own meetings and they would run that system uh the way they felt they should. That is the way to run that system. I would I would also if I had to throw it in I'd actually include point of woods also but point of woods is not part of that system but we should only have two water authorities instead of five. Um we'll see where that goes. The CSA is is is this the CSA started out as a cost sharing agreement. You're going to pay this much. You're going to pay this much. You're going to pay this much. And people started getting into well what are we going to do after it? So they started throwing in O andM it it became an entangled it it it became entangled and there's still no body governing body except for the construction committee that will that can uh continue as an O andM uh uh body after it's built if nothing else is in place. I fully believe something else will be in place long before the system's done. Um, and I believe wholeheartedly that a regional board authority is is the way to go there.

Uh, are there any questions? Not hearing anyone. Not hearing any. I just I went out of line here, but the vote still stands. New business was to vote on HRT. That's why you're surprised. Um, we've already voted on in chairman's report. Sorry. Uh, all right. I would like to discuss hiring a different attorney for the WPCA. Um, I've spoken to to Mike about this. Uh, I've spoken to a number of people about this. The WPCA is different than other commissions in town. Uh, and as the CSA and other items have come up, it's apparent that if you're not aligned properly, uh, you have one attorney working on a document that some people may want changed and some people may not. So when we go to our attorney and say, "I want this done." And it sits there for two months and I say, "Why isn't it done?" And I hear I have to talk to Martha before I do that. I think that's a conflict of interest because I can't get the work done that I need and we're paying you out of our budget. On the converse side, when Martha calls up for anything WPCA, all those bills are invoiced to us. When she's inquiring about the town, how do how do we develop a budget for attorney's fees if we don't know who's using them?

I think I think it will be time in the near future to look for a different attorney uh to avoid any imp any any illusion of of accomplish um I haven't been able to get much out of this attorney. Uh Jim called him in two days later. He got what he wanted. Um it just seems to me that it it it doesn't I don't think I don't think we're on the same level as some of the other commissions that that are in the town. We're semi autonomous body in in town. So or at least according to state statute. So, uh, I think I I would like to discuss having that and I like other people's opinions if anyone wants to turn.

Who's the attorney right now? It's Susan Shapiro.

So, I have a I have a few questions if I might. Um, in terms of cost, how would that attorney be paid? Would all of that be charged back to the project, the sewer project, or would it come out of the town budget that the the money that the town gives the WPCA for their operations? That would be my first question. And second, it actually sounds like, you know, this WPCA still serves under the board of selectmen. We are not independent of them. we are appointed by them and therefore it sounds like you're trying to circumvent their authority by going around them with a different attorney and for myself I I don't approve that. Thank you.

Okay. So it would be paid for out of only the stuff that we ask our attorney would be paid for out of our budget. Right now it's whatever we ask and whatever the town asks is charged to our attorney. Right. that is paid out of the town.

If we had a separate if we had a separate attorney, the town couldn't charge to our account because they're not a client. They'd have to go through their town attorney. So, you do understand that the town sets the budget for the WPCA and that they they allocate I I don't know what the difference in the cost would be if you went out and found a different attorney who wasn't already doing a work for the town. I don't know if the town attorney is on a regular retainer or or what. I don't know what the difference in the price would be, but I do know that the money that you use for this comes from the town taxes. And so I do think that the both the board of finance and the board of selectmen have control over that.

They do every year. Every year they they approve our budget and in it is a legal fee. And they would have to approve therefore that you if you wanted to hire a different attorney, I would think that the board of selectmen and the board of finance would have to approve that expense. They might No, no, not the expense. They've already approved the expense. Mary, we have $40,000 in this year's budget for legal fees. I don't know how much the town is going to use of that, but we have they've set aside $40,000 for legal fees. I think it's

I I've said what I my feelings. I'd like to hear from other people. Well, I'm going to say that, you know, it seems like our selectment now, and we do have an election coming up, um, things could change, uh, seems to have a lot more power in telling people what to do and how to do stuff. Um, it doesn't sound like it's really a democracy in in some ways, and that's just my own opinion. That was Brad, right? That was Brad. Yep.

Thank you. Yeah, I I I just I think there should be two separate attorneys. I mean, this is a separate organization within the town and we should have an attorney that is an expert in WPCAS, not just general township rules and rags. And I think that person would be able to to fight certain things and get certain things done and do the heavy lifting. And if needed, I mean, the town the town attorney could look at it, but the town attorney look at look at it. Yes. From the town's

from town's point of view, right? How many dollars, Steve, do you think have been taken from our budget by the town that we may or may not know? Over $10,000 last year. Over last year. Over 10,000. Any idea this year at all? This year started giving away numbers. This year started like Yeah. Okay.

