WPCA - FCC Policy Review Subcommittee Minutes 08/31/2012 - DRAFT
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
FCC POLICY REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING
August 31, 2012 - DRAFT
1. CALL TO ORDER
Paul Gilmore called the Special Meeting of the FCC Policy Review Subcommittee to order at 7:00 a.m. at the Simsbury Water Pollution Control Facility Conference Room, 36 Drake Hill Road, Simsbury. The following members were present: Michael Park and Loren Shoemaker. Also present were: James Clifton, WPC Superintendent; Richard Sawitzke, Town Engineer; Alison Sturgeon, Clerk; as well as other interested parties.
2. DISCUSSION OF FCC POLICY REVISIONS
Mr. Gilmore stated that since the last meeting, the Water Pollution Control Authority Chairman has asked the Subcommittee for a specific recommendation as to whether the policy should be changed and, if so, how and to what extent.
Mr. Gilmore stated that the subcommittee has looked at legal standards at setting the FCC policy. He stated that they are entitled to set a minimum fee. Once this is set, the Authority is not obligated to revise that fee, although they can, at any time, reevaluate it to see if that fee structure continues to be fair and reasonable. He stated that the subcommittee members also took information from Maureen Crowley of AECOM, who concluded that Simsbury’s current FCC fee structure is fair and reasonable. The Subcommittee also took into consideration how the initial FCC charge was determined. The statistics that were looked at, as well as the sampling, did support the potential stratification of fees based upon the size of a dwelling unit and number of bedrooms that it might sustain. There were also economies of scale in the provision of additional capacity. There is significantly less water use for apartments and condominiums that are less than 1,200 s.f. and have only one bedroom compared to the average single family dwelling for an apartment or condominium that is greater than 1,199 s.f. and less than 2,000s.f. to the extent that is has 2 bedrooms or less. The subcommittee also looked at what the sources are of the repayment of the loan for the facility upgrade.
Mr. Gilmore stated that what he is putting forth for consideration today is whether the subcommittee should recommend the following to the Authority: 1) for an apartment or condominium that is less than 1,200 s.f. and that has a single bedroom, pay an FCC charge that is equal to 70% of the standard charge for an EDU, which would be equal to $2, 865; 2) for an apartment or condominium that is more than 1,199 s.f. but not more than 2,000 s.f., to the extent that the apartment or condominium has no more than 2 bedrooms, an FCC charge that is equal to 80% of the standard charge for an EDU, which would be equal to $3,275. He stated that a townhome is not intended to come within the definition of an apartment or condominium as used in this proposal. A townhome would be treated as a single family dwelling.
Mr. Shoemaker felt that the proposal should reaffirm that there would not be any changes to the user fees. He stated that he is in support of Mr. Gilmore’s proposal.
Mr. Gilmore asked for public comments or questions.
The term condominium was discussed. Mr. DiFata, Powder Forest Homes, stated that there are townhomes structured as condominiums, where an association owns the outside of the buildings. The definition of condominium needs to be very clear. Mr. Gilmore stated that his intent in using the term condominium is that it is a dwelling unit contained within a building of other dwelling units; it is not a freestanding structure or a PUD.
Mr. Giorgio, Keystone Companies, stated that he appreciates all of the hard work of the subcommittee. He questioned if there was a statistical basis for the 70% and 80% adjustment, as opposed to 60% and 70%. Mr. Gilmore stated that the reasoning is that looking at the data for water use for dwelling units that are less than 1,200 s.f. with a single bedroom is 60% differential of water use while the larger dwelling unit is 70% differential of water use. The proposed change does not go all the way down to that percentage; it goes to 10% above that. He stated that there needed to be a reduced charge in the fee to units using less water.
Mr. Demming, Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, question how a mixed-use development would be charged. Mr. Gilmore stated that, for example, if there were apartments on the second floor with retail on the first floor, the FCC for the second floor would be based upon the square footage and the numbers of bedrooms. The FCC that would be charged for the first floor would be assessed based upon the commercial use of that floor.
Mr. Girard, Simscroft, stated that he feels apartments should be looked at as commercial. To say apartments are going to be residential, he feels, would be more of an exception to the policy. He stated that he does not feel that apartments would fit the qualifications of a single family residence. Mr. Gilmore stated that the Authority needs to make a determination. He looked at the use that an apartment would have in terms of the demands on it for putting affluent into the collection system. Mr. Giorgio believes there is a disconnect between the actual results of what the use will be versus the basis upon which the charge is. He asked that the subcommittee look at the utilization, which is 60% and 70%, but the charge is 70% and 80%.
Mr. Shoemaker made a motion to carry Mr. Gilmore’s proposal, dated August 28, 2012, forward to the Water Pollution Control as written. Dr. Park seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
3. JUNE 28, 2012 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES – POSSIBLE APPROVAL
Dr. Park made a motion to approve the June 28, 2012 special meeting minutes as written. Mr.
Shoemaker seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
4. ADJOURN
Mr. Shoemaker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 a.m. Dr. Park seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
_________________________________________
Paul Gilmore