Water Pollution Control Authority - Special Meeting

Great. Uh, call the meeting to order at 8:00. Uh, first order of business is approval of minutes of November 20, 2025. Are there any comments or additions? Not hearing any. Uh we're going to go ahead and approve those. All in favor say I. I. Opposed.

I passed unanimously. Um at this point uh we are short uh a full nine. So I'll appoint uh u Brian Pelis as a uh full voting member. today. Um budget update and expenses. Andreal. Yeah.

Um so um the current budget the remaining the current balance is $86,785. uh the expenses of the expenditures are $4,373 this period we had uh two line items with the uh comedy software that hit this month it's 2988. It should have hit sooner, but uh it was the invoice was emailed to the room PCA in June. And so even I hope we addressed that. And then the other expenses for the clerk. So the expenses for this period were $3,28. Uh so they've only spent about 5% of the budget. [clears throat]

The other uh they don't have me in here. I got the picture, but they're not letting me in for volume. Well, we can hear you, Brad. Brad, you don't hear us. The chat The chat won't let me chat. It's turned off, right? Can you hear us? They like He has He's quashed out. Mhm. I can't hear him, but there's meaning I'm not getting nothing. Okay. Put up your volume. Maybe I'm like microphone on.

Turn the volume down a little bit. I [laughter] worried about that. I just wanted Yeah, I know. [sighs] Yeah. All

[sighs]

right. I don't really know.

Well, I can hear Brad and I can hear you. I hope you can hear me. We can hear you. Yeah, I I hear you as well. This is Brad. Okay, Brad, we can hear you. Okay, good. Okay, so uh All right. All right. I'm I'm sorry. Go ahead, Adrian. I'm sorry.

Um so, uh the other thing I there's a few other things I wanted to uh speak about. The next item is clean water funds. So, I met with Lee Rogers, Anita, Martha, and uh two more submission packets were sent to the Clean Water Fund. A total of six invoices, all to Woodland and Kern. Uh the first packet was uh two invoices for $29,452.50 50. And the second packet included four invoices for a total of $61,150. And the uh all all six invoices were paid in full. So we're just waiting for the reimbursement. All the documentation was sent. So we expect hopefully to get that before this month.

Um so that would be three packets sent the clean water funds. Uh we're not ready to do the construction loan. Uh but that is in discussion. We did not spend any money this month for ARPA funds. Um but we have until December of 2026 and that monies will be uh still to utilize for the shared infrastructure expenses as we get them. I got an email today from Lee Rogers about using funding there and uh he has some questions that I'll forward to you. Okay.

And uh I'm sure you can work it out. If not, then so then the um other thing is we um Martha asked us to explore with Lee if the referendum expenses would be covered by clean water funds and the answer is no. So, this referendum is basically going to cost about $5,000. And fingers crossed, we're hoping that there's enough money in town budget since two referendums are are included in the town budget every year. So, uh that discussion is still.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions for Andrea? Okay. So, I'm going to uh the next thing on the agenda is a cost per education using actual bid results and accepted figures. So, uh I I know that there are a lot of numbers out there that uh people have have uh been citing and I wanted to show a comparison of our numbers, the numbers that we actually have versus what uh the BOS presented numbers were. I did I did speak to uh Jim uh about um about the numbers and he said that he pulled them either from uh either from D or or uh uh um [clears throat] I I believe him. Uh so it's just a matter of of and I would just go through this. So the board of sort presented their thing from referendum and uh I disagreed with with with how they presented it. I mean and their numbers but but mainly how they presented it because 7-249 talks about uh what what the assessment is and the assessment is is basically the the cost that's being financed or the cost of the project less all the funding uh grant grant and forgiveness uh divided by the amount of EDUs and that will give you basically your cost per edu. That's what we've been figuring out this whole time. We've

been figuring out how to allocate edus, but basically it's the it your your assessment is derived out of that number. Um, and it's a it's a what I call a base number. It doesn't the the the the 7-249 specifically states that you don't include interest in that number and you don't and and you can uh and it's made up of the assessment and it's not made up of uh connection fees. So there's a connection fee that's associated with connecting into our system. Uh not connection fees to London or East Line. That's different. There's a connection fee and there's an assess fee. those two basically added up would equal your assessment. Um to be clear, the assessment and the uh the connection fee are going to be build at the end of the project and they would be paid immediately. Um, so if if the number my number here is about $38,711, if they get a bill for that for the connection fee and the assessment, uh, you can write a check out for that and that's the end of your liability that you've paid off all your all your assessment and that's it. There will be no interest because you've already paid your bill. So if you choose to pay interest, it's because you feel it's a better financial decision to pay overtime uh, at 2%. uh it's your choice, but the assessment isn't your final number that you paid into the system. It's based on the base value. Just like when you buy a car, you're not financing. You don't buy the car for the end value of your finance charges. You buy it at what they're selling it for. And the cost of the car does cost you more, but you bought it for the the price that was listed at the dealership. Or if you're good if you're good at negotiating,

probably less. But uh so that's the whole that's what I'm I'm going to present this just so that you can see the differences of the numbers and how I got from my numbers and how the BOS got to theirs. So in construction we actually have a bid our low bidder is $8,551,950. So that's the amount. It's not it's not going to go above that uh that bid amount. Um the board of selectmen used 8,700,000. So that's a difference of aboutund 140,000 or so.

Um contingency uh we used and agreed to use the accountants uh uh figures. The accountant used a figure of 5%. So that's what I've included. D used 6%. So there's a difference there of about $120,000, $115,000. Design costs, we have design costs, it's 615,200. Um, and our contract engineering administration, we have a quote for $855,000. Um, if you total those together, it basically comes out to $10,500,000. Um, if you total uh the BOS presented numbers, it comes out to 11,342,000. Uh, you know, not much of a difference, but a difference. Um, when you take the 25% out that's going to be granted to us, uh, our loan value would be 7,837,000 and change and their loan loan uh, value would be 8,56. So, a difference of about uh $860,000. Um on the force main dioxide, I use pretty much uh their numbers uh all the way through. Uh the the difference is in contingency. Um, I used 6% contingency, but I didn't include the engineering fees in that contingency because the engineering fees are set. We're not going to have uh we're not going to add 6% uh to engineering costs. That's that's a fixed price. So, the engineering fees

come out uh that I don't include them as part of the contingency package. Um, so the the way the D is proposing to fund this is they're going to give us a 25% grant and then subtract $15 million. Um that would leave us with a shared infrastructure cost of 4,844,000 versus the 5,150,000 that the BOS presented. Um take our share of that which is 29.7%. Uh we would be liable for 1.38 uh million. Maybe I can uh 1.8 uh 1.438 million versus 1.529 million. Um again, not much, but all these added up start to start to uh make a difference. So I I have a cost of 9,276,155 versus 10,361 178. Um then there's interest. So I I figured a straight line draw over 18 months. Uh the first month we're not borrowing any money. There's zero. We're not paying interest on anything. At the end we're going to be paying interest on all of it. So uh you could take half and the straight line depreciate a straight line draw basically assigns half of that value. So I we have interest at 139,142 versus 20 close to 270,000. Um, so the amount being financed at the end is 9,415,297