Probably not. Nothing that we paid. Oh, maybe we uh well I it's it's it's I just wanted to get on people's minds about the different uh conflicting uh or possible conflicts that can occur using one attorney to accomplish uh something that may have two different goals. It's an interesting concept. Where are the trip wires though? Got to be something up there someplace that we're going to pop that face to try to trip. Well, so if there is a regional water authority

Mhm.

Um they would budget money in their onm for legal fees and they would have no attorney. we probably wouldn't even need an attorney at that point, you know, then then there is no there's no conflict because I mean this is probably the most controversial thing that the WPCA is going to do till another one comes up. But uh and right now I don't know of any make that clear. DE doesn't know of any region uh that uh in town that they would look at Rogers Lake. They're not looking at Rogers Lake. Um but I I've I've been pretty frustrated this year. And then and then to say that, you know, then say you've had all this time to to work on the CSA and I can't get the CSA from my attorney until a select person calls them up to it is is aggravating. Uh, so no more comments on that. Discussion over approving authorizing signature revised CSA subject to minor changes. Can't do that because our attorney didn't get it to us when he told me. Uh, discussion to send sewer ordinance to the town for a vote. Did does anyone remember if we had a formal vote to send that to? I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? You're breaking up a little bit.

Um, does anyone remember if we had a formal vote to send the sewer ordinance to a town vote? No, we never voted on that. Say I think we did. I thought we did, too. I want to reaffirm that though. I want to have a a reaffirmation vote 2020 or 2021.

That's what I think. But there's been some changes to it. Uh the big one being Jeff's uh change which states that future sewers in the town will be selfunded meaning you can't use tax money. That was big change. I'm pretty sure you could change the ordinance if you had enough votes. So, uh, but the intent is but it didn't go to town further. Go on further.

It didn't go. It needed to go to the to a town meeting. Correct. And get approved at a town meeting. Correct. Go that far. That's what I'm looking I'm looking for authorization to send that to a town meeting

because if we don't trip over I'm looking at the website here it says all residents are invited to provide written comments to the proposal we go through that we did a public hearing we've done everything only thing we didn't do is send it to the tower all right okay so way before like that yeah we Cuz when was that? This was the April 22.

Yeah. Perhaps you want to table that until you have more um regular members from the WPCA available to talk about it. No, we're not going to do that, I don't think.

Okay. Um so the proposal is the proposal is the same as what we actually it is what we reviewed uh we reviewed the ordinance uh several months ago probably six months ago last spring we did send it back and that that is the document I think that's one because we did the public hearing out of the public hearing And it was, but I brought this up at another meeting. Hold on.

We get a copy of that for those of us. I think everyone I I I think I we discussed this this past year. I almost I thought it out. Um, may I ask I know there were several suggestions or requirements changes to the ordinance that the selectmen were requesting. Have those been incorporated? Yes. Okay. As long as are incorporated. I didn't think they were, but I I'd have to go back and read the ordinance again.

These are the proposed changes that were made. Uh, paragraph 2.4. I I don't even want to go into that one. It's It's about a building lateral. Um paragraph 3 point. All right. I'll I'll say it, but I don't want any discussion on this. Uh building sewer lateral means the extension from the building drain to the connecting point at the municipal sewer main. The individual property owner is responsible for the lateral from the building drain to the property line. Um, paragraph 3.1 at the reasonable discretion of the town of Oline WPCA, all houses or other buildings used for occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes situated in the town's designated sewage district and a budding on any street, alley, or rightway in which there is located a public sanitary sew within the town's designated sewer district shall be required to connect to the WPCA sewer system and that at the connection shall be made at the expense of its owners in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. Any property having access to the municipal sewer shall be subject to a benefit assessment even if it's not connected to the municipal sewer since it receives the benefit of this utility. Connecting fee will be charged when the sewer property is connected to the municipal uh sewer. The owner is required to respond in their in in writing of their intention to comply. Uh building sewer laterals located on private property are owned by the owner of the premises served. The owner of the respected premises is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the building sewer lateral to the property line. The owner of the building sewer lateral shall keep sewer uh so keep such sewer in good repair in order to not

cause excessive infiltration or inflow of groundwater damage to property or harm to the line WPCA sewers. Um and each paragraph 10.1D each violation of the ordinance shall be separate municipal offense each day any violation of this ordinance continues shall constitute a separate offense. Each separate offense under the chapter shall be punish punishable by a fine $250 a day payable to the OI WBCA. Um and then there was Jim's comment about uh any miss will have to be selfunded. Could you read that comment please?

