Water Pollution Control Authority - Regular Meeting

All right. Um, [clears throat] I'm going to call the meeting to order. It's 7:31. In attendance, uh, online is, uh, is, uh, Andrea Lombard, uh, Brad Yorks. Um, we have several guests, Mary Dailyaly, and we have several guests, and Dennis Maluso just signed in. Um, here uh is is Corey, uh, Robert, uh, Brian, Dimmitri, and obviously myself. Um, let me see. One, two, three, five, six, seven. Um, and I will, uh, have Brian sworn in as a full voting member. Um cuz we don't have nine people. Um you have a quorum but you can vote this on these uh items. Uh first order of business approval of minutes of October 2025. Does anyone have any uh corrections uh clarifications or comments?

No. Not hearing any. Uh, hi Jim. Uh, uh, but the chair has invited Jim Lampost as a uh, uh, uh, a guest in the meeting tonight. Um, as also a presenter or or at least someone that can weigh in on certain items that uh, he's put a lot of time into. Um, not hearing any. Uh uh can I have a a motion to approve the minutes? Second.

No. Can I have a first first? Uh Cory, second by Dmitri. Uh I Yeah, you can be third. Uh all in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay, the motion passes unanimously. Uh second on the agenda is uh budget update and expenses and I'll hand that over to Andrea.

Hi. Hi everyone. So uh for the treasurer's report this month um we have good news. So our current budget uh operating budget for the year is $91,158. We've only expensed about 1.2% of that and uh it's been in clerical. So right now our remaining balance is $90,43. We have encumbered um our software uh which should [clears throat] be paid out this month and it's $2,988. So um that's the budget update. I do have one followup. Um, and it's it's going to be a short report, but it took a long time to compile. Um, I looked at the freedom of information um for the town of Old Line detailed statement of accounts and expenditures that includes the itemized appropriation expenditure and incumbrance transactions and went by that from 2014 to current and looked at all the legal expenses. So [clears throat] that was 2014 uh fiscal year all the way to where we are now in 2025. And there was a clear cut point. So from 2014 to current, we have spent $175,489 in legal fees. 82% of those legal fees were between 2014 and 2020. And if you remember back

in 2014 at every meeting, we had an attorney present and [clears throat] the legal fees were much um much more robust. But we've been pretty good stewards from Jo um 2021 to current with some years being able to carry forward the money so that we actually had no uh minimal expenses. So from the fiscal year 2021 to current we are averaging between three and 7.5% of that total amount on legal fees. So, I I wanted to stress that I also have been meeting with um our state contact Lee Rogers to review the clean water fund uh the design phase, the planning phase, and the upcoming construction loan phase. [clears throat] And I want to remind you that if we did use that that loan for the attorney, there is no grant portion. So it would be 100% at 2% for a minimum of 10 years of interest. So, since we're caught up with legal fees to date and we're budget and we're within budget or below budget, um like this year we had a surplus, um it would be [clears throat] prudent for us not to um use the clean water funds for this. Um, at this point, Martha may, uh, consider using that forward, but right now, um, we've been really excellent stewards of of this money, I believe. Any questions?

Just a quick question. This is Mary. Can you hear me? Sure, Mary. I can hear you. Thank you. So just in conclusion, you're saying of the 175,489 spent in legal, none of that will be build to uh the sound residents for this project. Is that correct?

I didn't say that, Mary. Um I said that of the money that I've just um foied that that was FOID, this all came out of our existing budget. So there it's all been paid and there's no remaining balance right now. So there's nothing there's nothing to be paid. So there's nothing to be buil.

Thank you. So you're saying there's nothing that needs to be b uh financed at 2% that won't be reimburseable under clean water funds or uh deep but what portion what number of the 175489 will be charged back to the sound view project. So what I just said Mary hold on please let me answer that.

Sure. Currently, there are no plans to to request reimbursement of CWF funds for expenditures that have been paid out of the uh general fund. So, as of tonight, none would be charged to customers of Sound View. Um, that could change if the WPCA wants to try to get CWF funding and reimburse the town or the town requests reimbursement and forces the WPCA to uh request funding through CWF funds. But as of right now, there's no intention of doing any of that. It's a general fund. The money's been spent over the years. No one's requested reimbursement and so it's a dead issue in my opinion.

Thank you. Yeah, and Steve, you said that really well. I mean, there is an option to seek uh clean water funding at 2% and then yes, Mary would be correct that that would go back to the users, but that's nothing that we have considered. It's not our decision to make. we, you know, have to go through Martha and the town, but at this point, we're zero balance. Okay. Thank you very much. And I hope that all of that gets um captured in the minutes going forward. Thank you. It should. It was reported. Thank you.

Yep. You're very welcome. I have to um sign off. I I did want to listen into your report, Steve, but I'm gonna just kind of quietly drift off once that's done.

Sure. Thank Thank you, Andrea. Um, I would like to to to note that uh Randy Nixon uh uh full member and John Flick uh uh an alternate member uh arrived at 7:36. Randy is uh a voting member and may vote. Um in John uh let's see 1 2 3 4 5 6 and John you member so you may vote tonight. Yes. Okay. I didn't know you were

all right. And you already sworn in Brian, right? Correct. Yes. Earlier. Yeah.

Yeah. Uh chairman's report uh CSA status. Um I'm going to ask everyone to give a vote uh to to approve the CSA as as written. I forward it earlier today. Uh Mike Patello has made revisions to the funding part. um uh minor revision revisions that don't really affect the the import of the uh document itself. Uh we still have 29.7%. It's just he wanted to be as accurate as possible as far as uh capturing how the state's going to fund the project. Um and we'll be voting uh to to to pro to to to authorize signing the CSA uh under new business. Um project status uh projects are moving forward. Uh old colony has signed a I guess like a letter of intent and has gone out for requests to to uh de to uh allow award. Um, Miami Beach had a referendum or a vote on on funding uh their project on Saturday. Uh, the results are a little confusing. Um, I don't think they they structured it correctly, but uh, [clears throat] basically they had a vote of sewers and drainage versus no sewers. sewers only versus no sewers and then no sewers. And the combined sewers with no drainage and sewers with drainage outnumbered no sewers, but now

they're trying to get an opinion on exactly what what one um because no sewers beat out those other two individually. So, uh they're looking for some clarification. usually disre but not collectively. Collectively sewers beat out no sewers. Yeah. All right. But individually they did not. Okay. Got it. So that's what I would say. So that's that's I just wanted Yes. Um what's their timeline for figuring out that maze?

Well Well uh the timeline has passed. uh contracts are supposed to be signed by the three beach associations uh yesterday. Yeah. Um

I don't believe the contractors have withdrawn their their extensions, but uh it's coming up quickly. Um our contractor has uh has uh extended his bid to the end of end of uh this year, December 31st. Um, I've asked for credits on items that uh we weren't using. We got an $800,000 credit for not using double wall pipe. Uh, it was kind of offset uh by a $400,000 increase [clears throat] in uh inflation, which I wrote back to the engineer and said they're they're figuring inflation incorrectly. He's figuring inflation on a per linear foot price of the bid. So if they bid 250, he added another $35 or inflation, but it's just inflation on pipe. Um it's not inflation on overhead. It's not inflation on on everything else. It's inflation on pipe and probably stone. Um but there is no so I said he has to go back uh to when the the project could have been awarded which was uh I think in May. Um he has to provide pricing for all the materials he wants an increase in and then we'll do our research and find out how much that is and that's what he gets. He doesn't he doesn't get 8% of a bid item. He gets 8% of the cost of what's causing the increase in pricing. Um, and that's how it is with the beach associations and fuss and O'Neal. So, uh, I I would expect right right now we're at about 8.1 million for the contract. I would expect it to go down uh, another below 8 8 million before we're done u with all

the changes. Uh, deep funding uh, deep funding is still in place right now. They're they're working on uh uh they they met with our bonding our bond council. Uh I was on a meeting uh Monday with them uh to determine exactly how to write it up uh to determine how how to write it up and they've also given us numbers for um numbers that they are carrying as far as project costs. So that would be uh and we'll go over those um we'll go over those when when we vote for for a ref uh to increase the referendum. Um that's about it as far as my report's concerned. Um does anyone have any questions? Okay, not hearing any. We'll go to new business and uh the new business first item is discussion.