versus 10,36 uh 175. So there's a difference of about uh $1.1 million. I mean all those little increments add up which then affect your your bottom cost. So our cost uh per edu was is $34,871. They uh the BOS presentation was 38,171. Um, added to that per EDU cost is the uh is the uh tie-in fees to New London in East Line uh financed at at their respective rates. The final cost for edu is $38,7116 versus $42,1061. And then what we'll we be discussing next is the hookup fee. And uh the hookup fee in our referendum it says uh let's see where does it say this? I should have highlighted it. Uh the cost per resident will be determined by an equivalent dwelling unit formula that has been approved by the WPCA. The users will also pay a one-time connection charge and an equivalent dwelling unit charge as well as an annual charge for usage and system maintenance. Now, I requested that the equivalent dwelling unit charge in that sentence be changed to betterment assessment because that's what it is. It's veteran assessment. the edu charge is the combined uh total of a connection fee and uh betterment assessment. But

any event, so uh in the past we we've talked about a $6,000 uh connection fee. Um there are there are towns uh that go as high as well Uh East Hampton does $7,000 connection fee. Uh Richford does a 5700. Southernington does a 13,500. Brookfield does a 17,000 to 30,000. But that was uh likened to a combination of connection and assessment because it's based on linear footage. and uh it it a one-time payment. So, it's in the research ideas you should view that more as an assessment. Uh Danberry pays uh between 3,800 and 15,000 also based on linear footage. Um the average uh is is between 3700 and $5,000 in the state. Um, so we are a little above average and that would be up for discussion when that comes up to uh the the uh uh on the agenda, but for now it was $6,000. That was the number that we've we've gone off of for a while. um which would bring me the assessment the assess the assessment betterment assessment to $32,711 versus $36,10. Um, the board of selecting went on to uh went on to use the $42,000 figure, added

2% per year, came out with their figure of $62,000. Um, as 7-249 states, interest and connection fees are excluded from the assessment. So their their value uh at most would be 42,000. It would not be the 62,000 plus uh stated. Now there is a $565 yearly fee that is is estimated by DEP, but even Deep said that's on the high side. They think it's going to be lower than that, but that's not included in the assessment. So uh I I left it there because the board of selectman presented that in their thing for a totally yearly expense of 3121. Um that doesn't affect anything on the assessment either. So uh the cost for edu and hookup fee if if finance if it's at $32,711 would be $2,134 uh plus the usage fee. Um, so there's about a uh a $412 difference between the two uh between these two numbers that are highlighted uh based on the numbers that I've used versus uh the the estimates that the do have used. Um are there any questions to that on the board? Does everyone want

Excuse me. I do have a question. I'm sorry. I think when when the board selectman presented and HRT did their numbers, they weren't aware of the $1.2 million increase in the um force main. So, how is that factored in here today? Uh it I used the BOS numbers for that and that that is actually in there. It's a $12 million bit right there. Okay. U because I remember uh Jim saying that they hadn't received that information yet about the up uh the increase in the forest main and bioside. I believe that $2 million reflects that.

Can I jump in here for a second? Uh Steve. Uh sure.

It's Jim. Yeah. Uh Mary, we were using 12 million. That's what Deep sent us on the 21st. Um that was their negotiated bid with Balazar. Um I didn't we didn't have any of the escalators but uh I deep sent out their numbers to Steve and to the board of select on the 21st and the the deep numbers are reflected these numbers that we presented on the 24th. So everything on that 24th sheet is based either on deep or the accountants report from HRT. Thank you. Y

um and so if you go to the bottom I've done a little math uh and said if the average value of a home is appraised at 550 550,000 a 6% increase in value would exceed uh uh the assessed value at $32,711. Um, if it's 10% then then you know your average home would have to appraise at 32,500 or 32,000 uh or 320 327,000. So, um, you know, I don't know I I don't know how how you can go four years to determine if your home has increased due to sewers or due to inflation or anything else. I believe that it would be uh one expert opinion versus another expert opinion in court. But um you know the lowest estimate that we had was from sound the sound view association uh and I believe that was 6% or 5%.

Was 5%.

5%. Um the highest was 12% when that was ours. If you take the difference and say it's going to be average of 8%, I believe most homes would probably fall within that 8%. Uh down there. Um so uh the other only other comment I have is I don't believe that you know contingencies the contingency of $427,000 for internal infrastructure. Um that is for unforeseen that is for conditions that aren't indicated on the plan. Um, it it doesn't if they hit more water than they thought, that's up to them to handle. If they go through more material than they thought, that's up to them to to do that. There's there's very little. I mean, in in in Hartford, I'd say 5% is too little because there's too much stuff in the ground that you don't know about. But here, there's we have a water mate in the ground and a couple of drain lines. They know about them. They're indicated on the plan. There's a very slim likelihood that there will be many uh change orders uh that are substantial to to [clears throat] eat into that contingency as well as the fact that Colona has already reduced their price by about $400,000 due to the not having to use double wall pipe. So the contract amount really starts out at about 8.1 million. Um, I believe there's there's a a lot of money. I I believe this is the highest this this is going to be. Not not a a a lucky I hope we come in under it. I think it's well overestimated. Um, but that's my opinion. But I've used these numbers

because we agreed to use them. So, uh, that's the presentation. Um, I wanted to uh allow everyone to see how I derive uh at 38,000 versus 62,000 or 42,000 as it should have been stated. Um, uh, those are the I mean, all these numbers we've gone through before, uh, I'm confident that that they're they're accurate within probably, uh, one or two% uh, give or take. Um, and I just wanted that cleared up because I don't believe the board of selectman ever gave uh this number or this number. They gave the numbers. Oh, I can't see it. Um, I don't believe they gave uh I don't believe they gave that number. Well, they didn't give that number, but they didn't give 36,000 either or the 42,000. They wouldn't have necessarily have subtracted the six, but they didn't show that the base cost is 42,000. They showed a basically 62,000, but that included all the interest. So, I wanted to clear that up as the loss states that you don't use interest in doing that.

Uh Steve, Steve, we do show 42, we show the the pre interest cost. for the So, Jim, I printed out something that's on the town of Old9 website. I don't see 42 called the I don't know what it was called. It's basically this sort of spreadsheet and it doesn't have that $42,000 number on it. And it's the information sheet that's on the township website right now.

Hold on a second, Rob. I'm just I'm driving I'm driving to work, so I'm pulling over right now. And I'll just take out my briefcase. Just take me a second. Well, while we're pausing on that, can I can we back up on the contingency for a minute, please? Um yeah, the the 400,000 contingency does that allow I I know that the contract itself for the internal excludes the cost of police to monitor 156 while seven inlays over at uh area B are connected. What's the estimate of that? Because that would have to come out of that contingency since it's not

there's an Mary. I think there's an allowance uh or they've included they have included traffic control 156 in the bid. They explicitly excluded police on there on the contract. If you read the contract, the internal contract I It's explicitly excluded. I think there's a I think there's a bid item for it or it's included in a bid item. I I had a discussion with Jason about it. there's a bid item in there or it's included in the cost of doing that work already.

I will um we can go back [clears throat] um outside of this meeting and look at the exact wording in the contract for the internal because I I'm saying it's explicitly excluded. Okay. Yeah. But it isn't anywhere near $400,000. But what is it? But what is it, Randy? What is it? Well, it's it's minimal. $800 a day. Yeah, let's say $800 a day for two weeks.

I've I've I'm taking a look at what we presented right now. And if you look about two uh twothirds of the way down where it says number of edus 270 and then annual cost per edu for infrastructure. Uh yeah, that's our that that's the uh that's the cost before the connection charges and all that. And if you look you never you never showed us what's shown as an annual cost at 232.

You never showed us you never showed us the base cost of which all these figures are are are derived from. Well, the base cost the base cost well all these figures uh you know in A and B I have all that broken out and then the cost before interest before anything even before construction interest is 10,36,179. So you just divide that by 270, right? I mean what we're presenting here is what everyone is going to actually end up paying per year. Yeah. But that's that's different than the assessed value. But I I do have it broken out before um interest.