Jim's comment.

Which one? Jim Jim's Jim stipulation. Thank you. Jim's comment. Any expansion of the designated sewer district or any creation of a new sewer district must be self-funded by users of the new or expanded district. No property owner within the current sewer district will be financially responsible for any new sewer construction outside of the sewer areas as currently defined in this ordinance. The users of any new sewer project will be 100% responsible for its construction, financing and ongoing funding of operations and maintenance less applicable state or federal grant funding.

Thank you.

Welcome. So those are those were the changes that uh were made uh really gyms as an addition. The others were just clarifications on definitions for the most part. Um so I would like an or I would like a vote to send the ordinance as it's been amended uh to uh the town for a vote. I don't know if it goes to board selectment first. Like an amendment to I'd like a motion to to start the process of getting the sewer ordinance to the town board. Make a motion. Thank you, John. I'll second it. Thank you, Rob.

Is there further discussion, Brad? Yeah, I I'm just um It's just it I just wonder with the with the election coming up, it's just a a timing thing and I know we want to get this thing going and it's just such a late thing. If you could elaborate a little more on that, how that could

So, so when when we vote for when we vote for a referendum, the re so the the board of selected in the board of finance aren't voting for the referendum. the vote the the board of select and the board of finance vote to move the referendum forward to a town hall meeting in which the town votes whether to go to referendum or not. Um and so I would like to have the ordinance approved for that town hall meeting so that they can approve the town hall meeting and then uh approve the referendum and then I think it's within 7 days no later than 14 days the referendum has to occur. All right, that sounds that sounds makes sense. Perfect.

Stephen, all my notes that I've been collecting since I got on the board, I don't recall seeing that document of the ordinance itself. Is there a way I can get a copy of it from somebody downstairs somehow so I can read it? Uh, I understand what the amendments are that you Yes. Uh, look um the the short answer is yes. may not be downstairs because it's not approved. It's not an official document. Um, but I have to look for it. I have it somewhere on the computer. It's just going to take me a little time to drive. Mary, do you have a copy of that?

If I have a copy of the ordinance. Yeah. As the proposed proposed new one for proposed amendments. I have a draft copy that we reviewed a couple months ago. Yes. All right. So, I can send it to I can send it to you, Brian. Oh, what? I You better get it from Steve. Yeah, let me let me check with David. Well, I mean, I can send the one that we're proposing. I'll send out the one that I'll send out the one that's been marked up with the comments in it. That's all right. I I just I just don't know where it is right now.

Okay. But I mean it's it's a completed document. Jim Jim has blessed it. Everyone's blessed it as far as the people that have comments. So if if Mary has it, is it okay if I get copy of that so you don't have to do it or I doubt she has that one because I don't have the one that he has. We're incorporating the comments I read. Oh, but you can you're more than happy to get it from Mary. Yeah. At least that way I can read the gist of it because I I get you can read it out. That's one of the things. It's very similar online and I got to use my computer, but you send it to me, please.

Mine is not marked up with uh Jim's comments and any additional changes. Mine is the old one from 2020. It'll give me the gist of it, Mary, if if you could. Certainly can. As long as Steve doesn't mind that I send you a document, I'll be glad to send it to you. Thank you, Mary. You can send it to him. I owe you. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Or cold water. Thanks, Mary. Yep. Thanks, Steve. You're welcome. Um, is there That's the end of new business. Is there any old business?

Sorry, I have one old business if you don't mind. At the last WPCA meeting, Steve, you said something about uh value added to properties in in particular to vacant lots that today couldn't would not be buildable because they don't meet the square footage or can't support a septic system, etc. and that they would be buildable if sewers went in. So, I sent you that document earlier today. I'm not sure if you saw it from 4:00. Yeah. Yeah. Four o'clock. Sorry for the delay, but I had to find it myself. Um from Clean Water Funds that stipulate that you cannot do that if

it doesn't say that, Mary. Says they wish they wish for it not to happen. Pardon? It says they wish for it not to happen. Doesn't say you can't. Okay. I I think that that is a legal question that should be answered by an attorney.