Steve, I'm sorry. Can you repeat the referendum status? Is there a date? Uh I can I can uh provide a status when we when we talk about referendum and old business. Oh, I have it in as your report. Sorry.

Okay, that's all right. Um Okay. It's in both. But uh yeah, um let me discuss that um in in before the vote. I think it it's a little more it's more of a discussion. Um new [clears throat] business is discussion of approving and authorizing signature of the revised CSA subject to minor changes. Um so we we we have a final uh we have a final CSA. Um there is an appendix that's concerning uh the properties that we're going to tie into Old Colony and Miami Beach and how to calculate what is a fair uh price for that. Um we're working on it. Uh I've sent out well Fen O'Neal has done some of the some of the calculations. I believe they viewed the the concept incorrectly. I gave them my corrections which would amount to approximately uh $50,000 for the seven homes. Um and my calculation is basically the [clears throat] amount the full amount of pipe being used in in old colony uh which would be uh well the the full amount of pipe that we're using which is about 1956 ft over the entire pipe of of old colony which is about 7450. Uh you divide that that's 2 6% of the pipe and then uh you divide their

cost of construction less their drainage and come out to about $27,000 uh per EDU and I believe we should owe 26% of their .edu to tie in. So that would be about $7,000 $7,000 and change. Um probably look it up here. Uh and that would be what we would pay. I think it's fair. We're an outside entity. The way Fusset O'Neal figured it, it's basically adding us into their .edu total, and that's not we're not doing that. Um the the way I had figured it is is I believe correct and fair. We're using 26% of their pipe. We should pay for 26% of their uh of the pipe of which we're using. Um so we'll find out uh if they agree.

Installed cost basically.

Installed cost and it's 26% uh of the ent, you know, of the entire cost of that pipe. It's not just line item. It's it's 26% of a contract price, but it's still just 26%. And then I apply it to the edu. So, we should owe 26% of the of their .edu. Um uh the numbers that I had that I sent to Fussen O'Neal for review uh it's 26% uh their edu price is $29,33346 26% of that is 779.38 you multiply that by 7 is $53,96569. So that would be a cost that we would pay to old colony as a titan fee just like we do with East Lime or to London. And uh this is based on the fact that we're tying into East Lime system, but they're not charging us the cost of the whole system. They're just charging us for the transmission infrastructure that we're using. They're not going up to uh they're not charging us for for the cost of their whole system. They're charging us for the cost of the transmission infrastructure. So, um anyway, uh so that's uh basically the the only uh item that that is under dispute right now. Uh we've met continuously for six months. Uh the beach associations uh the town of uh the town of O line

WPCA and the town of O line being represented by Jim Lampost has uh hammered out all the wording uh except for that one area. But uh at this point I would like to to to uh recognize Jim Lampos who's been nice enough to attend this meeting to discuss uh the CSA changes that uh he fought and and got in to help better represent the town. So Jim,

thank you Steve. Um yeah, so this process in negotiating the CSA uh we worked with uh the four parties. Old Colony, Old Limeshore is Miami Beach and the town. Uh Steve and I representing the town, Scott Bellinger at Miami Beach. uh Frank Noi, uh Doug Whan in Old Colony along with their attorney uh Humes and Sharky and uh Jerry Vander oh get his last name Jerry and Old Lime Shores and um Jay Moyahan in Old Lime Shores and uh it it was a long process. We went into this process or I went into it with uh three provisions that we wanted to see that would make the process more fair for Sound View. Um there were a lot of objections raised to the initial edu calculation that is baked into the new London IMA agreement um and exists as exhibit B in this agreement. Uh so one of the major things that we were able to achieve is an exhibit C uh which indicates that our operations and maintenance fees will be based on flow or what we actually use rather than our .DU calculation. That'll begin at year three after the end of two years. The reason being we won't have a good idea of what flow is until that point. uh but in at the end of two years uh the edus essentially will go away and our charges at that point for operations and maintenance uh to New London and to the system in general will be based on

our water use. So it'll be based on what we actually use. Uh, another thing that we talked about that has been included uh is expansion of the system. If the system is expanded to anywhere else, four mile river, Hawks Nest or what have you, that expansion will have to be self-funding. We won't be responsible for paying for that expansion. we won't pay a share of that expansion since we've paid 100% of this project. Um and thirdly, we have uh the Sound View representative is something that we thought was very important. Uh so the construction committee uh includes a representative who lives in Sound View and that person will be representing the town uh on the construction committee. So specifically uh uh section 2.1C talks about the sound view representative uh 3.1A talks about cost operations and maintenance being based on flow after year two and section five um the expan speaks to the expansion or potential expansion of the system what those conditions would be. So, um I feel pretty good that we got what we were looking for, uh going into this and it it wasn't easy, but uh you know, everyone came together on it. Um, one thing that is outstanding as Steve mentioned is 2.1A section 7, uh, concerning the cost share or the, uh, cost of the seven properties in area B tying into Old Colony and two properties in Miami tying into uh, two properties

in area B tying into Miami. Um, this was an issue that came up at the very last CSA meeting. was raised by Frank Noey at Old Colony. Um, and sort of came out of nowhere for me. Uh, and we do not have agreement on that particular item. So, that will be exhibit E, uh, attached to this CSA and that remains outstanding. Steve just spoke to that. Um, and I just want to make sure, Steve, that when we were talking about the .edu EU share of old colony that we're only talking about the internal infrastructure since those properties are already paying their fair share of the shared infrastructure. So, uh anyway, I I I do not I am not ready to give an opinion on that because I haven't seen that language. Uh I've have not been part of that negotiation. It came up briefly in one of our meetings. Uh but we have not been negotiating that and that is still being worked on. Uh otherwise um personally I'm ready to sign off on this CSA on all terms and um and sections uh apart from this area B. Uh I think we have a good agreement whether we agree with sewers or not. I think the cost sharing agreement is fair um between the town and the beaches. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. John Jim, you made you made a comment on um based on outflow, but you did bring up water usage,

right? Water usage. So, so typically uh the way right the way uh there's two ways you could uh measure usage and one of them would be to have meters at the pump station or meters coming out each party

uh and that was determined to be uh a very expensive option and uh an option with high maintenance. The other way you could do it and I can speak to utilities does it this way. um you measure water use um and that would be you know assuming that almost all of your water goes down the drain into the sewer system. Uh so that would be an indication of your use of the system. So, we would be using Connecticut water meter data and uh for the few homes that are on wells, we would be using uh meters on those wells to determine what the use of each um each party is.

And there there is a flow meter leaving the station that will measure. So people are okay with that because again if if you if again being a homeowner I've been through this. I had a separate unit set up because I had a garden and it's that didn't go down in the sewer. It went into the in out into the garden. That's I mean so I'm just saying people have got to understand that it's it's water usage or water intake is whatever they bring bring bring coming in they're going to they're going to get it part of the usage whether it's going down and out into the garden or it's going down into a sewer [clears throat]

right I mean there's you know and some houses will actually have wells that would not be attached to the house some houses have well simply for watering lawns first need to It is. Okay. Um just a clarification just a clarification

just a clarification the first two years are based on our edu percentage. So the first two years will be 29.7%. Now the other thing you have to realize is when we talk about flow and and uh metering it's a cumulative we're adding up a cumulative value to determine our percentage within the four WPCAS. We're not that each WPCA can bill their customers as they deemed fit, but if the bill to New London is $500,000, they'll have to pay percentage based on flow of that $500,000. Okay.