The only the only problem I So Jim, the $42,000 isn't there, though. And I think that's actually an extremely important point because like Steve said, if somebody wants to pay $42,000 the day that the project's done, they can pay that. And so they're not going to be paying60,000 something thousand 20 over 20 years. And so that is an incredibly important number to have in there. [snorts] And this is on the and this is theformational sheet that's on the town line website. And it's not

I mean if if that if that doesn't you know well the only thing you would be taking out in that case would be the interest because you're still on the hook for um operations and maintenance. You're still on the hook for connection charges to East Lime and New London. Uh, so you would pull out the 67,000 divided by 270 because that's that's the you're not No, no, the assessment doesn't include operations and maintenance. No, that's separate. That's separate. It does not include operations and maintenance.

Further up on your on your spreadsheet, you need to have the $42,000 and then break then break it down to the 2325 that's there. I I think I think we're talking apples and oranges because I'm I'm saying that if you pay off the construction loan right away, you're still going to be paying these other charges. Just the interest goes away. So, you're going to take that 42, but you're still going to add the connection charges. You're still going to add operations and maintenance to what your final That's not true.

That's not true because because that 42 includes those connection charges already. The only thing you'll be paying is $565 a year. That's the point here is that you paid off your construction cost and connection fees and everything, you'd be paying $565 a year.

If you're going to stipulate $42,000 as the low range since the No, I'm not. I'm stipulating it's 38,711. Okay. for one edu. But then to be clear and to make it clear to the public, you should also include the high range which is three times that since some properties will be SS3 edus. Mary Mary it's not how many properties Mary you're you're trying to conflate this. How many properties? I'm not read the spreadsheet. Yeah, there's like four properties if that. Maybe two and a bunch in between. Corey Rob.

Um Mary Mary I don't have to triple it or anything. This is a cost per ed. It's a cost I think that people don't quite understand what an .edu is versus the property cost.

It it doesn't change the value. So if you have one and a half edu, yes, you would be paying one and a half times 32,000 or some 38,700 at the top. I'm I I don't think we should be using BOS numbers because I think they're inaccurate. But regardless of that, uh there's a reason why they're they're you know, the properties that are one and a half times are uh I think commercial Um generally those those properties are are valued more or they're larger uh square footage wise. Um you know I we tried to come out I I we didn't we didn't try to get an edu formula that would fit all our properties into one thing so that everyone is going to be responsible for the entire edus. we've done something that we think is fair and accurate based on property and and uh uh based on the property itself. So the only way to determine if if we were right or not is is when someone argues it and there's a decision made. But I I believe that these figures are correct. And in general, I don't think that uh if you have a home down in sound view, you would be in and your system failed, I think you'd be hardressed to get a new septic system in for $38,000.

Um payable within 30 days. Payable within 30 days. Um, so I mean I guess I guess you know I'm not a judge. I'm sure that some people will fight this. Um, and and it and that's why we spent years working on an edu formula that we felt comfortable is equitably uh uh sharing costs uh between the properties. Well, everybody in this conversation participated in that development of that edu cost. Correct.

Correct. So, um All right. So, those I I I did this because as I as Rob said, that 38,000 or the $42,000 number never shows up on the BOS presentation. and the and the the bottom figure, the all-in amount of 67,434 under$13, I felt was misleading to to to the point where uh people thought that that would be and there were people in the meeting down below that felt that that was what they were going to have to pay.

It is if you do the loan for 20 years though, who's going to get a rich, the bank? That's not the assessed value. All right. I don't care about this suspect. Please, please, sir, you're not recognized. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Please, please, please. So, I've been hearing that my whole life.

Okay. Well, um All right. So, that's that's the the presentation. Um the next thing on the agenda is um is my chairman's the CFA status. CSA status is completed. Uh it has not been uh finished drawing up by our attorneys, but all terms have been uh all terms have been uh uh resolved and uh it's basically uh the uh Honolul WPCA is going to pay approximately $14,500 $100 per home on a onetime fee basis to connect to either Old Colony or uh Miami Beach and that will be coming out of the construction note itself. Um it saves it saves us money uh for not putting in grinder pumps and maintaining the grinder pumps for ever. uh and it reimburses uh the two beach associations for some of their infrastructure. Sorry to interrupt, but just we should point out maybe to people that don't know that that's only a few property owners, right? That that those connections pertain to. That's that's miscellaneous area.

That's miscellaneous area B. It's a construction. It's part of our construction cost because uh we're we're bringing the lateral to their homes and we're bringing that pipe into a man home either controlled by old colony. I understand. I just don't know that every group is I just to clarify I think what he's asking is that $14,000 per house. It's only eight houses or 10 houses total.

There's nine homes. Nine homes total. Seven total. That's my point. Nine. Yes. Yes. It's seven total colony. It's uh to to Miami Beach and that cost is being considered at least by by my WPC as I'm chairman of construction cost that'll be shared throughout the whole thing because in the end it saved everyone about $170,000 putting in grinder bumps. Um so uh thank you. You're welcome. Are there any questions on that? I have a question for you. Yeah. Who is this? Dennis. Dennis. Yes.

Which which properties in Miami Beach are included into that? Which two properties? Do you know? I I don't know. Offhand, Dennis. They're they're in they're in they're in uh area B. They're not I don't believe they're in they're not in my There's nothing There's nothing in area B. That's Miami Beach. Absolutely nothing. I know I'm not recognizing as Cottage Lane or Cottage Lane. Cottage Lane by Rooney's package store, right? That's that's that's area B. Yes. And that's a Sound View. That's a Sound View area.

Yes. And it's and and I think two houses on Cottage Lane will be tied into a Miami Beach controlled manhole. Miami Beach is on the other side of 156. There would not be a manhole on 156. That's what I'm saying. The manhole it's not correct.

The manhole is in Miami Beach and so we're going to have to run a pipe over to that manhole because there's no other way to run it. Then where does the where does the line for Teddy's and Roies and uh um the the white building where does where does that pipe go to? Those I believe go to old colony. They don't go to old colony. They don't they don't go to colony. They go across the street.

That's that's what I'm saying. you're there's there's there's statements being made and and um uh houses being added to and and no one here knows where it's going to. I Dennis Dennis I'm I'm sorry you know you know who does know Woodwin and Curran who designed the plans with fuss I got Jason online and I'd like to speak to him when it's when it's available. Sure. Okay, you have the set of plans. You can come down and look at the set of plans. plans. Okay, it's detailed shown on the drawing.

It's shown on the drawings. Which houses are are going to be tied into that into that line. I'm sorry. I don't know them. I don't know the houses, but I know the amounts. There's two that go to Miami Beach and seven that go to Oak for a total of nine homes. Are there any other questions?

All right. So, that's the status of the CSA. I I I requested uh from the attorney to have it a signed copy ready for us by the end of this week so that can be signed by all parties. Um project status. I think everyone uh knows the project uh has been on hold uh until the referendum. Uh referendums going forward December 16th be held in the town hall uh room uh between 12 and 8 next Tuesday, December 16th. I encourage everyone to vote. Uh D funding uh is still available. uh they've decided to fund the uh shared infrastructure in a more comprehensive way. Uh so that whatever the final amount of that cost is they'll grant out 25% and then add another 15 million to uh reduce it. And like I said in my sheep, that brings it down to around uh 4.8 $20 million and then uh and then uh we would we would owe 29.7% of that. Um is there any questions on on the the chairman's report?

All right. Um not hearing any. We're going to go on to new business. Um, I'd like a discussion of allocation of costs per edu into connection fee and betterment assessment fee. And uh, you know, we usually do this backwards, but if I could have a motion uh, and then we'll discuss, uh, afterwards. Does anyone want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to discuss.