So Mary Mary, we've gone through this. The WPCA has gone through this and and to a degree I agree with you. To another degree, I can't because what we were told is that zoning is the people that determine whether they can build on the lot or not. So, if zoning says you have a sewer going through, you have you have the minimum square footage for a building lot, it becomes a building lot. And we went we we debated this over three meetings uh back back when we all read that. And there's no solution. If zoning says you can't build there, then it's not a building lot. But if zoning says you can build there, it's a building lot. The WPCA has no control over zoning. That is why that is why uh those lots are included. I

I think it's it is a complicated question. Um the document from clean water funds is also very complicated, a little convoluted in what they're saying, but they do set the law and okay, I mean, if you I'm just saying that I thought it was an incorrect statement to tell people in public public statement that if your lot wasn't uh buildable in the past, it could be buildable in the future with sewers because that document says you cannot do that with clean water funds. That's not true. Mary, I Let me Let me pull up the document and read.

Pull it up. Pull it up. You can probably find it faster. You pay. All right. So it says general intent whenever possible sewer lines will be sized and routed to serve only existing structures and to avoid providing the potential for service to underdeveloped properties in environmentally sensitive areas. In some situations however it is impossible to reach the existing developed properties without running sewer lines adjacent to underdeveloped land. implementation. In general, the criteria which we have been using to evaluate the implementation of this condition has been the following. If the property is not develop not developable at the present time, that is if an approvable conventional wastewater disposal system cannot be constructed to health code standards on the property without any variances to the state health code. then is our intention to avoid providing the property owner with the means to develop that otherwise undevelopable property. And in no nothing says that they can't. It's their intent. It's the deep clean water fund intent to limit development in properties, but it it doesn't say you can't. And when we discussed this, we I

only believe we had uh uh our attorney look at that and said, "Well, h we we question how this is enforced because we don't have any control. The sewer WPCA has no control over zoning. If zoning says you can build on a lot, you can build on that lot." That is why we we put them in as assessment and until until it's lost in court battle or something, they they should be charged because they will be available on according to zoning,

right? Okay. So, we we had determined based pretty much on size, I think, or what we thought the size was, that there would be nine lots that potentially were buildable that would be charged one edu. But what you're saying is really that determination isn't by size per se. It's by zoning. And so, really, it's by size. Zoning says you need I think 10,000 square feet or more to build. So that's the zoning. Well, there is a ZBA also. Well, there's a ZBA too, but I'm just saying right now down there it's zoned, I believe, 10,000 square ft to build

and you need a variance from from the health department to build. Yes. What I'm saying is once the sewer goes through and there's a lateral available, they can build there. I would say 10,000 square ft or larger. Yes, you're right. Yes. But it could be even less. It could be even less. In that case, we would we would have to charge them if they if they were able to do it. But I'm just saying right now, looking at our current zoning laws, there are nine properties that are 10,000 square ft above that will will be buildable according to our zoning when the sew goes through.

There are also restrictions. what size could be 10,000 30 ft but it could be very narrow right and you cannot build so you you should go through the DA well that would be uh you know that would be the property owner asking for what to bring up

to fight us it's 1 foot by 10,000 ft long I can't build on it so I can charge it If you want to know exactly, you can give this list of those properties with 10,000 square feet or larger to the zoning. I think that's all posted now on our uh website. They could they could they could they could go and look at it and see if they wanted to to appeal our decision to charge them.

Okay. My last my last question hopefully for tonight. You know, we had this whole accountant based everything on 270 edus which we were at but with the bus stop and we do need to make a formal uh motion to remove the bus stop and to drop down to 269 in the process. Well, until all the numbers are chat, I I would hesitate to do that. I'd like an exact. I I was trying to contact Rob as a I think I used Robs, but um I realized that it it didn't appear to me as though you and Dennis used a formula to figure out your edus.

Pardon? You actually did you use a formula or did you add up the kitchens and baths? Oh my god. We went over this a few times. Of course. Yes. You we presented a formula. Everyone looked at it. We distributed. No, I'm sorry. Did you to do the calculations? Were your edu values calculated or were they put in after you calculated them in your head based on the formula?