Right. Go ahead, Mary, please. Okay. Thank you. U this is more for Jim if you don't mind. When you say that it's based on flow after two years, does that mean that there's an opportunity to also reduce the contractual fees, the connection fees since they're based on a certain flow, which we know we're never going to exceed. It's like five times what Connecticut Water says we use today. So, will there be also a reduction in the contractual fees?

That would be my first question. And second, if people, as you say, as John also pointed out, not all water will go down the sewer, some water is used outside for irrigation or washing a boat or whatever. Um, so if people choose, even if they have Connecticut water to install at their own cost a sewer meter, will that be applicable? Will that be used instead of Connecticut water? Thirdly, for the sewer u sewage meters, I think at one point that we decided and had had been voted on that those meters for wells would be included in the cost of the um edus in the overall project that it wouldn't be build or uh be the responsibility of the homeowner. So do we have an estimate of what that sewer meter would cost and how it's going to be maintained and read? Uh most of the meters will be Connecticut water meters that are existing currently on people's properties. Uh and as you correctly point out, some properties have um wells and so a meter will have to be installed on that well. Uh that's not something that's addressed specifically in this CFA. Um, I think that's something that's decided within the WPCA, the old lime WPCA, and how that's going to be handled. Um,

we we've already we've already discussed that and have included that as a construction cost uh for the WPCA, not the homeowner. Um, and in terms of a sewer meter, uh, again, that's that's something, you know, I'm not sure, uh, how that would work, uh, in terms of, uh, comparing apples to apples with different houses. People could, you know, we could really start splitting hairs on, you know, uh, washing the car versus what goes down the drain. Um, I know that a lot of utilities do use water flow. Uh, and as I said, you know, the where I am right now in Graten, my restaurant, my parents house, it's your sewer bill is triggered by your water use basically. Um, so we don't have anything specifically in the CSA uh about that. Um, but

as a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, we're we're locked in to inflow metering and inflow because really you can't s you can't meter super. You can't meter. It's almost impossible because it's not under pressure and so it's an open pipe flow and it's like almost and especially at a really small amount coming out of a house. You just can't do it. Not accurately. Now what I what I have a feeling will h what I have a feeling

what will happen is that uh total outflow let's say is a million gallons and uh I'm I'm sorry total outflow is 900,000 gallons and total inflow uh meaning what people needer is a million gallons. I have a feeling that uh you know that 100,000 gallons isn't isn't being used. And so uh I have a feeling that once you get that percentage, you would bill everyone 90% of what their what their inflow is um and split it between everyone so that the percentage is 90%. But uh you know some people may water their garden every day and they they will end up contributing a little more than someone that doesn't. But uh that's just the way it is. There's there's no other way of metering. Uh

well because you are going to have to meter some of them that don't that are on wells. So you will be Yeah, we're going to meter the well, Mary. We're going to meter the well. There'll be a meter on the well that will measure that will measure info. So on the other

go ahead Jim. Yeah, to to to address another question you raised, Mary, um share of the contractual amount, um the initial connection charges to New London and East Lime are a fixed charge and they've already been um negotiated in that IMA and I think that we're stuck with paying um I mean the town has its own its own calculation that's in that IMA contract. contract for what it owes. So that's fixed. But um after year two when we have good data on flow uh the rest of it will be based on what's actually used. So the uh charges coming out of New London are triggered by uh what is actually flowing out of old lime in the aggregate. Um and so our share would be based on what our um percentage is of that total flow based on measured flow in our community. Uh so the aggregate amount of water being used in Sound View will be what determines um the charges coming out of New London and East Lime both in terms of um use charges and in terms of shares of capital expense etc etc because all of that is based on on flow. So all of this is going to the edus will go away with the exception of um this initial construction um that is set as we know and u the contractual uh connection charges to New London and East Lime since those are set in the IMA but the rest of it is based on on flow. So um in New London uh the charges out of New London are triggered by uh what's

actually coming out of old lime and so those charges will be aortioned based on what each community actually uses and not what the edu charges uh divided up as. Now thank you.

I just just have one more comment. Um since you brought up the the new addition and compensation to old colony um sharing pipes. If I recall correctly, the reason why we shared pipes to begin with or design was that there were there were for the um nine properties that would have required grinder pumps, you would have had to dig a little deeper in order to keep the uh sound view pipes separate. And it wasn't really stimulated to share pipes because of those properties as much as a few properties in Miami Beach who couldn't access their pipes. Do you recall that Steve? Because it was your statement at that time. It was in I think it was

Okay. It was in 2023. I can go back through the I think you I think you have I think you have some pipe mixed up. Really? Okay. talking about the shared the trunk plate. No, we're not. I mean, I was I think back then. I'm not now, but uh back then uh we're we're sharing we are sharing uh a a a trunk line with Miami Beach at the end of uh Pond Pond Street or Pond whatever. Pond Bond Road. Pond Road.

Pond Road. Um there's there's I don't know 300 feet or 400 feet that we would have had parallel lines to. Um and we decided to combine those uh into one um which will share the cost 50/50 with Miami Beach. Um it would be crazy for both of us to put the same line in. But that's not what these are concerning. These are concerning uh areas where grinder pumps would have to be installed because in order to when you say, "Oh, there's a little elevation difference." There is a little elevation difference at the far end. uh it would have been about a foot to a foot and a half. But that would have meant that all of our pipe would have had to have been laid uh a foot to a foot and a half deeper, which gets it into uh the 10-ft area of depth, which is a kind of a a kind of delineator in the business where uh the cost to put an eight foot pipe in, eight foot deep pipe in versus a 10 foot pe may may go up $50 uh $60 a foot. Um, so it was deemed important to keep us as shallow as possible. That's why those uh uh homes were going to have grinder pumps. Um, we don't have to adjust our our design system at all. Uh, and we can tie them into O colony because they're slightly deeper. Um, and Miami Beach because they are deeper than we are. Um, so that's why these these nine homes are being considered or seven homes. It it removed nine grinder pumps, the infrastructure for the nine grinder pumps, the maintenance on nine grinder pumps for years. So, it it's

[clears throat] a you know, I I think the $53,000 and whatever we would owe Miami Beach uh for the two is certainly uh a a good investment for Old Line and it, you know, it doesn't affect Old Colony at all. Old Colony is going to build their system the way it is anyway. So, they just get a little offset on their costs. Um Okay. Thank you. I was just uh I thought I remember you saying that was more to uh Miami Beach couldn't access their pipes. There was a couple homes over there, but I'll go back and look at that. Um I've lost my thought.

Let me just let me just say that I I remember the discussion and the fact is at the end of the day over time it saves not only the endusers money, it also saves the project money over time. Question. the $56,000 increase is that whatever whatever if you're proposing that to be charged to the project as a whole or um or to those particular properties project as a whole it's project expense

that's just wondering my last question on that is since the New London and East Lime agreement stipulate a percentage this does increase percentage of usage and maintenance that would be billable to sound view. Would those contracts therefore have to be rewritten because they are very specific in their costs and percentages in both of those contracts? No, I don't believe so. Okay.

Jimmy, you want to weigh in on that? So the way you know and again this this is the one part of the CSA that was last minute um and I was not involved in that. Um that was I believe was between you uh Steve and um Frank Noi and Steve Humes if if I'm not mistaken. Um so that conversation was yeah

conversation. Yeah. Um, my impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that this is a one-time charge of $53,000 that covers all seven homes and will be divided among essentially be added to Sound View's cost. Operations and maintenance would continue um the fees would continue to be under Sound View, right?

So, this is a one-time hit basically. Um and and and again until I see the numbers and we talked about Steve getting numbers of what grinder pumps would have cost, we have comparables in there. Uh and we can make, you know, appropriate decision, but I haven't seen the language yet, so I'm holding off on rendering an opinion on that.