Um, can we have a more specific one? I would make a motion that we allocate $6,000 per EDU as the hookup fee to the system which would reduce the Betterment assessment by that that same number. And the hookup fee, as we as you discussed earlier, could be charged and paid for at the time of completion of the project for Sound View Beach and miscellaneous town area B uh for any property that has a dwelling. Uh or conversely, the hookup fee could be paid in full the time of invoicing or it could [clears throat] be combined with the Betterman assessment and finance at the 2% compounded regularly.

I I'm kind of confused. I'll second that. I'll second. Thank you, Andrea. I guess I'm confused because we have always said the hookup fee. Now, we're talking about the pipe going from the property to the house, or are we talking about the hookup fee to New London?

We're not talking about either. We're talking about a fee that is charged by the WPCA for the right to hook up into our system. And so, this will affect the empty lots uh down at the beach. They'll be assessed, but they won't they won't uh uh be assessed a hookup fee unless they hook up because they are they're dwelling less and we do not know if they will ever get uh zoning rights though as zoning is now they have the right once sewer goes through to build.

Okay. I'm more confused. Last month we voted unanimously to include the connection fees in the contracts to East Lime and New London. Correct. Is this Are you changing that idea now or No, no, no. This is an internal this is an internal hookup fee charged by the D O line WPCA for the right to hook into our system. So that has nothing to do with the cost for me to hire someone to come to my house and run a new pipe and decommission my septic. So this is another charge, a different totally different charge.

It's a it's a fee that that is deducted from the total .edu cost. That will leave an assessment cost and a connection fee cost. The .edu cost doesn't change. We figured out what the .edu cost is. It's $38,711. This would reduce that number for the right to hook up. Most WPCAS have a connection fee. When you go build a lot, that lot's been assessed, but they haven't been charged a connection fee because there was no home there. So, when the contractor goes, they would go pick up a permit and that permit would also include the connection fee. Um,

I'm terribly confused. I'd have to understand it better before I could approve that. I I really don't understand what you're saying at [clears throat] all. Okay. All right. Well, I'm sorry that I can't explain it any anymore.

Me, too. This is something new last minute that you guys just came up with. It sounds like you're trying to reduce to make a public statement that the EDU is less than what it is. And really in the end, it's what the end user is going to have to pay for the system whether you call it an assessment or edu. Well, as I read in the referendum bulletin, these users will have the option of paying a one-time lump sum upon completion of the new system or making payments over the terminal loan, which is anticipated to be 20 years. The cost per resident will be determined by an equivalent dwelling unit formula that has been approved by the WPCA. The users would also pay a one-time connection charge and an equivalent dwelling unit charge which should have been better unit a betterment assessment as well as an annual charge for usage and system maintenance. It's not new. It's been known for years that that there's going to be a connection fee. We we've talked about cost per edu. We we haven't talked about uh assessment. We've talked about costed edu because most of the people I guess that have been on for a long time knew that there was a connection fee involved and and a an assessment fee or assessment valuation that that makes up the .edu and the only way to determine what that is is to determine how much an .edu is and then back out the cost of a connection fee. No, what we talked about was the cost of construction as part of the as the edu. The cost of construction period, not an additional connection fee. The cost

there's no additional connection. There's it's going to be $6,000. It's It's not additional spreadsheet back. Yeah. Yeah. Let me show you. Let me show you the spreadsheet again. Maybe you can take a look at it. I want to bring your attention to uh subtotal cost per hold on

I can't see it. Yeah, that's I guess I'm looking at this last paper you presented at the last town meeting didn't mention anything about an additional $6,000 connection fee.

It's not an additional anything. Oh, you not Sure.

Maybe. All right. So, Mary, yes. I want you to look I want you to look at

subtotal cost per edu. It's right here. It's on line 41. That number is $34,87147. to it. I've added the connection fee to London per .edu with interest is $2,59959. To that, I added the total connection fee to each line per edu, which was [clears throat] $1,240. That was with interest also. That came out to $38,7116. That is the total cost per edu. I'm If we decide to vote for $6,000 hookup fee, town of old line hookup fee, your final assessment for edu would be $32,7116, reducing the total cost of edu by $6,000.

Yeah. And the connection the connection fee the town hookup fee is $6,000. Any town any any dwelling that any any property that has a dwelling on it would be build the assessment and the connection fee or the hookup fee at the same time. The formula for the assessment is the total cost per edu less the hookup fee. So, whatever the hookup fee is, the assessment gets reduced. The total cost though isn't going to exceed in this instance $38,7116.

Okay. I understand. I thought what you were saying before was that that hookup fee was the cost out of my pocket to run a different pipe and decommission my working septic system. That's an additional charge. So, no, I guess I didn't understand before that you were also trying to include an additional $6,000 fee for every property and then trying to take it back out so that the .edu number looks a bit lower. And that is what you're doing. It is still the cost of 38,711 if that's correct per property per edu. It hasn't reduced the cost. You're just changing the terms. changing the term. That's all you're doing.

I haven't reduced the I didn't say we reduced the cost of the edu. I reduced the cost of the assessment. I I reduce the cost of the assessed value and section you've been told by section

that section 7-49 state statute specifically states the assessed value will not include the connection fee, this connection fee, and any interest. It specifically states it. So, it's not like I'm trying to do something crazy. The referendum called out the connection fee. It's not like I'm trying. We're just trying to figure out a number that that we want to charge for a connection fee. I gave I

This is what that statute says, and I'll read it to you. Such assessment may include a proportionate share of the cost of any part of the sewage system, including the cost of preliminary studies and surveys, detailed working plans and specifications, acquiring necessary land or property or any interest therein, damage awards, construction costs, interest charges during construction, legal and other fees, or any other expense incidental to the completion of the work It says it may include it. It actually said interest during construction. Interest during construction. It didn't say interest which is actually calculated into this.

Doesn't say anything about excluding a hookup some hookup fee. It says any incidental expense for the construction. That's the hookup fee. No, that's not a hookup fee. The hookup fee is not incidental to construction. Oh my god. It It's a fee. It's a fee charge to the for the right to hook up to our system. Okay. I guess that will become a legal matter at this point that we're just agree on. Hold on. You will not agree on this, Mary. It won't be a legal matter because we're going to read you the statute. I have already read the statute. We'll read you the thing. We'll read you seven days.

I have it right in front of me. I don't need you to read it to me. I have it right in front of me. So, it's an interpretation of the statue and it will become a legal matter. It's It's not Okay, okay, Steve. Maybe we should just move on. No, we're not going to move on. I'm gonna read it. We are. Let me Let me talk. Okay. But look, it says hookup fee right here. So, it is hookup fee. I know it's a hookup fee. So, you're going to charge this 6,000 plus contractor will hook it up from the house to the I'm not charging anything for the contractor. No, but this is total hookup fee,

right? And this is only really concerning the properties without a dwelling. And why do you have 6,000? Why don't you have 2,000? It it it could be whatever we decide. Okay, let's do 2,000. We could decide that. Hold on, Randy. Do you have that?

