WPCA Minutes 01/12/2017
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 12, 2017
“Subject to Vote of Approval”
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Paul Gilmore called the regular meeting of the Water Pollution Control Authority to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Simsbury Water Pollution Control Facility Conference Room, 36 Drake Hill Road, Simsbury. The following members were present: Michael Park, Jay Sheehan, Lucian Dragulski, and Tom Hickey. Also present were Anthony Piazza, Superintendent; Tom Roy, Director of Public Works; Alison Sturgeon, Clerk, as well as other interested parties.
2. SAFETY BRIEF – Mr. Gilmore gave a safety brief noting the exits in case of an emergency. He also warned to never put your hands near snow blower blades, even when the snow blower is not running.
3. PUBLIC HEARING – 75, 80 & 82 CLIMAX ROAD SEWER EXTENSION
Mr. Sheehan made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Dragulski seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Roy stated that the applicant for 80 Climax Road is looking to develop this property, under State Statute 8-30G, to allow for a public road and 19 homes. In order for the applicant to connect, the nearest location is at the corner of Climax Road and Wheeler Road, which is approximately 130 feet from where the proposed new road for the subdivision will tie into Climax Road. The extension would be constructed in the current right-of-way. The proposed plans show the sewer heading into the center of the property onto a road that would become a public road in the future. Regarding the property that is known as 2 Wheeler Road, this property was already assessed when sewer was installed on Wheeler Road. Mr. Roy stated that the rear property, 82 Climax Road, should be discussed further by the Authority in terms of possible sewer connection.
Mr. Roy stated that if the Authority deems this project as a standard developer’s project, where there is already a sewer in Climax Road, the developer would be responsible for installing the sewer in accordance with the WPCA guidelines and under the direction of Town staff. At the time the sewers are properly constructed, the Town could take over these sewers. He stated that the developer would be paying for this extension as well as the construction. This project is unique in that the 130 feet along Climax Road would be constructed in the public right-of-way. The question before the Authority tonight is if they would treat this application differently than how they would treat a standard developer’s project. Mr. Piazza stated that the only potential connection within the 130 foot extension would be if 2 Wheeler Road is subdivided in the future.
Mr. Gilmore questioned if the Town has ever authorized a developer’s contractor to work and construct in the public right-of-way. Mr. Roy stated that the normal procedure is for the Town to engineer the project and go out to bid and hire a private contractor to do the work. He stated that this 130 foot extension is comparable to, where on Murphy’s Turn they extended out perpendicular to the existing roadway to connect. The developer for Climax Road is proposing to extend out parallel to reach the existing manhole.
Mr. Gilmore questioned what Mr. Roy’s preference would be in terms of who does the work in the public right-of-way. Mr. Roy stated that if this is designed by the developer and their engineer, with the Town having the ability to review it, he would be comfortable with it being constructed in that manner. He stated that he believes there is a benefit of having one contractor doing the whole project. If this is approved as a developer’s project, the Town would not front or collect any money; they would simply set the standards that the developer would need to follow.
Mr. Roy stated that the other piece of this application is whether or not 82 Climax Road could connect and, if so, would the WPCA require easements through the property at 80 Climax Road. Mr. Sheehan questioned if 82 Climax Road has asked for access to the sewer. Mr. Piazza stated that they have not made that request, although there is potential for future hookups on this site. Mr. Roy stated that 82 Climax Road has the ability to connect along their private roadway, although it would be very expensive. He stated that it would be difficult to get a 20 foot easement between the houses of the proposed development because of the density.
Andrew Quirk, PE and Design Engineer for the applicant, stated that the side yard setbacks are 8 feet from the property line to the side of the houses; there will only be approximately 16 feet from garage to garage for an easement. Mr. Quirk stated that when the Castlewood subdivision was constructed, the applicant was not required to give sewer access to 82 Climax Road.
Mr. Piazza stated that he has received a letter from the Town of Avon which states that the terms of the letter will need to be formally documented within a supplemental agreement between Avon and Simsbury, prior to connecting to the Avon collection system. The letter also stated that, based on these assumptions, the Town of Avon will accept the flows from this subdivision. Mr. Piazza stated that the Town Attorney has been notified and is currently working with the Town of Avon.
Mr. Gilmore opened the public hearing to questions and comments.
The homeowner at 2 Wheeler Road stated that he is interested in possibly subdividing his property. Although he does not have anything against this proposed project, he would like the Authority to keep his property in mind if he could benefit from this project in any way. He stated that he is still trying to learn about this process.
Mr. Gilmore questioned if 2 Wheeler Road would be assessed if the property was subdivided, not including what has already been assessed. Mr. Roy stated that if the developer handles the entire project, there would be no way to recover the costs from residents. Mr. Quirk questioned if the Town of Simsbury has an equity mechanism for this. Mr. Sheehan stated that if this is a private project, no costs would be reimbursed to the developer.