Um right. So, uh does anyone else have any comments? Right. So if if someone could could uh provide a motion to uh approve authorizing signature of the CSA uh subject to minor changes uh and we could put in there and approval of the town line. Um if we could have a motion that that would reflect that. on and second and we can vote on whether I will make a motion.

Okay. So, Demetri, you're making a motion to authorize uh the chair to sign the revised CSA subject to minor changes and with approval of the town of O line. Yes. Okay. Is there a second? Oh, second. Okay. Randy Nixon seconds. Of course, we should have discussion now, but we never do that. Um I can ask a question. Sure. Is it the chair that's going to sign it and not the selectman? The chair will sign it for the town of Oland WPCA. Okay. The first select will sign it for the town of

um so uh any other questions or comments? I just have to ask since we just received the revisions today, how many here have actually had an opportunity to read the 32 pages that we received this afternoon? Because I certainly haven't. I was at work and have family commitments tonight. So, I have not had a chance to read the cautionary agreement that you're asking to approve. Has everyone else read it? I'd like to know who on the WPCA has had time today to read through the the CSA.

I see three hands. Corey, John, Randy, Dimmitri. Um I have um and uh you know I want I mean there there were revisions that were made on this this morning. Uh you know it's a working document. They're minor revisions, but they're they I had to I had to certainly [clears throat] at least include Mike Batello's uh uh comments and changes to to the CSA because it it actually does change some of the funding mechanisms. Uh but they're not they don't affect our bottom line. It just affects the document. Um

there were not significant changes since the last iteration. No no there it's all wording. I mean obviously important words for a lot of attorneys but for us when you read it it's basically the same document 29.7%. Um, I am very uncomfortable approving a document that I haven't had time to read or really the opportunity to read it since I worked all day. And I would feel, you know, I think that everybody on this board should have that same consideration. I mean, you haven't read the document, you should be voting on it. That's my opinion.

Well, it's that most of the people in this room that voted raised their read it. I put my read more people said they read it. Okay. So, uh All right. Well, that's your Thank you very much for your opinion. Uh are there any other comments?

All right. Um Dennis has his hand up. I didn't see you. Okay. Yes, Dennis.

Okay. Question. uh this little addition all of a sudden um at the at the bitter end of the CSA old colony decides this is what they want to add in all of a sudden. I I'm wondering why what's the what's the impetus for them to do it now that they didn't do it a year ago or a year and a half ago? Can you answer that? Uh I can't speak for old colony. Uh it was out there. Um we had discussed it uh when when we were getting rid of grinder pumps. Uh but it was more of a uh more of a we'll work something out thing. Uh it wasn't what what Frank wants. That's for sure. Um, I mean, we are saving money and I'm not I'm not denying that old old line is saving money. Uh, not put in grinder pops. Um, but even if we're saving money, I don't believe we should be giving all those savings to Frank or to Old Colony as as as a tie-in fee. The tie-in fee that I believe is fair um is what I presented uh today to to Fussen O'Neal and Old Colony and the rest of the beach associations and uh I believe that's a fair tiein fee. It's based basically on what East Lions for us. So, uh, you know, it's going to be reviewed, uh, and, uh, they'll either accept it or they won't. I mean,

I just want to echo Mary's thought, you know, um, I got this at quarter after 6 and I'm just trying I'm trying was sent out this afternoon. Well, yeah, but you know, um un unless it was in um uh a text form, I have to go I have to go through my emails to find it. So, that's when I found it. And I I think it we're just not doing it justice just to get uh the CSA um uh signed. If if Jim Jim had if Jim has any reservations, I have I have just as many reservations.

Jim doesn't have any reservations over over the addition. Jim doesn't have any reservations. Jim does not have any reservations over the document. He he's over the CSA. Wait a minute. Over the CSA. Over the CSA.

The the new the new edition I haven't rendered an opinion on yet because I haven't seen the language. Um everything with the exception of this new area B old colony uh situation I I I'm signing off on personally. Um that doesn't mean that everyone has to sign off on it. Obviously, everyone comes to their own conclusion, but my conclusion with the exception of the area B situation, which is still up in the air. Um, you know, I'm I'm comfortable with the rest of the document.

And, and Jim, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're not if you're not uh that's why I structured or or requested this vote to be structured that way. If you're not comfortable with uh uh exhibit E, you won't be signing or the town probably won't be signing the document. Is that correct? Uh it I I I don't want to commit the town one way or another until we actually see the language, right, and have the comment

as a WPCA, the way this uh vote structured, we can't sign it unless the town signs, right? I I would be if if uh Frank and old Colony stick by their original uh demand that these seven houses pay a full edu. Uh that would be a deal breaker for me personally because I think that's just unfair. But a deal breaker obviously was a deal breaker for me. Yeah. So we'll see where it ends up. Right. So, uh, any other comments?

Just one last question. Steve, did you just receive this document today? Is that why we only got it? I got I got this document, uh, today from Mike Patello and the changes to the CSA, this exhibit E or whatever. You just received that today. No, I'm still working on exhibit E with Fussen O'Neal in Ok. Okay. I'm just wondering because you know I had asked you if there was some documents to send them. I had asked you earlier like last week to send them so we could review but I just received it this afternoon as well. I know that. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other comments?

Not hearing any. I'd like to call a vote. Um, all in favor of authorizing uh the chairman's signature uh to the CSA after approval by uh or in conjunction with approval by the town uh please say I I I I opposed. No. All right. Dennis is unmute yourself. Dennis Dennis Dennis are you Dennis? What did you say? No. No. Okay. And no,

I'm still waiting through that. You were kind enough to for me to get a of the a cop initial draft. So, this coming so late today, I'm going to have to vote no until I can fully digest all the uh information. Okay. John, you're a voting member. So, one, two, three, four, five. Six. Six. Six in favor. Uh opposed are Mary, Brian, and Dennis.

Can you please name the six in favor? Thank you. Six in favor. Corey, Rob, uh, Dmitri, Randy, John, Brad, and that itself. I I don't know unless there's a tie. Yeah.

Um, so it passes six to three. Um, thank you very much. Uh, this should be a little easier. everyone hopefully received uh a meeting schedule for uh next next year. We have to have this in by December to the town. Um these are basically one day less than last year except I believe uh November. Uh November is the 10th. Veterans Day is the 11th. There shouldn't be any interruption there. And I believe there was one other day that was a little earlier. uh like a week earlier, but I forget. Um they're basically the second Tuesday of every month. Uh 7:30. Any discussion? Well, can we have a motion to accept this uh meeting calendar?

So moved. Is second. Randy Randy uh Randy was uh uh proposed uh it was seconded by Corey first. Um any discussion on this uh schedule? Not hearing any. Uh can I have uh call the uh motion? Uh all in favor? I I oppose. The motion passes unanimously.

All right. Um let's see. Old business. Uh there's an item here. It reminded me uh uh about about um whether we need to vote on whether to include the New London and East Line connection fees as a user fee or part of the assessment. And I I I just want to state a couple of reasons why we had originally said they were user fees and then we can have discussion. Um, well, actually, can I have a motion to place the new London Eastine connection fees as a user fee?

Rob, uh, Rob proposed the motion. A second.

Randy seconded. So, now discussion. So, I'll give you a little background. The connection fees are not reimburseable by CWF. You can't get 25%. You can't even get a loan. They will not lend money for those connection fees. Those connection fees are considered uh I forget what Carlo said. Cap capital capital expenditure. I don't know what what but they're not subject to any type of funding by CWF. uh uh it's it's a fee that is paid by us. Um it's [clears throat] we have been granted a basically a line of credit from East Lime in New London to pay this on a yearly basis financed at 2% by East Lime at 2.625% by New London. Because of those two things and because the state doesn't really give guidance on whether they have to be in the assessment fee or in a user fee, we decided to put it into a user fee because there's no it's it's paid on an as you go basis. Um so if if someone lives in their house for 10 years and sells it, they pay 10 years of of that fee. uh and then the next person will pay whatever they they they do it up until 20 years at what time it gets renegotiated. There's always going to be it's not a tie in fee but there'll always be user fees to London in each line but it won't be a tie-in fee at that point. It'll just be based on uh treatment but so over time after 20 years the tyin fee goes away. the tie-in fee goes that way. Okay.