Yeah, I'll just tell you what. The the the statute 7-249 talks about exclusions. Exclus excluded from that is the the assessment cap states that the total of the assessments initial and and supplementary shall not exceed the special benefit acrewing to the property. Okay? And that that's what we're talking about here. And what's excluded in there specifically is any interest that you pay as as the homeowner or the property owner over the life of paying off that that that money. So if you if you pay that at the if you if you decide to pay it at the 2% interest, that's excluded from that cap. Okay. It also says any airplane. I'll just have to the other. Forgive me because it's awfully small. Says under connection hookup fee. This is a separate one-time fee levied at the time a property owner actually physically connects their their building plumbing to the main sewer line. This fee covers the specific administrative cost of inspecting and approving the connection and sometimes is a share of the capital cost if the main assessment period has passed by. That's not the case here. What it goes on to say is that the hookup fee is not part of the cap, okay, that we're talking about. So, if your benefit assessment relative to your cost, if your cost is

higher than the benefit assessment, then that's a different story. But what we're saying here is that the hookup fee and the interest that you would pay do not factor into the calculation of that cap. And it's very clear. I think that you have in the past received letters from attorney Lord and attorney Ainsworth clarifying their position from a legal standpoint that any attempt to sort the cost by pushing things over into a user fees or connection fees will be challenged and have been challenged in court. So again, like this is going to be a court matter if you continue. I mean, that's how it's been. There's court records on it and you have the letters. All of you have been here that long. They've read those letters. So,

well, that's why we put extra money in the budget for attorneys, I guess. Well, [clears throat] I think Mary, right? Very good, Frank. Very good. This is this is going to be question mark of the future. We don't have to have really It's not a question mark in my book. I believe we have the right to char they address hookup fees in in the state statute. Steve, you think you do everything right? I don't think I do everything right. No, here you are wrong. So, how so how so if if there was no connection fee? The town's supposed to just send out an employee from the town and represent the town on who's nickel.

You have a building permit. You have connection. Who pays for that employees time? Hook it up on points. No, you're not answering my question. Who's paying for that time for that employee to go out from the town and inspect the services and inspect the job? I think it's part of the project cost, Cory. This is part of the project cost. It's not part of the project because it's not the project's over, right? This this could take place in 20 years from now. The project could be up, done, gone. You still need a representative from the town to make sure the installation is done correctly.

Woods didn't pay for that. homeowners. Okay. I was pulling permit from online town. I was going to the house and hooking up. Inspector from the town was coming. This is his job to do. He get paid from by the town from where? And every everyone who is going to hook up private beaches is going to do the same way. Mhm.

Okay. And this is a new surprise to me. This is like $6,000. And if we have to do something if it necessary why don't we reduce it. Yeah it's going to increase cost showing cost of the of the job of the or to the owner it will increase it because you're subtracting from 38,000 $716,000 that the number is less. [snorts] this what happens. I don't agree with you. [clears throat] I have a question. This is Dennis.

Has there been a subcommittee formed on this that I don't know about? Absolutely not. Pretty funny that two people that are talking have very current knowledge of this and this is the first we've seen it was today.

Well, I mean I I I certainly wouldn't put something on the agenda, Dennis, that I haven't researched. I I just said I said the average the average in the state the average in the state is 3,200 to $3700. That's the average connection fee. $2,000 is not average. 32 to 3700 is average in the state. And how did you come up with This is not This is not an old line thing. It's a It's a It's a state town thing. Most towns, I don't know one that doesn't, but most towns charge a connection fee.

Well, why don't you give us a week or two and we'll look into that. We'll see what Glastonbury, Middletown, what everybody else is charging and and compare that also to their betterment fees because I think this is extreme. You just said the average is 2,300, but you want to charge,000. I said it's 37. I said it's it's 33,200 to $3,700. Well, how did you come up with 6 How did you come up with 6,000 now?

That was a that was a number that that was that was been carried from from 10 years ago. Ever since I've been on the the WPCA and sewers were being discussed, there was a number thrown out that a connection fee could be $6,000. That's what I put in there. You want it lower? Do you want it to the average of 3500? Put it at 3500. But there should be a connection fee. Now you who from the town the town doesn't even have someone to go out and inspect sewers. This might be another job that you're going to have to fund. That's true. That should be included in the cost. Maybe that's maybe that's why you charge $3,200 for a connection fee.

Well, maybe that should be included in the cost of the build then because without the build, Mary, I would disagree. The project is the project is completed before anyone could connect. So the project is done. Okay. I disagree with that. Okay. You you're going to connect before the project's done. No, I think it's part of the it's part of the project. It's part of the project fee. It's it's not part of the project fee. The project is not complete until people actually connect to it. If no one connects, there's no flow. There's no project. You just have pipes in the ground. It is part of the It is part of the project.

The project that the project The project that O line funded will be completed. It'll be dead in the ground unless someone connects to it. It's part of the project B. Part of our ordinance is that you have to connect. Let's let the selectman make that decision. I don't think it's made that decision. It's up to the WPCA to make this decision. It's not up to the board of selecting. It's up to the Any decision that this board of this WPCA makes still has to be approved by the board of selectment? No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. Oh, God. How many more days?

Yes. Yes. And we have a motion on the table. Do we want to reread it so we know what we're discussing? Yeah. Yeah. The motion was to allocate $6,000 per edu as a hookup fee, which is what we're talking about. That's the motion. And then how to the options to pay for

the options for paying for it are you can you can pay for it when the project is complete uh and you're invoiced or you can choose to pay to pay it uh uh as part of the betterment assessment uh financed at a rate of 2% compounded yearly. How does people feel about this?

What should I do is the price? What do you think is a a reasonable price? 3,000. December out of the year. I'm going to say over 4,000 because if you use the term connection fee for New London and East Lime, you add those two numbers up, you get 3,800 roughly. So that's your starting point is 3,800 just as a basis for another 3,800. Okay. Do we want to add something in the motion that suggesting this [clears throat] price? No, but that

it's it's our responsibility to set this price as a WPCA. It says in the statute, the WPCA shall determine. So, can you review your research with us again, please?

Well, I gave you I gave you higher ones than ours. Um, but I did I did a search uh on the average on the average cost uh uh of a hookup and it said it was between 3,200 and $3,700 and it's a range because a lot of people or square footage. Um, so, uh, but I mean, East Hampton, $7,000. They have $7,000 connection fee. You go in there, I want to hook up my house to the sewer. It's going to cost you $7,000.

And how much of an assessment is it on top of that? I don't know. Nothing. I don't know. Well, I don't know, Mary. I don't say it's nothing. I don't know if if the 20 years has gone by, maybe there's no assessment. I don't know. But I I don't go around researching you everyone's town's uh internal WPCA documents. All right. So, we as of this point, we don't really know. That's what you're saying. As of this point, I know that East Hampton's is $7,000. Do we know what the the beach associations are charging?

I I have no idea. I don't I didn't ask the beach associations. They they are doing things very much differently than we are. Um of course some of them are charging a straight fee. No matter what size house, just as that gentleman said, what size house it is, whatever it is, they're charging straight fee. And what are they doing with that money? Who's doing it with respect? I I don't know. I don't know. I don't they I don't think anyone knows how how to manage the system after it's built. That was [clears throat] that was what I was working on with them uh earlier this year and a proposed regional water authority.

Yeah. Um which is in my view the only way to manage that system but uh and I would take the town out of it and I would have people that own the system be in crypto the system. they can decide whatever they they want. Um they're representing, you know, be a democratically elected board that represents their people. I don't know how how grassroots you can get there. So is there is there a motion? Is it so?

So Mary, uh where are you on voting on this motion? Uh, no. I don't think there's enough information on the table. I don't think it's been researched. I don't even think it's legitimate. No, this is Dennis. Um, I don't believe this this fee was even mentioned at the last WPCA meeting or the one before that or the one before that showing dollar amounts. It was mentioned by Demetri that he said don't forget about the hookup fee. I will vote no on it.