Mr. Dragulski questioned if the project could be revised and shifted 2 feet in order to accommodate easements through this development for access to 82 Climax Road. He would like to give the owner of 82 Climax Road an opportunity to connect in the future. Mr. Quirk stated that shifting the development could not be done; revising the layout of the development would be a negative impact on the subdivision and the adjoining properties. He stated that if an easement will be required by the WPCA, he asked that the WPCA consider reimbursing the actual construction portion from the cul de sac to the property line. He stated that the applicant would prefer to build it now and not come back and have to disrupt between the homes and foundations.
Mr. Sheehan made a motion to close the public hearing. Dr. Park seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Sheehan stated that the issues before the Authority members are: the status of 82 Climax Road is unknown; if 2 Wheeler Road would possibly be subdivided in the future; if this work will be done by the developer or the Town; and changes to the Inter-Town Agreement with Avon.
Dr. Park made a motion to approve the application for a sewer extension to service 75, 80 & 82 Climax Road, subject to the following provisions and conditions: 1.) The sewer extension is subject to the conditions precedent that the Inter-Town Agreement between Simsbury and the Town of Avon is amended on terms that, in the sole and absolute discretion of Simsbury, are reasonable and prudent, it being understood that Simsbury shall have no obligation to amend the Agreement; 2.) An easement be provided on 80 Climax Road (the servient estate) in favor of 82 Climax Road, of no less than 16 feet, for the purpose of enabling the owner of 82 Climax Road, as of right, to connect into the sewer pipes on 80 Climax Road; 3.) That a spur be built from the extension, by the developer/applicant to the property line of 2 Wheeler Road; 4.) That the 130 foot extension of the sewer in Climax Road be constructed by the applicant, and paid for solely by the applicant, in accordance with such plans and specification as may be required by the Simsbury Public Works Director (or Town Engineer), and subject to such requirements, including but not limited to insurance and bonding, as Simsbury may require of the applicant in a Developer’s Agreement. Mr. Sheehan seconded the motion.
Regarding a spur being built from the extension, Mr. Sheehan suggested to add to the motion that it be contingent upon further discussion with 2 Wheeler Road. Also, he questioned if a 16 foot easement would be adequate for the WPC. Mr. Roy stated that if the Town needed to get heavy equipment onto a 16 foot easement, he would be concerned about undermining the foundations. He recommended that a steel casing be put around the PVC sewer pipe.
Mr. Sheehan made an amendment to #2 in the motion to include a steel sleeve around the sewer pipe as proposed and agreed to between the two parties at such time as that infrastructure be put forth. Mr. Hickey seconded the amended motion, which was unanimously approved.
Regarding the request for an amendment to the Inter-Town Agreement, Mr. Gilmore stated that since the request was made, if the WPCA does not act upon the request within 60 days of accepting it, it could be construed as being granted.
Mr. Dragulski made a motion that the application to amend the agreement is denied as made and that in lieu thereof, the Town shall undertake, in its sole and absolute discretion, to attempt to amend the Avon Agreement on terms that are reasonable and prudent for the Town and that if reasonable and prudent amendments can be made to the Agreement that will permit the applicant’s project to proceed, then subject to the exercise of such discretion and the approval of the Agreement by the Town Attorney and the First Selectman, that the Agreement should be so amended, otherwise not. Dr. Park seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
4. David Prickett Consulting Engineers – Presentation
David Prickett discussed the wastewater flow allocation project summary and his proposed recommendations with the Authority members. He stated that the treatment plant has a capacity of 3.8MGD; approximately half of this capacity has been allocated. Within the existing wastewater flow, there are two types of flow, which consists of the sanitary flow from homes and businesses as well as the infiltration and inflow. The breakdown of flow for Simsbury is that the average home accounts for 193 gpd of wastewater. He stated that a seasonal water consumption analysis was also performed to determine the base sanitary flows for Simsbury residential sewer customers. The average winter water usage per residential sewer customer from January through March is 145 gpd.
Moving forward, Mr. Prickett stated that Simsbury’s sewer service area has already been defined. He stated that the Authority members should not be overly concerned about the rate of new connections within the Town. If all potential lots were connected to the sewer, using the 193 gpd, the current capacity of Simsbury’s treatment plant would be sufficient. He did state, however, that they should be cautious of pinch points in the collection system infrastructure and pump stations that may limit capacity in certain areas.
Mr. Gilmore stated his concerns regarding the pinch points because this is important in terms of setting policy. Mr. Prickett stated that the extent of their work included looking at whether or not there were any obvious pinch points within any of the basins. He stated that when connections get into pumping situations farther away, such as West Simsbury, it will be beyond the dynamic analysis; it will be on a case by case basis. Mr. Roy stated that they will need to be more careful when larger apartment projects are being developed or industrial applications are being proposed where they may see a significant flow. A case by case engineering analysis would need to be done in these types of applications.