But there still be component of user fees and and other you know treatment fees and everything else. All right. So that's that's why we placed it as a user fee instead of an assessment. And just so everyone understands the difference between us and the beaches, 100% of the beaches population will pay the assessment or the user. It doesn't really matter where they put that. It it's going to be paid 100% by their users. Um and so the beaches said, "I'll just throw it in the assessment. I don't care. It's easier." Plus, I believe uh they have if you put it in the assessment, you have rights if they don't pay it, such as foreclosure rights or whatever because it's an assessment and not a user fee. Um, we decide not to go that way, but I just need a vote one way or the other. I think it should be user fee, but I'd like to hear from uh everyone on the board here.

Hey, I'll go if I can. This is Mary. Sure.

First of all, there was never a vote ever to include the the contraction fees to the user fees. We went through this like two months ago and last month we did vote unanimously, I think, to accept the accountants figures which includes the contractual fees in the EDO. We just voted on that last month. So there you have those two. My third objection to not including them in the in the assessment fees is that the as you said these are payments due to East Lime in New London when the first drop of sewage goes to New London reaches New London. We may only have 10% of our community hooked up at that time but those connection fees will be due quarterly the first quarter and after the first year. So, where will the money come from to pay those fees if they're not part of the assessment? It may take 10 years for some people to make their connection. And in the meantime, where will the money come to pay that that person or that household's connection fees? So, it doesn't make sense to me to call them user fees when you yourself just said that they're considered part of the capital expenditures. You just said that. So for me, no, they should be in they should not be part of the user fees. They should be part of, as you just said, considered part of the capital expenditure enrolled into the assessment. Thank you.

Is there any other comment? Do do those fees not also affect EDUs? And again, I'm still the new kid on the block, but I'm trying to digest this. That that still affects the EDUs, too, right? So would it not make more sense to put those costs and make it part of um yeah part of construction?

I'm not a pro boss. So, but again, Mary made a comment about the accounts report about being part of the .edu. I think they said we would it you can calculate it per EDU. It's not it's footnoted as per EDU. It's not in the construction costs. Remember what what what that what what we said was there's a construction cost and then there's these other fees and we're going to say they're per UEDU but they're not part of the construction. We said we're going to add all these things up so we get apples to apples but whether they're construction or usage right

is very different. We but we said that we would line them all up so we could see that. [clears throat] So it's it doesn't it we didn't say they're going to be part of the construction. We're going to say this we're g when we talk about apples to apples so someone can see what they're it's going to cost them. We would we would correct we would see that we included all the cost. Yes. There are cost. We didn't we didn't say it's going to be in this bucket or that bucket. John, we said we would accept the accountant's numbers and her number was 280. No, we we said we took No,

we we said the the accountants reference of what we include them as. We didn't say it's part of construction. We said when we present this, it's going to be this, this, this, and this. I think there were four categories to be to be clear, Mary, to be clear, the construction costs were only the construction costs. There are the contract values added up divided by 270 and then financed at 2%. That was all the construction costs that the accountant it was 1950 plus 250 plus 150 plus another there.

There were four things. The construction costs also include the engineering, the interest, etc. Right. But you I I mean I thought the .edu was supposed to be the capital expenditure cost. Is that correct? So it's not just the bid costs. It's everything related to construction, anything related to the capital expenditure for this project. Is that correct?

No. No. Like you just said that the four other things were user. Jim, please tie in because this ties in the accountants and it ties into your numbers and you and Steve agreed on the numbers and it ended up at I don't know 22 $2,200 per edu but part of it was construction part of it was this part of it was that

we agreed to 20 we agreed last year last last month at 2805 right for total total Total cost per edu. Total cost per edu. So that that that was based on four components. As John says it was construction costs and construction costs Mary include the engineering cost. It includes the inspection cost. It includes those are construction costs. Anything associated with con they include the design fees. Right? After that there came user fees and after that there came tie-in fees right

and then I forget what the third one was fourth one I think it was the line cost then

but oh maybe it was internal uh but but those those so we voted that those numbers seemed reasonable they came close to gyms they came close to mine but we didn't categorize those numbers as being in construction we just said those costs cost added up would be the cost per edit but and anyway won't that change now since we do know now that the force man and bioxide array maker backed out maybe in June we don't know when but we do know they backed out and Baltazar is now the sole bidder on the force manide for an additional 1.2 a million. Don't all these numbers have chang. Yeah, of course it of course of course it changes. Of course it changes the 2805. But we agreed last week that 2805 was the number we were going to use publicly.

Well, that was number one when we thought I'm sorry, but that's what we agreed on. That's what we agreed on. I was forced to vote on that. I was forced to vote on the numbers that the accountant was given as confirmed bids. I didn't the account did his own investigation. Oh boy. I'm not going to keep arguing this. If you want to vote, vote. Thanks. I've raised my issue. Okay. Thank you. Just to clarify question, the user fees or the connection fees are not included in the referendum amount.

No. Well, I don't know. Well, we have to wait till we have to wait till the next item, but yes, the the assess th those connection fees. Uh Mike Battello has added money either way, but even our bond council said it doesn't have to be included in the in the referendum amount, but if you want to be saved, include it. Well, just because you're saying as as it's explained that they're being paid as user fees over time. So, it's really not part of the referendum if the referendum is construction predominantly

predominantly construction plus plus uh other other scenar to to to uh this this we will be in our referendum. He said, "Don't Mike Mike believes that whether we include them in user fees or assessment, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change his figures." So, I would imagine that he's already accounted for those as being included in in either the assessment or not. I I just want to know how you're going to pay that bill in the first year or two if you're not included in the assessment and only 10% of the Sound View community hooks up and you're calling it a user fee. You can't charge them a user fee if they're not hooked up, right?

We can still we can still charge users. Who's going to pay for the infrastructure? Who who's going to pay No, wait. Who's going to pay for the bill that that goes to uh uh that comes from New London on on a quarterly basis?

That's what I'm saying exactly. If it's part of the construction, part of the edu, part of the assessment, then everyone pays toward that bill, the contractual fees. If it's not, always go and pay it because you can't charge it if you call it a user fee. You can't charge it to an empty lot. You can't charge it to my house if my house isn't connected. If I'm not a user, where will you get the money for the first quarter, second quarter, in the year end in the first one or two or three, four years? You won't have the money unless you include the connection fees in the betterment fee in the assessment. All right, that makes sense. Right.

Go ahead, Dimmitri. All right. There is also will be connection fees to every house that homeowner will pay. Correct. So we have New London connection. We have Islam connection and homeowner connection his house to the sou which also money will be by you. Correct. That'll be on next month's agenda. Well, but we have to predict it. What's what's going to happen? I think Mary has a point. I think at this point we have to consider it.

And I'd like to clarify uh the accountants report that we're using as the basis of our numbers. Uh that included construction engineering design. It included um short-term financing fees. It included uh connection to New London and East Lime uh and then additionally user fees and user fees

and and user fees. What it did not include is the new bid from well it's not really a bid. It's a negotiated number between deep and baltazar uh for the shared force main and bioxide station because uh Ray Maker has dropped out and they have come up with an agreement with Baltazar to do it for $12,000. I mean $12 million uh as opposed to 9.5 or whatever Ray Makers was. So that's not reflected in the accountant's fees and uh whatever other um inflation costs we'll be paying for the pump station or for our internal [snorts] from Colona. I understand we have some credits from Colona and there'll be some inflation. So whatever that final number ends up being. Um but

again that final number right now is 400,000 less than the bid. Yeah. that the the the new shared number is is not part of uh correct

not not part of the accountants numbers. So it's going to go up not dramatically but it will go up by $2 and a half million dollars spread out among the four parties. The other thing that will come into play is if uh as I'm hearing and Steve you probably know more about this the 15 million is applied completely to the shared which reduces our subsidy from 20 from 29.7 of the as we've been told right along we would get of the 15 million it actually reduces the subsidy for sound view by $75,000 I believe. No, it doesn't, Mary. If you do the math correctly, it if you do the math correctly, it saves us $1.5 million.