I mean that's that's okay. Um you have the right to vote no for sure. Um you know it it's not I I'm sorry but I I've in our referendum it says the cost per resident will be determined by an equivalent dwelling dwelling unit formula that has been approved by the WPCA. The users would also pay a one-time connection charge and an equivalent dwelling unit charge as well as an annual charge for usage and system maintenance. I mean, it's it's pretty clear that people knew about a hookup fee or a connection fee because it's in the referendum. It is. It was in the referendum in in 2019.

Is it in this referendum? Yes, I'm reading it right from theformational sheet. Fine. 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. location Memorial Town Hall December 16. I think that I think that people misunderstood and that when you say connection fee, they were considering that to be the fee to hook from their house to the system, not an additional fee to hook into the system after you hook. Oh, come on.

But this is not an additional fee. It's it's it's a .edu edu number has stayed the same. It's reducing the .edu number. I mean, you could put zero down if you want. The number is going to be $38,711, but that would mean that that the people that do not have a dwelling on their on their land will have to pay a connection fee or they're paying a portion of what should be a connection fee in their assessment. Kim,

I'm sure I'm sure their property, if they can put a house on something that they can't put on now, will increase uh enough to cover the assessment, but it's it's a matter of of when you look down the road, if this town doesn't have a connection fee, you you'll never recoup your costs. After the after the assessment's paid and there are people coming in, they get to hook up for free. There's no connection fee, so they just hook up for free.

I don't know what you're talking about. They they would pay an assessment just like anybody else. And that hookup, as you call it, would be included in the assessment. No one is going to hook up for free. Jim, do you have your hands up? Oh, I didn't see it. Yes, Jim.

Yeah, just a a quick question. I I know that a couple years ago there was talk of the connection fee and then explicitly pretty much about a year and a half ago the discussion was uh we're rolling the connection fee into the edu. Um some beach associations do some don't. We had that discussion uh in the WPCA. What what thinking changed in the last couple weeks that we're going back to connection fees? I'm just wondering where this came out of. What prompted it?

I I don't I I don't remember ever abandoning connection fees. What we what we tried to do is determine a total cost per .edu. That's that's the the number one thing that you had to do. You can't determine a connection fee or an assessment without a total cost per .edu. Um, right.

Right. So, so let let's say let's say someone this is this is a prime example. Let's say someone owns a property that they want to put up 12 units on a piece of property that that was assessed at one edu because it's blank right now, but they want to put up 12. um we can go back and reassess depending on uh our formula but then we would also charge uh the cost per edu to hook up. I mean it it is it it the hookup fee is there for a reason. It's to cover people going out inspecting. It's to do the paperwork. I mean it it's not free to put in to put in a pipe in the ground. It's not free in this case. What you want to say is we'll throw it into the assessment and then whatever comes later doesn't pay a fee to hook up into our system. If a guy has one one edu now and and throws another house on his land and ties in, that's free. I guess

I also recall as Jim did when Chan tried to explain the hookup fee that prompted us, everyone had voted to roll that into the edu because it was just too confusing. The cost a hookup fee versus my cost to run a a pipe to hook up to the lateral. I accept that that's my price that's not included in the edu. But anything else in the road is part of the construction and that is the connection that was determined by the WPCA. It was voted on and it was determined. So we can look it up, Mary.

You look it up, Steve. You were there and so was Prigos and so was Chang. And that's why his formula failed because there wasn't any agreement about this distinction of the hookup fee. Then it wasn't voted on, I guess, because because you want me to sit here, you want to sit here all night with me and we'll go through all the minutes and we'll see. Frank's formula. Frank's formula was approved. Pardon? Without a hook. Yes. Without a hookup fee. Yes. Rolling it in. And his second iteration.

And actually, I believe we decided to discuss the hookup fee at a later date. I believe he rolled it in to the second iteration of his square footage calculations. He rolled it in because it was just too confusing. Well, I I don't know about that. Um another thing that all job installation not only from the house to the curb but all installation of the sewer is going to be inspected. this person who we going to inspect it going to inspect everything.

It's not going to they're going to be gone. The person that inspects the project work will be gone after the project is done and before home start hooking in. What do you mean? I he will be gone. He will live somewhere in Connecticut. He will come. He's not He's not hired to do that. If you want to be higher than $6,000 he's hired to inspect. This is what the engineering fees are. They're hired to inspect the installation of the project.

He's going to seek $6,000 for him to come and inspect it after that. Who's going to inspect it after that? I I don't know. Uh Dmitri, but but if if there is someone, don't you think they should be paid? Don't you think the town should be reimbured? Or if the WPC has to hire someone, don't you think that they should be reimbursed to another thing? Somebody has an empty lot that possible to have house on, it's not going to is going to stay in in $38,000. We put zero for that hookup. Now, when he's going to build the house,

he has to go house one. He put commercial house is going to be one and a half edu. Yeah. He's going to put 12 units. Condominium is going to be 3D use or or whatever. So there will be charge for that. What's going to happen with those money that we're going to get extra? It's it's not extra. I mean it's it's not in excess of the 387 use we have now if there would be properties more built that will incre bring more money

for for installation I would imagine is it going to pass to the owners who who paid before

I would imagine it reduces user costs user fees because it goes into you have to keep a certain amount of money in the bank for emergency repairs. If you if that money goes into the bank and that fund is is is met, then you probably don't have to charge that as a user fee. Say after all this done, 270 use houses paid for it. Then they have build more houses. They can bring 20 more if you use charge from them. Time 38,711. This going to be twice twice as much for there would be big chunk

$760,000 big chunk of money. Yeah. What's going to happen is this money it's it's the WPCA's money WPCA that's the town's money it will be the WPCA's money but paid by whom by homeowners byers 270 use charged this is another question I don't I don't well it it It's it there is no ret there is no retroactive not that I know of there is no retroactive pay back to people

what I'm saying there would be no no problem you're not going to lose any money if you're going to put in this line 0000 and bring charge for edu 38,71 that's fine this what I'm saying all right and I I think that there should be a connection fee that's what I'm They would be included in this one that already people are going to pay for this. You're not losing nothing.

Well, well, except that how do you how do you charge an assessment to like if if someone adds onto their building, you charge them an assessment? $38,711 will be paid within 20 years with 2% interest. Those money is going to be collected eventually. Wow. Collected it's collected and and it pays off the loan. Yeah. That's putting that's paying for the We're not collecting that money and keeping it. We're collecting that money to pay off the D loan. The connect the connection fee is put the money by D charge they're going to charge give us 25% plus 15 million.

No I understand that but the connection fee is designed to pay for the employees that are inspecting the service connections at the current time from the money from the if the if you the WPCA is going to need employees. You're gonna have to have a an employee that is an inspector that has a right an employee by the town. And he's going to have a pickup truck and he's going to have insurance and he's going to have a salary and money already will be given to the town from what the $38,000 is paying for the pipe.

Okay, look, you just you don't understand what I'm saying. When you get when you get $38,000 a 38 thou $38,711 and 50% of the state already pays. No, it's not. This is after all the money has been granted and funded out. This is the loan value. This is what's left. We're funding $9,415,000. That's after all the money 25% they paid.

No, no, they've already paid the 25%. They've already paid the $15 million. They've already paid the 25% to the shared infrastructure. That's the remaining value of our note of our That's what we owe. That's what we owe the EP. Okay. This is money is going to be paid eventually by the people owners. Yes. Okay. So, this money is going to be paid to somebody. It's going to be collected by the WPCA and then and then paid to the DP. Okay. So, we we would have this money. We won't have this money. I mean, we might have it for a couple of days, but it's going to revolve.