Calculated in my head. No, we came up with a with a algorithm not based on dollars because you said not to. We ignored with that algorithm. We ignored the appraised values because you said to ignore them and we just came up with, you know, trying to get one the majority of the properties as you stipulated to be one edu and that was the goal. And then we added on for the um uh you know the multi-use and the commercial um and then the the developable lots that we thought were developable but still needs to be confirmed by zoning. Um and that was the whole thing and we presented it like two three four months. I not sure what your question is now. My my question is is the Go ahead, please.

Did you use an Excel function to do the calculation or did you add them all up by hand based on how No, we No, I used No, I used Excel. I would never be able it would take me like a year to do them all by hand. No. So, so you should be able to I wanted I actually Martha kept asking me for that and I did not have time to validate uh the data in there. I I thought I saw some uh discrepancies in

Well, there there could be there could be. I'm not saying there isn't, but we kind of went by what the assessor gave us in terms of properties and what was on them. Not everything is recorded by the assessor. By the way, if you're a mixed property, she doesn't really record or or commercial, she doesn't really record the number of bedrooms and bathrooms and things like that. She just does square footage at that point. So, you're not going to have 100% of all the information you need. So yes, certainly go ahead, take it apart, do it your, you know, do it over. Do due diligence. I don't want to do it over. I don't want to do it over there.

Well, we told you that. We told you when you voted on it that there were problems in it that there were errors in it. And you know, we tried to stress that at that time. And well, I think what you stressed is that is that you want to base it off an appraisers's you want to base you wanted to base assessments off of an appraisers's evaluation. And the WPCA felt it was fair to come up with a formula to determine how to equitably assign uh assessments. However,

however, I I'm not saying that the only reason I ask that is because you want to change it down to 269, but if there are more errors that you seem to say there could be, I want to verify that the information is correct. We might be at 280. Who knows? Well, you might. You might. You're right. There's errors in there. to formally go down to 269 without checking the the data is is uh one .edu which is about $10 a person over 20 years or $10 an edu. I mean it's $60,000.

I would rather I would rather I would rather verify the information that's in there before quote finalizing it. What is important? What is important is that the formulas have been finalized. So now it's just a calculation. Right. Okay. Well, that's what I see. Miss, it's fine by me. Go ahead and verify whatever the spreadsheet. [Music] I I've got a spreadsheet from April 3rd. I'm not sure if that's the last one you did or we reviewed, but I That's the last one. Yeah. I'm happy to have somebody else take it and run with it. It's fine.

All right. Uh but duly not. Thank you. Um let's see. Correspondence. Uh I got a letter from Colona Concrete. Uh I asked Jason to reach out Woodin Current to reach out to uh Joseph and see if they wanted to extend their bid price uh with no additional penalty or inflation. Uh and they did that to the end of the year. So, if we could pass a referendum, we can sign a contract for the guy that was bid uh 9 months ago, which is unheard of, but they're willing to do that. And then I already read uh the letter from Miss Elect. So, that is it for uh my presentation or meeting. Um does anyone have anything to say before we go to public comment? All right. Uh, public comment. If you're online, uh, please, uh, unmute yourself and state your name and address.

Steve, could you hear me? Yeah. Who's this? This is Bill Randazzo. Okay. Where do you live? All right. Um uh 52 and 56 Harford Avenue. Okay. Go ahead.

Okay. I just got a a quick synopsis of of this and if you could just follow me for a second here. Okay. You know, a lot of the beach community get upset when voting happens in the middle of November, December, January, these referend referendums. At this point, it probably wouldn't make a difference. The whole town's going to vote on it. Um, but what I think I like to suggest is you send out ballots to each homeowner that's in that beach community, you know, uh, Sound View, Sound View, so they could actually send their vote in because a lot of them be able to make

that's illegal. Yeah, you would have to you would have to request an abs you can get an absentee ballot. You'd have to request it through the absentee ballot process. Okay. Okay. You can't just send out ballots. I I I apologize. I I just I was just trying to make a suggestion to make it fair to the people that that are there cuz a lot of times people need to go on vacation or go away and go to go down to Florida, you know, you know what I mean? Yeah. Get ask. Yeah. That that's why I I mentioned the absentee ballot like that. But I if if that's illegal, then it's illegal. We can't do it. The other question I have

I want to be clear. Hold on. Bill. Bill. I want to be clear. You can vote by absentee ballot, but you have to go through the procedures to get Okay. I I I just have to request my ballot. Correct.