And how do you figure that, Steve?

So, if if it were 20 million, it's a little over 20 million, but let's say it's 20 million. There's a 25% uh CWF grant, which brings it down to 15 million. And then the 15 million pays that whole loan off. So then all we do is finance our internal infrastructure at 8.55 million or n let's say 9.55 million at at 75% because we still have a 25% grant. That brings us down to 7 million and change. I was asking for 8.55. We I was saying we were going to have to finance 8.55 million. So, it's saving us I mean, if you go through the numbers and not mess around with what it is now or whatever, uh, it's saving us $1.5 million.

I I I have to go sit down and run the math myself to get that because that would be a good idea because I math. I have. And I I mean, just logically, we were at 29.7. So, you said for this forgivable loan. Yeah. So, we owe nothing. Now, we're at 25%. Yeah. No, no, no, no. We own basically we would owe nothing for internal infrastructure. Nothing. We don't owe we owe 29% of zero. I mean I think it's going to be $1.2 million or whatever. But plus the engineering again like I'm not going to argue this. I'm just going to sit there and do myself. Yeah, I did the numbers.

Yeah. Well, Steve, from the last numbers I saw from Mike Patello and um Deep, the shared was going to be 26 million basically for applying 25% clean water funds and 15 million uh forgivable loan. We still have a $5 million shortfall in that that will be divided among the four beach associations,

which is one point about 1.5 1.5 or 1.7 million. That's that's correct. However, however, the the DEF has put 6% contingency on that. There there's a lot of there's a lot of money in there that that it that's for referendum. That's not the contract value. The contract value, I think, is uh 21 million and then there's another 2 million in in engineering fees that have to be split. So, it's 23 million. Like I said, it's not it's not 20 million, but I guess my my point was that we make out if they pay off the shared infrastructure. We the more they pay on the shared infrastructure, the better the town of old line is as far as not expending money. Now, if you want to if you if you want to allocate it the way they did, my figure showed that it was 8.55 million that we would have to finance. And if you got rid of all of that and had our figure at 9 something million less 25% it came down to 72 million 7.1 million. We saved about a million and a half dollars. It was a better deal for us. That's why I wouldn't fight it. If that's how they they want to finance that, that's better for us. But, you know, I I I've done the numbers. Um, I don't believe I've been wrong in any of my calculations, uh, in my presentations. I'm pretty confident of that number also. So, if they do do that, we're better off. Um, I I believe. But, um, I I'm still confused on how they're going to actually fund that. And I think the Deep is is a little confused on how they're going to fund it. But if they do fund it, it's apparent to me now that if they fund it at all, there's still going to be at

least $2 million or $2.5 million outstanding of which we would owe 29.7%. So we wouldn't be in essence getting 29.7 of the grant, but we still be responsible for 29.7.

Interesting. We would depending on how they finance it. If they finance, if they put the all the 15 million to uh shared infrastructure, we would be responsible for 29.7% of the balance remaining after CWF funding and $15 million grant. But let's go back to uh connection fees, whether we want them as user fees or assessment costs. I think Mary brings up a good point that you know you start billing people immediately on assessment cost whereas if you're a user fee uh you may not be able to bill in the first year or two. So,

three or four that could put us in a bit of a jam, right? And I'm no mathematician. I don't I I think there's going to be a user fee to everyone whether they hook up or not, but that's my opinion. [clears throat]

There's other costs. I mean, you're using the pump station. Am I only going to bill? So, so the pump station is being used and number one, I believe in our ordinance you have to hook up. I I mean I believe somewhere we've we've already said you have to hook up within a year but uh unless you get permission not to but even if that weren't the case there's there is a certain set cost that I don't think like if two people hook up and our bill is $200,000 are we are we going to expect two people to carry $200,000? I I don't I don't think that's the case. Um, I think that there there is there's we we owe 29% of the electrical bill on the pump station. We owe 29% of rent. We owe 29% of all of that stuff for two years. Um, there will be a user fee regardless of whether you're hooked up or not.

Do that. Then there'll be a fee of to people in South View in area B. Um whether they hook up or not. I don't think you can do that, but okay. Okay. So, maybe we should put it right in the assessment so everyone pays it right off the bat. I think you're I think you're right there, Mary. I think that's a good idea. What the is it currently in the assessment? We apparently we've never decided where that where that's going to go. That's why I'd like a vote. What was that motion exactly? Go back to the motion.

Yeah. So, I'm going to I'm going to go back. So, so the motion the motion is is to include uh New London and East connection fees into our user fee. Um is there any more discussion? Right. Uh not hearing any. I'd like to call the motion. So now, if you vote yes, it means that it's going to be included in user fee. If you vote no, we'll have to have another motion to include it in assessment cost. Um, all in favor of of it being in user fees. No. Yay. I hear yay, Brad.

Anyone else? All right. Um, so the motion uh all all not in favor say nay. Nay. Nay. All right. So, the motion fails 8 to one with Brad being the uh the center. Um, can we entertain another vote or another motion to to include East New London East Line uh as as part of the assessment cost? I'll make a motion. Demetri made the motion seconded by Second.

Rob. Uh, do we need further discussion on this motion? I think you need to word it so that it says the action fees. I I don't think your motion says that. Uh the motion uh being considered is to have New London Eastline connection fees included as part of the assessment costs. Do we need more discussion on this?

Not hearing any. I'd like to call a motion. Can I say something? Can I say something as an outside? You can't. You cannot say anything. I'm getting tired of not saying nothing. I mean, you're going to say another assessment. You cannot say anything. How about put put a dollar amount on it? How How about How about not interrupting the meeting? How's that? Uh, showing respect. Uh, all in favor of including New London Nissan connection fees as part of the assessment, please say I.

I. All opposed. Brad, are you opposed or or I'm sorry, I'm four. Apologize. Sorry.

Four. Okay. Uh, all right. So, so the motion passes unanimously. So the the New London Nissan connection fees will be part of uh the assessment costs. All right. So uh as Mary brought up uh Jim brought up, I knew um there have been some uh uh contractors that have not extended their bids any further than they have. Uh the deep has has worked out funding or or contract values with Baltazar. Um uh let's see uh and Mike Battello has come up with these numbers which was sent to me today at 8:21 a.m. Uh I would like to agree he goes based on Deep's latest numbers which I provided to you last Friday. The total project cost would be 19,321,565 uh minus uh well forget about the minus part because uh we have to include the total project cost. So, he's suggesting or he's he's requesting that uh well, he's he's actually going to use $19,321 uh $321 uh $321,565 as as the amount that we go out to referendum. Um [clears throat] an update on a referendum. uh we won't have a bidder as of the end of this year and so the town has found uh a way of having a referendum uh this this year uh

tenatively December 16th. Um they're going to have a meeting uh special meeting right before the board of finance. I think uh at that meeting they're going to uh they're going to recommend going out to referendum. I think the board of finance will do the same and this will be the number that's placed in the referendum notice and will be voted on. Um it's there's a lot of contingency money in there. Uh there's uh almost 2 million 10%. Uh there's well 11% there's 5% 6%. So, uh, so I believe that, uh, you know, 19 19,321,565 is is certainly uh the number that our bond council feels comfortable with uh, in which we would not uh, go above that number in our projected cost. So, I'd like a motion uh to increase the referendum request uh or amount to 19,321,565.