Well, it's it's like it's like this. Uh it's like if you have a loan on your truck and it's due on the 1st and you get paid uh uh the same exact money on on the 29th, you deposit that check and then and then on the first you got to take that money and pay your note. There's that it's that's what we're doing. We're we're collecting the interest. We're charging our users a year a fee for the year to pay the loan off. That's what this represents. It also pays off the connection fee to East Line in New London. But the $38,711 includes is it all it pays for is the two connection fees to East Line in New London and the principal plus interest on the D loan. That's it. So it's going to pay also to this uh money that we are going to have paying for per for connection. They're going to be included $6,000 more.

Well, that would reduce the assessed value. All All it does is reduce the assessed value. That's the goal. I do make this look better. That's all it is is to make it look better.

Right. I do clearly remember that Chan first said an EDU was 15,000 plus 6 for the connection fee. In his second iteration, he changed it and said an EDU was 21,000 including the connection fee. I could go back and get those numbers because I do have them on my laptop if you like, but I do know that that was a change that was made by this WPCA. In my opinion, you do not know and you have not retained anybody to who's a professional and licensed to come and do the inspection. And until you do, you don't know what the cost of that is. And so therefore, I think that that is part of the project. That is a project cost that is part of the capital build. Even though the pipes are in the ground, the project is not complete until people hook up to it and start and and hook up to it. So, in my opinion,

correct, Mary. Mary, I'm sorry. Let me finish and then you can have the floor as soon as I'm finished. Okay. Thank you. In my opinion, since you don't know what you haven't retained anybody, you have no estimates of what that would cost. Until you do, you cannot set a dollar number to it, but you do have to include it as part of the project cost as was done prior by this WPCA. I know that your goal is to make the edu sound better or lower so that it fits under the state statue or whatever, but it will still be challenged because it is a total cost to the homeowner and not just the build and you've been told that by different attorneys. So, I think

I have not been told that by any attorney. I could give you the letters. Okay, I have copies. I'll send them to you that you received. So, uh, thank you. Um, is is there a motion to reduce uh do you want to amend this motion to reduce the cost or the the cost per uh for the uh hookup fee? Do you want to bring it more in line with the average of the state? Do you want to bring in line with basically the cost to hook up to a slime in London? Do you want

Rob? Do you want to put that? I guess I would move 4,000. The same cost to the .edu. Yeah. Be reduced. It would reduce the edu by 4,000. Um, are you okay with that? Is your motion? Yeah. I mean, we've talked as long as I've been on the WPCA over four years, we've always talked about 6,000. So, that number, too.

Yeah. Uh that goes back to Chan and Brenas and so forth. I there was discussion. I don't have the minutes in front of me. There was discussion uh with respect to Mr. There was discussion considering

Hang on a minute. I'm not I'm not finished. So I I I'll certainly let you speak on that. With respect to Jim's Lampos's point, there was discussion about rolling it into the EDU, but that was not voted on in my recollection. I think Rob was on the board at the time as well. Andrea, I think you were on the board. I don't recall us ever voting on that. So there was discussion about it. We've also changed the edu formula since those discussions took place. So that's really a moot point at this stage of the game. So uh I you know I work on sewer projects all the time. My role is in making sure that the that the systems are built such that they don't corrode or degrade prematurely. But every project that I've worked on in small towns, most of them are big towns, big cities, everybody has both big and small hookup or connection fees to the system. So, uh, I'll certainly if if if if we think $4,000 is a is a fairer number based on the state average, then I'd accept that. What do you see for fees in in your work?

What's that? What what range of fees do you see? Well, it's all over the place. I mean, in Massachusetts, it's much higher than what you've talked about here on average, for example. And what generates that increase? Five, $6,000, $7,000. What factors contribute to that? usually more more uh more complicated traffic control, lots of other things. I mean, just based on our project, do you use what would be your opinion? I felt like $6,000 was a good number based on work around the country, but

stick with your motion. I think the $6,000 number is is a safe number for us to look after the system in the future. So that's a that's I'm going to stay with my motion.

May I talk first of all when I've been on this commission for 28 years. Okay. And I I didn't miss any meetings. So I don't I was under impression like Mary was and Dennis Muza that those money we were talking about for hook up it's a price owner pays for contractor who hired by owner to connect from the house to the I was under this impression so this is misunderstanding now I When I when I was hooking up point of woods, I was hooking up the time when Corp already had the pipe. The contractors were working. I was finishing that before all all is done. So the person who checks contractors who put sewer lines or they were on the side. So it's not like something they h they put when house has already this pipe next day contractor comes and hooks up to the house. So there is no something like somebody should come special after all like few months later this time houses hook up when a woods got ledges.

Yeah, $200 of food to bring pipe in the ledge. But that's a different No, no, I'm I'm talking about different.

I'm going to call the question now. So I think if you're talking about lowering price to 4,000, it's a plenty of money. What are you going to think about? They come, they cook up and they inspect it. I'm going to call a question. Uh Randy has decided not to change his motion. So the motion, Could you read it again one more time, please? I make a motion to allocate $6,000 per EDU as a hookup fee to the system, which will reduce the betterment assessment by that same value. The hookup fee will be charged at the at the time of completion of the Sound View Beach and miscellaneous town area B sewer project for any property that has a dwelling. The hookup fee can be paid in full at the time of invoicing or it can be combined with the Betterment assessment and financed at a rate of 2% compounded yearly.

Okay. Thank you. Um all in favor of the motion, please say I. I. I. Please say your names. So I I I'll say Rainey Nixon, Andrea Lombardi, Corey um sorry uh Rob McCarthy and Brad Jüks have voted I in [clears throat] favor that's five. All against, please say no. No, no, no.

All All uh uh not in favor is Mary Dailyaly, Dennis Maluso, Brian Canel, and Dimmitri Ochinski. Uh motion I think I have too many people. Motion passes by four. Dennis, Dennis, you can't vote because I swore in uh I swore in Dennis is a full voting member. I'm a full member. He wasn't here. He wasn't here at the time. He was not here at the time of of uh DART and I swore in Brian Conell to take his place. Okay, fine. We still have enough people. We still have

finished 54 with me not voting at all which would mean 10 nine people. There were there's only nine nine voting members. So I'm technically a voting member but sorry Dennis there was a tie.

So it's it the motion passes uh 53 with the chair not voting. Um, uh, let's see. I'm not I'm going to, uh, on new business B, discuss shared infrastructure costs and payment via ARPA, I guess, A APR, APR, uh, funds. Um, oh, ARPA, ARPA, ARPA. It's only been two years.

I I I just want uh uh it's set fourth. This should be a quick vote. Um I'd like a motion that that says that any uh any fees dealing with that that are outside of um CWF be paid for out of out of that account. So, we're already doing that. to explain to me why you want a motion. Well, I think it we're only doing that because uh we agreed to do that right now. It's in the board of finance minutes. It's in the board of finance minutes. Okay. So, we don't need a motion. Um so, I've I've asked Frank. Uh

well, maybe we do. I didn't think we did. It's in the board of finance. That's 26. I think they have to be spent 26. What I what I don't want what I don't want to happen is uh incurring infrastructure bills like that, shared infrastructure, and having this body say we're not going to pay that one. Will there be bills beyond December 2026? Well, I think there going to be bills beyond January 1st, 2026. So then we have a year to spend that money. Years,

but but It's always it's always it's always up to this board to spend that money and I I would hate to see it not spent at all and given back because people don't want to work together with the beaches. May I ask the question were the ARPA funds given to this WPCA to support the town project or to support the entire infrastructure? Were they dedic supposed to be applied to the town's share? No, as a matter of fact, they were the opposite. There's they're they were designated to be spent on the shared infrastructure. Okay.