Mr. Prickett discussed infiltration and inflow with the Authority members. He stated that in some instances it is more cost effective to treat the I&I than it is to remove it. Most communities choose to have developers help fund the treatment of this. Mr. Gilmore questioned if there are environmental implications in treating I&I. Mr. Prickett said that the Town should continue to look for I&I improvement opportunities, although as long as the treatment plant is meeting its permit requirements, this would be a solution.
5. Application for Sewer Connection – Dyno Nobel (Building 200)
Mr. Piazza stated that this is an application for a sewer connection from Dyno Nobel, which was tabled at last month’s WPCA meeting because the applicant was looking at possible remedies. Since they have no other options, they are requesting to put in a lateral for Building 200, which is up on Woodland Street and will flow down to the apartments at One West Street.
Mr. Piazza stated that this is a 223 acre parcel in an I-2 Zone; the allocation allows for a flow of 760,000 gpd from the site. The applicant is projecting to use 1,980 gpd.
Mr. Sheehan made a motion to approve the application for sewer connection for Dyno Nobel, Building 200 that will utilize 1,980 gpd. Mr. Hickey seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
6. Allocation Request - 690 Hopmeadow Street
Mr. Piazza stated that the allocation request for 690 Hopmeadow Street was accepted by the WPCA at their last meeting. He stated that the owner of this property is proposing a 74 bedroom development on this site. The flow allocation for this site is approximately 8,000 gpd; this project would need 11,100 gpd. With respect to the flow study, he stated that David Prickett Consulting has submitted a letter stating that there is plenty of capacity to accommodate the development of this site through the existing 16” diameter gravity sewer, which is owned and operated by the Town of Simsbury.
Dr. Park made a motion to approve the allocation request for 690 Hopmeadow Street for 11,100 gpd based upon the analysis and conclusions of David Prickett Consulting, that there is adequate capacity for this request. Mr. Hickey seconded the motion.
Mr. Sheehan stated his concerns regarding the Authority approving allocation requests based on the capacity in the pipes. Mr. Gilmore stated that because David Prickett Consulting is in the middle of their flow allocation study, the WPCA is in a transition phase and will be looking at each allocation request on a case to case basis using engineering analysis and as long as no one will be denied service if an allocation request is granted.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor and 1 in opposition.
7. Budget – Discussion
Mr. Piazza stated that there needs to be an increase in the FY 2017/18 budget for salary and insurance as well as for new computer software for security access at the treatment facility. He has received quotes ranging from $29,000 - $37,000. He stated that overall there will be an increase of 3% to the budget.
8. Sewer Use Fees for FY 2017/18 – Discussion
Mr. Piazza stated that the current sewer use charge is $335 per EDU for residential customers and $4.25 per CCF for non-residential customers. The last rate increase was in 2012. He explained that in order to keep the reserves and revenues parallel, there would need to be an increase.
Regarding capital improvement projects, Mr. Piazza stated that there are possible State mandates that may need to be accounted for, although if they are not mandated, the reserve fund will be stabilized. The reserve fund is currently at $4.7 million. The WPCA needs to decide what the reserve fund should be maintained at and adjust their rates accordingly. He recommended a 15% increase over a 5 year period.
Mr. Piazza stated that he will get more information for the Authority members for the next meeting.
9. Status Report on Sewer Extension Projects, etc.
Mr. Roy stated that the easement documents and map have been filed with the Town Clerk’s office for Maple Court Homeowners Association. They are still waiting for Old Mill Townhomes to return their documents so they can be filed as well.
10. Treatment Facility Report
Mr. Piazza stated that all permit requirements were met for December. He stated that the electronic depth of the blanket monitor for the secondary clarifier #2 has failed. Staff is currently investigating the cause of the failure as well as repair and replacement options. Also, septage tanks level monitors are experiencing an “electrical noise” creating false readings. Staff is currently running the system in manual until the cause of the noise is eliminated.
Mr. Piazza stated that yearly electrical consumption is approximately 13.5% less this year from consumption in 2014, which is prior to the electrical upgrades to the plant as well as the process changes.
Mr. Piazza stated that the staff continues with the cleaning of the system. Also, a truck driver position is currently open; an employee has transferred to the Highway Department
11. Correspondence
The Authority members reviewed the following: a flow allocation approval letter from Mr. Piazza to Attorney Wise; a letter from Mr. Piazza to Garden Homes regarding their facility connection charges; letters to homeowners at 318-331 Bushy Hill Road regarding their sewer design; and a letter from Mr. Piazza to Stratton Forest Homeowners Association in response to their request to turn their private sewers over to the Town of Simsbury.
12. DECEMBER 8, 2016 MEETING MINUTES – POSSIBLE APPROVAL
Several edits were made to the minutes.
Dr. Park made a motion to approve the December 8, 2016 minutes as amended. Mr. Sheehan seconded the motion, which was approved. Mr. Sheehan abstained.
13. ADJOURN
Mr. Sheehan made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Hickey seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
______________________
Paul Gilmore, Chairman