And and and they'll and they'll send it to me and I could send it in. The other the other question I have is it it might be a little mundane right now, but we went through a bunch of numbers here earlier and I I know you guys voted on it. I believe you voted on a 2805 number, but we went from 1936 to 2241 to 2285 to 2805. And I was getting a little confused and that that whole bandwidth of numbers you're going through and I'm trying to figure out what's included in what and what's included where. I mean,

let me break it down for you quickly, Bill. About $2,000 about $2,000 is for uh construction costs, finance construction costs over two over 20 years, 2%. Another $564 is for O andM just to maintain the system and do whatever you need and have money in the bank to to to maintain and operate that system. Another $260 a year is for connection fees to London and East Line combined.

That's it. So that that five that $500 would be your your sewer assessment charge for for what your that's your own that's your user fee. That would be a user and that's an estimated user fee. I've been told that it's high. I believe it's high, but I don't know. I mean it's No, no, I I got it. I understand now. I understand that that just what I was looking at is it it wasn't in your original number. So now you you guys are tying it into that which is okay. I understand now that that's not a problem.

All right. I I want to be clear though what what I did in my presentation is I presented a construction cost, a tie-in fee cost, and an estimated user fee cost. Those did not add up to to8 to to $1,936. Those added up to 27.40 or something like that. I mean, they were the number I was $60 off from what the accountant estimated. So, yeah, I mean small amount. Yeah,

it it I I just want maybe maybe I should be clear uh in my presentations, but uh those all those costs were all those costs were addressed. Um but maybe they were not. No, no, no. I I I understand they were they were addressed, but I I guess you have your your sewer assessment costs. So whatever that that land owner or homeowner uses, you have it tied into that too. Not the assessment. The assessment's a straight value off of edu. No, no, not the assessment.

User fee. Yes. So, so the user fee, uh, there'll be a portion, uh, that is going to be based on flow and there's going to be a portion that that's going to be based on, uh, operating expenses. Okay. Well, okay. The the the the one that's based on flow, that's the amount of of usage you're using. So, would that come that come under 2%. Would that come under 2%. No. I mean, you got a total bandwidth of what you're getting from the government and what the individual household is going to be paying, right? Now, you're losing me. I I don't quite understand your question.

All right. Oh, are you saying that that the 20 does the 2805 come under 2% of the medium income for a line? Well, let me back up. The overall project is going to cost X amount of dollars, whatever it's going to cost. Each individual household is going to get charged or each individual edu is get charged a proportion. you have it at 2805. In that 2805, right, you have a usage fee where where your your gray water or whatever water you want to call it goes out, right? And and and you have that that fee in there too. Yes.

Am I correct? Yes. But what I'm asking you since that's not part of the construction and everything else, that's not part of the 2% that the state is going to give you. Correct. Correct. That's a yearly fee. That's a yearly fee. So I So I I I'm not sure how you guys worded it in your in your statement, whatever you're going to be doing. So, I mean, the user fee shouldn't be counted into what your .edu is because because your EDU is is what you're actually paying on, right?

Thus, thus why thus thus why I I uh separated them out. But, uh, no, I understand for this purpose when it comes down

for this and and I'm going to I'm going to say something. I'll give you the last word, but that'll be it. um for this purpose. This is an estimate of about what people are if if someone comes to me and says I paid 2806 instead of 2805 I'll be upset. This is an estimate based on numbers. Some of the numbers are very strong and real. But even the contract cost will probably be less than what we sign the contract for. Um we're going to save a lot of money. I don't know how much, but instead of double walling pipe at $925 a foot, we're going to be putting in pipe at $225 a foot plus the furnos.

There's a huge savings. So, it's just to be to be

No, no, no. Steve, Steve, I I know what I know what you're saying, but my my my original question is just so everybody understands is we really don't know what you really do know what your estimated actual .edu is. So you have to pull out that part of the disposal because that is not going to be counted in what the state gives the the house the homeowner at 2%. Okay. Thank you very much for coming.

Okay. That that's all I'm saying. Yep. I it wasn't to be argumentative. It would just just try to clarify. That's all. Thank you. Uh, is there anyone else has comment? Please unmute yourself and recognize. Hi, this is Sally Ann Whiteitz, 310 Swan Avenue, and I don't have any comments. Just letting you know I'm here.

Oh, okay. Well, thank you. Uh, I think that's exhausted all our All our people. No. Is uh is there anyone else that would like to make a comment? Not hearing any. Uh may I have a motion to adjourn? Motion meeting. I'll third it. What you do?