And open shared infrastructure. And who designated that? Who made that decision? The board of finance. Thank you. The opera committee. And the opera committee. And the what? the opera committee that that broke up the $2 million grant that was given to the town into the different agencies. I I looked it up in the minutes before we started approving those those costs.

And what what costs do you envision seeing as the shared is being covered by the state? Um what cost to uh some view area B uh that you envision for $158,000? You can't put it you can't put it into the police. You can't put it into uh um anything else other than the shared. You can't you can't maneuver it anywhere you want to do it. It's got to go into the shared system. Into the shared. Right. Right. Okay. So, how about all the engineering work?

Is that going to happen?

I'm sorry, Dennis. You asked a question. We've been paying we've been paying the engineering uh uh firm for uh liaison work between the bridge uh engineer and and the engineer our engineer uh fuss and O'Neal um on the shared infrastructure there there have been sign well not significant costs but it's been probably 15,000 $20,000 of liaison cost between the two engineering firms to uh uh to to assist the bridge people in in so the bridge people we can't go into their area of work they're responsible to put in our pipe and everything else but but fuss and O'Neal is still responsible to review all their submittals and stuff they're responsible for attending meetings I mean it's a the liaison between the two is is not the easiest but that's one way of of spending We've been spending uh this money on CSA. Uh we got opinion from council that says this definitely supports the shared infrastructure. It's all about the shared infrastructure. And furthermore, the legal fees to that aren't even uh reimburseable by the state. So that's another way we've been spending that money. Um it's been reported on every time we spend it. Uh so you can go back into the minutes and see. But uh going forward uh I would hope that this body continues to support uh to support that funding uh and not lose it uh

I think it's about $150,000 attorney fees. Yeah, those fees and on shared infrastructure. So, all right. Uh, we don't I guess we don't need a motion on that. Um, it does concern me, however. Uh, old business didn't want it in the minutes. So, I don't go. Who's this? I was talking. Oh. Oh. Uh, old business. Any old business? No, ma'am.

Uh, any correspondence? I would like to at some point am I allowed to speak to uh Jason if he's still on? I can't tell. He's on. He's on. I don't know if Jason's on. Yes, I'm on. But Oh, okay. There. All right. There you go,

Jason. All right. Yes. Uh you can ask a question, Jason, before we go into uh public comment, which I have to get a motion to add. Uh Jace, um Mary and I spent about five hours, five and a half hours going over the um the [clears throat] design of S view and area B and we located about 28 errors on the design. Now, those errors, are they going to be classified as change orders or are those errors going to be rectified before the build? And if so, does that change the the dollar amount that uh is involved? Yeah, I'd have to uh you'd have to send a list of what those are um before we could evaluate what what the costs are. Uh but this cause this is a unit price contract. So

um there's bid items for various items. So okay. And I'm talking about big differences in in laterals. uh big differences in um buildings where the the present system is and the proposed system is probably 60 ft away. Um those types of things are going to add cost to this project and change orders and that's what I'm looking at and I don't think anybody else is looking at it. Let

Jason answer this. or Jason, can I can I ask a question before you answer that? I think what he's getting at is if the lateral uh location changes on a property, is that going to be a change order? Let's say let's say you designed it on the uh northeast corner and the property owner uh wants it on the northwest corner. Does does the uh contractor get a change order for that? No, that would just be uh the unit price whether it's uh you know lot at one end of the lot or the other. Um that could be moved and that would have no impact on cost.

As as a matter of fact, aren't we requiring the contractor to confirm all lateral locations with the residents before putting it in? Correct. Yeah. Is that right? I know. I've never I've never gotten anything from uh Woodward and Kern in regards to the uh proposed lateral on my house. You haven't started construction. Well, we don't have a sign. I know some people have gotten postcards. We don't have a signed contract with a contractor yet, Dennis. The contractor The contractor is responsible to, you know, I can talk over you just as much as you can talk over me. Not really.

You know, I think so. contractor. The contractor is responsible to confirm with the homeowner where they want their lateral. We do not have a signed contract with a contractor. Therefore, you haven't been contacted yet. It's a requirement in the contract that he do that though. There are some residents that got letters regarding their laterals and some of us didn't. And this is from probably two years ago. That's the reason why I'm saying

I think it's longer I think it's longer than that. I think it was more like uh five years ago at this point. But uh yes, uh uh we did send out a preliminary survey back I think in 2020. Um, and it went to uh all the addresses um in the Sound View area and uh town area B. Uh, we got some responses and uh we we still have those on file. Well, I can tell you I never got one for my property. All right. But that's not a problem.

So, so Jason, this is Andrea. Can you just define a unit price contract for us? What does what does that mean? It it a unit price contract means uh a lateral or the the sewer main is going to cost so much per foot. Uh a manhole is going to cost so much per vertical foot. Okay. Uh a manhole frame and cover is going to cost so much per frame and cover each. A lateral would cost so much per linear foot.

Um it it goes on and on. But most of the items, 95% of all the items in there are probably uh unit pricing. There may be some lumps on pricing in there for miscellaneous things. Thank you. All right. Um so may I have a motion since some people have stayed well one person stayed uh to include public comment and there's probably people on online also uh to include public comment in this uh meeting. I'll make that motion.

I'll second. Thank you. Uh is there any public comment? Uh I'll take people here first. I sure just say your name. Uh Tom Grant, old land resident. Um my question is uh I I fail to understand why we're um moving a project cost estimated at 20,528,000. You've determined it should cost 9,265,000. I don't understand that. So the 20 million represents the total cost that could be incurred by the town if no uh grant money or principal forgiveness which is approximately 50% is being offered by DEEP. And so if we if the deep says you got to sign all these contracts and then reneig on all their promises and their contract with us and says we're not paying you grant money, we're not paying we have to bond for that figure. However, deep is paying uh close to 50% of of the of the uh cost. So, in the end, when they write when we have a bill for a million dollars, they give us a million dollar check and they put $500,000 against our account and the rest is forgiven. And so, at the end, when we incur around $20 million, we only have $9.4 million of of actual loan value. Then, it's potentially deceptive to say in the referendum that the cost has gone from 9.5 million to 20 million. Uh, no. I don't think so.

Why? Why? Why is that deceptive? Well, it's deceptive because it is anticipated that the DEB is going to cover these grants. So but yeah but when we had when we did the initial nine and a half million that was uh and this was back before COVID uh superinflation uh all that but back in I think 2017 that figure was developed by the engineers that included that was our cost that was our anticipated cost complete cost okay so so then my so then my question becomes how do you go from 9.5 million to 20 million well you you years. That's 35% inflation a year. That's ridiculous.

I don't know if it's 35%. I calculated before I came here. All right. Ridiculous.

I I I I can the only the only thing I can tell you is this is it's [clears throat] not going any lower. Prices are not going back down to the before pre-COVID. CO had a huge impact on construction and materials. I I believe that COVID has placed contractors out of business that couldn't last that long. Uh and what's left is a supply and demand. And until until that equalizes to some degree, uh costs are going to continue to go up. They've they've almost leveled in the last six months, I believe, but they're not they're I mean I I owned a contracting company and I'm thinking about going back into it because I can't believe the pricing. I mean,

Steve, since this is a special meeting, I don't think you can vote to change the agenda in a special meeting and add public comment. It's a special meeting. It's not a regular meeting. You're not supposed to change the agenda or vote on changing the agenda. fine by me. Okay. We'll strike we'll strike his remarks from the record. Uh thank you. In that in that in that case uh I'm sorry people if is that true? Yeah. In that case uh we will have to I have a motion to adjurnn. Motion second. Second. All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you everyone.