That motion McCarthy made the motion. A second. Oh, sorry. Uh any seconds. Uh is there any discussion? I just have one question. Just one question please. So excluded from that 19321 is the user fees. Any other thing besides the connection fee from the street to the uh property? Is there any other thing excluded from that 19 million 321? There is there is nothing excluded from this number in which affects the the project cost of old line.

Uh so to be more specific the user fees the connection fees from the house to the street are not included. Is there anything else not included

that you can think of? Anything else? I what I'm saying is all of the costs associated with the Oline WPCA installing its internal infrastructure and shared infrastructure as shown on the respective plans is included in this number as well as all the engineering design contingency and hookup uh and and client fees to the London in any slot. Okay. Thank you. So all the book bookkeeping auditing

over the years everything's been factored into that 19 million 321.

Sure. Steve, did he include short-term financing in that? Uh Mike did include short-term financing. I think it was $230,000, $240,000, something like that. Okay, Steve, you mentioned uh 11% contingency. I read 6%. They don't add the other 5% that we had before, right? So on Mike's letter,

it's 6% contingency for the shared infrastructure and 5% contingency for the internal infrastructure. Since I'm combining both projects to equal 19,321,565, that would combine both uh percentages to 11%. Okay. Well, no, no, because the 6% only applies to one part of it and the 5% it's 5 and a half and half% about 5 and a half% contingency.

But it's not 11%. It's not% 5% contingency. It's six It's six It's 6% of the share and 5% for ours. Right. Not 11%. Correct. It's gone 11%. Yeah, you're absolutely right. Thank you. Is there any other u discussion? Not hearing any. Uh I'll I'll call this motion. Uh all in favor to increase the referendum amount to 19321,565. Uh please indicate by saying I

I I I All opposed. Opposed. Opposed.

Okay. Uh motion passes six to three. Uh Brian uh Mary and Dennis are the uh are the uh opposition vote. No vote. That ends that um the last item uh is correspondence. Uh just go over my chairman's letter. Uh I handed my resignation effective December 31st of this year. I believe I've accomplished uh everything that I've set out to do or I will have by December 31st. Um and I have other things I'd like to pursue in my uh personal life, but uh it's been a privilege to serve the town and uh I thank everyone for your patience. May I have a motion to adjourn? motion.

No public comments. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Well, there is no public comment on here. Um, I'm not not necessarily I don't have to have public comment. But really, you should you should I don't have to have public comment. However, however, if I could have a motion to amend the uh uh I'll move second. Second. Okay, we can have public comment. Oh, all in favor? I All oppose. All right, we can have public comment.

Um, who out there would like to make a public comment?

I would. Um, this is Bill Reynolds from Gorton Nav Extension Area B. I really have questions and I don't understand really what that whole exhibit E is. 25 years ago I bought a house in Old Lime, not in Old Lime Shores, not in Old Colony, not in Miami Beach, a town of Old Lime. So to all of a sudden have Frank Noey decide that he's going to have my house as part of the sewer, his sewer project, is infuriating. I don't know what that means. If for some reason the referendum fails and old colony then says that they're going to do it themselves with all I'm shores, does that mean I'll be one of the few town the first town person to be part of a sewer project? There's just too many questions with that um whole exhibit E that same with the edu. So now I'm going to have an edu for old colony and possibly another one for sound view. There's way too many questions. It sounds like area B once again is getting the

I don't know the worst case scenario here. Yeah. The reason area B the reason area B got brought into this years ago was because Hawk Nest backed out and they needed more revenue. Now that there's a chance Miami there's a chance the town Frank know he's looking for more revenue so he's just grabbing our house and you're allowing that to happen or potentially to happen. Infuriating,

right? So, that's not that's not the case. I'll have to respond to this because I think you've misinterpreted everything. Um, that's not the case. Uh, Frank wants to charge a tie-in fee for us to use his pipe that he's putting in already. If we don't hook up, then there is no cost to you or anyone else. If we don't have a system, we can't get your flow into his pipe. So, number one, we would have to do the project ourselves in order for that to occur. Number two, I feel it's a project cost that would be borne by uh borne by all of uh the people in South View area B, not one particular person or nine separate individuals. It's a project cost. It saves us money. So I don't I don't find it un unreasonable to quote charge the rest of the people in in the construction area uh the the amount of the tie-in fee because we're saving people $200,000 by not putting in grinder pumps. So, it's not really, it looks like a charge, but if you go through the numbers, and Jim has asked for the for the uh [clears throat] for the fees on the grinder pumps. I think the number was 270,000 uh estimate at the time, but I'm not sure. Um, but it's saving the whole pro. It's saving all of Salv money by tying into uh Old Colony. Um, you are not considered part of Old Colony. you're still considered part of uh South View area BLM WPCA. You would get a bill from us. You would uh you you wouldn't even

know you're tied in to uh that manhole that it's going to go to. So, uh can I just ask quick? So, what you're saying is if I if we tie into old colony, we wouldn't need a grinder pump. Correct.

Correct. That was the whole that was the whole reasoning behind doing that. And if and if Sound View for some reason backs out, falls apart, and Okali does go through the area B is all of the houses, those nine houses that you keep bringing up are no longer part of Old Colony's project. They're never part of Old Colony's project. You you would be part of our project and our responsibility forever until unless something dramatically changes. What what wouldn't happen is we wouldn't be tying into old colony. Um it's it's invisible to you. We're laying a pipe down 156 to pick your your flow up along with other area B instead of

No, Steve. Steve, nothing is invisible to me. I see everything here when I open the mailbox and get a bill. Okay. you know, you so don't say you wouldn't be getting you wouldn't be you wouldn't be being bu any differently than anyone else in Sound View or area B. And I wouldn't need a grinder pump. And you would not need a grinder pump. And you don't want a grinder pump. You don't want And you don't want No,

but that that that's that was that was the uh impetus. The whole system will be grinder pump free. But that I don't understand what changed why why like the old county minutes are now bringing up our property as part of their project. It's always been a gravityfed system. So if this road So all I can say is I'm going to have they do not want you to be part of old colony. Jim can attest to that. We've been in meetings where Frank knows I don't want any of I don't want them in part of my project. I don't want I don't want them. They're your responsibility. So, I don't know why old Colony is saying that, but that's an incorrect interpretation or or or

or what, but it's not something that that Frank Noi has considered. Is that correct, Jim?

Yeah. I mean, one of the issues I raised is, well, why not if if you want to charge a connection fee, why not just move these houses into Old Colony and take it off Sound View, so these houses aren't double charged essentially. Uh, he wanted no part of that. Uh, he wanted no part of, uh, operations and maintenance fees going to Colony instead of Sound View. and uh you know all of those were non-starters with him and a non-starter with me was to charge a full edu for these houses. Um so I was waiting to see what the what the outcome would be. I think a total hit of 50,000. Um I mean I do question why it came up at the very last minute. We've been in these talks now for months and going over every period, comma, semicolon, and all of a sudden, bang, we get this. So, I'm I'm annoyed as well. Um, you know, the argument that this gets us out of grinder pumps. Yes. I mean, you know, so I do want to see those numbers. Um, you know, and I we definitely need to to stop these additions. uh to to Sound View's bill, but um

Oh, well, you know, it's it's it's not something that's going to be uh assessed specifically to houses in area B. Uh it's going that this one time $53,000 hit, if this is the way it ends up, uh and again, I'm not giving an opinion on this yet because I haven't seen it. Um and so we'll still have to vote on this with the board of selection, but um that 53,000 will be a portion among all of the Sound View area homes. So it'll be split up by 27.

So the street that Bill's talking about has three houses on it. Each of those houses have like I don't know one to three bedrooms. They're very small houses.

Their lots are 0 27 29 and44. Each of those three houses could certainly support a conventional septic system and they're more I mean they're so far away from the shore it's laughable to think that they would have any impact on Long Island son. So really push came to shove, we could grant an exception um for those particular homes if it becomes a sticking point to um to exempt them from the project. If it's not for a cost affordable for those particular properties, it will require grinder pumps. you know th those actually the nine of them there's only one that has a compromised lot and um the rest really support conventional septic systems so it's a consideration it's another option I think

yeah and as is redesigning the system so it flows into sound view excuse You know, I'm just going to bring it up one more time. $53,000 $50,000 for some of these homes. You're talking a quarter, maybe more. The value of my home, you know, we're not talking $53,000, though. So,

well, what are you talking? How much is it going to cost me over 20 years, Steve? over 20 years. Well, 20 2805 time 20 at the worst. So 40 28 $56,000 over over 20 years over and that's that's that stays the same. So what's $2,800 going to be worth in 20 years? It's probably it's probably Steve if I can afford to live in this house anymore. I was planning on dying in this home. You make it sound like it's nothing to you. It's freaking huge to me. It's huge to a lot of people. The only people that keep standing up are the people that have skin in the game.

I have I have no skin in this game. So easy for you to laugh at people talking and people getting upset. It's because we're going to lose our home. Steve,

I I I have spoken to town leadership about this problem. And if town leadership wants to help people out, they're certainly more than welcome to do it. I'm sure the taxpayers of online would not care if if someone is means tested and can prove they can't afford it and are going to lose a house they live in year round and have been in for years. I'm sure they can find some way of relieving that responsibility. But I'm not that person. I will say that on on his particular street, the three houses range from 259,000 to 369,000 as their new appraised values. So charging 56,000. Yes, that's quite a big bill.

It's it's not it's not $56,000. I mean, you you listen, you just gave the number 56,000 two seconds ago. 20 over 20 years financed at 2%. And that's that's user fees and that's everything else. Divided by 270 each homeowner is paying for it. Each each town homeowner will be paying portion of that 53,000. That's divided by 270.

I know that. But he's he's he's he's talking about the full he's he's talking about the amount of money he will spend over 20 years will be equal to $56,000. So you're right. And that's why I said but but what is $2,800 going to be worth in 20 years? I I'll probably be dead. Steve, you're also still not talking about getting a water bill. I have my well. My well's 300 feet deep. It's Poland Springs water. gonna make me pay to fill that in, tie into Connecticut water. I have a water bill now. I gotta pay. No, that's not what we would do. We would install a meter on your well.

That's That's what we've agreed to as a WPCA. Anyone that's not tied into uh uh Connecticut water and won't tie into Connecticut water obviously must have a well. And we will install a meter at no expense to the homeowner. so that we can meter your water usage. And you're going to have to sleeve the pipe because it's too close to the street. No, we don't have to uh we don't have to sleeve any pipe. I thought that was the whole reason for abandoning wells because the the zoning says it's got to be so or not the zoning but has to be so zoning um

the health the health department but now the health department has agreed that containing the joint is sufficient enough. So there's a there's no double wall pipe down there anymore. It's a basically a rubber boot that goes over the bell end and the spigot end and it's tightened to to to stop that. But we're getting we're getting we're done with public comment. You've had two minutes. I appreciate and I appreciate it. And I'd also like to really thank Jim and Mary and Dennis for really the only three that I see that are standing up and trying to help the people of Sound View. I really all along they've stuck with it and they deserve credit. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Is there any other comment? If you're if you want to make a comment, make sure you unmute yourself. Steve, I don't I'm not sure if you would muted me or not. I haven't muted you. Go ahead, Bill.

All right. Well, before I was cut off and I I apologize because you asked open for questions. So that's why I said something. But you know, Mary brought the the point there of if if people don't tie into the sewers, right, you you still have fee at the end of the end of the quarter that you have to pay to either East Lime or Waterford. And it's it's a great point because there's a lot of people there who have good septic systems who are not going to tie into the sewers if they don't have to. Why spend the extra 10 or $15,000 do the tie in from the the lateral to to the to the to the to to your house if you don't have to. So it was a good point. So my my my my question to you before you guys voted was you agreed to an assessment on that and my only question to you was is what's that assessment going to be?

It's going to be part of the total assessed value. And the total assessed value is going to be the total cost of the project which now will include about $978,000 of tying fees. And it will be divided in by 270 to figure out what the cost per ed. And then it will be build out as the assessment. Well then then I I think you should add that to the .edu since it's going to be part of that same process. So, your $2,800 edu now goes to $3,100.

No, it doesn't because it wasn't it it No, because that figure was already included in the 2805 just in a different area. You you Well, you you kind of confuse other people. So, so Bill, Bill, Bill, let me put it this way. Let me put it this way. It was figured in the user fees. I'm going to take it out of the user fees and put it into the assessment. I'm going to take whatever the cost is and put it into the assessment and remove it from the user fee. The net result is zero.

No, the net result is you still haven't given me a number. The net result is if you have user fees, user fees are only done if you use that that facility to get rid of your your your gray water. But if you're not using that, right? So, you're telling me now and you're telling everybody else that everybody every everybody who had a a potential user fee now has an assessment, right? And that assessment now should go into either a tax or part of the .edu. E every everyone always had user fees and an assessment of at least one .edu. No one's below one .edu in our system.

Well, you're confusing it again. The .edu is just what it cost you to bring the main sewer line and all your all your infrastructure down the road. No. Well, an EDU an .edu U is an equivalent dwelling unit. We have 270 edus in our system. The total cost divided by 270 will give you a per EDU value. That's the accountant added the accountant added total.

Actually, it'll give me a total EDVU value. But anyways, but that still doesn't answer the question I originally answered. I asked was a user fee is not going to be charged now. You guys didn't vote for that. No, that's wrong. We're still going to charge user fees, Bill. There will always be user fees. It's It's just that we've taken some of those user fees and put them in the assessment. I I don't I can't I I think we're done. I hope you hear what you're I hope you hear what you're saying here because what you're saying makes no sense at all.

I do hear what I'm saying and I think it makes plenty of sense. But we have a disagreement that I don't think could be you. Are you done with your comment? Because I'm done responding to it for sure. Bill, maybe I can clarify a little bit for Bill. That's okay, Mary. You're not recognized. Uh, Mike, do you have a Mike Rio? Do you have a Do you Of course, I'll recognize Mary as part of my conversation. No, you can't recognize Mary's part of public comment. Mike Richio, please.

No. Uh, yeah. Hi, Steve. I had just a couple of things. Um I I was uh part I live in Old Lime Shores and they had a meeting tonight on the sewer project as well and they are ready to award uh their contract for the work that's to be done in Old Life Shores. The thing that's holding them up now is the shared cost agreement. So they're uncertain as to whether the town is going to be participate in the shared cost agreement. If the town doesn't participate, it somewhat puts their project into jeopardy. So the the thing now is that they their contractor is looking for a commitment. their board won't make a commitment until they understand where the town is going. So you mentioned before that that the special meeting will be held on December the 16th.

No, no, following that December 16th, December 16th would be would be the referendum date. If if they go if they go forward, December 16th is a tentative referendum date. those other meetings would be held in in in November to authorize the referendum. Okay. So that's good. So that uh the referendum will be out on in December 16th. I think that that will give them enough time with the with the contingency they have with their contractor. Yes.

Good. So that was it. I but I'd like to just I'd like to thank you for uh your resigning, but you had a difficult job there for a long time. Thanks for that work. Thank you, Mike. Bye. Bye.

Uh, I don't see any other. Uh, John Flood, you're muted. Do you have any comments? Not hearing any. Uh, may I have a motion uh for a German? So Steve, let me just before we do that, one quick thing justformationally because I attended a meeting with with uh Martha Shoemaker on this back in early part of the month. The dates that were thrown out that are pertinent to the referendum are the board of finance board of selectment meetings on November 24th, should be next week, right? uhformational uh mailing would occur. December 3rd, the notice of a town meeting would be published. December 9th, there'd be a town meeting and the referendum would be held on December 16th. Those are the dates.

Thank you very much, R. Second. Brian second motion. Thank you very much.