WPCA Meeting Minutes 09/08/2022
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 2022
“Subject to Vote of Approval”
1. CALL TO ORDER
Paul Gilmore called the regular meeting of the Water Pollution Control Authority to order at 7:02 p.m. via a Zoom meeting. The following members were present: Michael Park, Ed Kelly, Lucian Dragulski, Tom Hickey, Jacques Brignac and Jay Sheehan (who left the meeting early). Also present were Anthony Piazza, Superintendent and Alison Sturgeon, Clerk.
2. SAFETY BRIEF – None.
Dr. Park made a motion to move the approval of minutes to the top of the agenda. Mr. Hickey seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
3. APRIL AND MAY REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AND JUNE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES – POSSIBLE APPROVAL
Mr. Sheehan made a motion to approve the May 12, 2022 meeting minutes as written. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the June 9, 2022 meeting minutes as written. Mr. Hickey seconded the motion, which was approved. Dr. Park and Mr. Brignac abstained.
Dr. Park made a motion to approve the April 14, 2022 meeting minutes as written. Mr. Brignac seconded the motion, which was approved. Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Hickey and Mr. Kelly abstained.
4. BELDEN FOREST COURT CONDOMINIUMS – DISCUSSION
Mr. Piazza stated that Belden Forest Court Condominiums are individually owned. In 2011, their sewer use billing
was switched to water usage for commercial. A letter was sent to them from the WPCA back in 2010 stating that
the billing would be changed to water usage. Mr. Piazza stated that the Town’s billing policy is that any
individually owned residential unit must be charged one equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) per unit. The WPCA has
had discussions to potentially change this back in line with their sewer use billing policy.
Mr. Uanino, Director at Belden Forest Court, stated that the Belden Forest Court Board of Directors is requesting a
review of the WPCA’s billing policy. He stated that their complex currently pays one sewer bill, one electric bill
and one water bill for the entire complex. They operate along the style of an apartment building, which gets billed,
under the billing policy, by water usage. Mr. Uanino stated that there are 44 units in their complex; they are
currently paying $4,000-$5,000 per year for sewer. Changing their billing would increase their bill to approximately
$15,000, which would be a large increase for this older community. It is his understanding that if he purchased the
building and rented it back to the residents, the sewer use fees would be based on water usage. Each unit will be
using the same amount of water that they currently are, whether or not they are individually owned.
Mr. Uanino stated that this is not a regular condominium complex. Staff has master keys to each unit, which normal
condominiums do not. They also have maintenance and housekeeping for residents. They change lightbulbs for
residents, they paint the interior of apartments, and help hang pictures on walls, Although this is not an assisted
living facility, they operate in that realm. They also have activities, which is different from a regular condominium
complex. Staff does everything for the residents, plus more, that is similar to an apartment building. He stated that
this would not seem right or fair to change back to the old billing system for residents. Eleven years ago, they were
switched over because of the fact that they pay one water bill.
Mr. Uanino stated that there are several buildings in the complex that are rented out by Belden Forest Court
Condominiums. He stated that, again, they act differently than most condominium complexes. Their staff acts as a
concierge or a liaison for residents; they help residents send faxes and help them carry in groceries. They operate as
an apartment building.
Mr. Uanino stated that the units range from just under 500 sf to approximately 800 sf. Almost all units are occupied
by single residents, although there are a few that house couples. He compared a larger home in Simsbury that would
be charged the same; they are definitely using more water than the units in their complex. He stated that during
Covid, the health department did not have guidelines for them because they were a unique situation; Belden Forest
Court Condominiums were considered to be in the assisted living category in terms of procedures.
Mr. Uanino stated that each unit is individually owned, which is mostly for resident’s dignity. Most residents have
just sold their homes, but are not ready for a nursing home.
Mr. Uanino stated that they are currently working on their next year’s budget; they vote on it in November. There is
a time crunch for them, depending on the WPCA’s approval. He is hopeful that a category could be created for
unique complexes like theirs. He stated that he has been employed in his current position for over 20 years and the
sewer bill has always been received in one bill and paid by Belden Forest Court in one payment.
Mr. Gilmore questioned if it was their contention that any other condominiums that has multiple units in one
building should be treated as an apartment complex or is he saying that this is a special case. Mr. Uanino stated that
he would define this complex as a hybrid of both. They are different because most condominiums in Town have
their own water meter. Belden Forest Court has one water meter; they do not have 44 water meters. They operate
as a single building.
Mr. Gilmore questioned if residents can sell their units and each individual owner can retain the price they sell it for.
Mr. Uanino stated that they can sell their units, although most of their residents leave under more difficult terms than
trying to make money. Studio units are selling for approximately $20,000; the monthly condo fees are over $1,000
per month because of all of the services they offer, as well as paying the water, sewer and electric bills.
Mr. Gilmore asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak on behalf of Belden Forest Court
Condominiums. It was asked that if the billing went to the individual units as well as to Belden Forest Court, would
this not be “double dipping”. Mr. Gilmore stated that the bills would not be sent to both, but only to one or the
other.
Mr. Uanino stated that currently, each resident is paying their portion of the sewer bill, which is approximately $90
per unit. A jump to $360 would be very concerning for residents. Mr. Gilmore stated that they would not be
looking to back-bill residents, even though the WPCA would have the right to do that.
Jackie, a member of the Belden Forest Court Board of Directors, stated that during the WPCA’s requested review,
she would appreciate justification of how the system is set up. She feels that it is ridiculous to charge someone that
has a large home with six people living in it the same as a single person living in a lower income retirement
complex. She stated that the Town recently put out a survey in terms of improvements of units in Town; it is her
understanding that the whole Town was surveyed. The survey asked about information regarding how many toilets,
sinks, swimming pools, etc. were in these complexes and single-family homes in Town. She does not understand
why the burden, money wise, would be the same for someone with a larger single-family home. She feels it is
very unequal and it is time to look at the fairness. She is looking forward to the WPCA having this discussion.
Mr. Piazza stated that prior to switching to billing by water usage, the Town billed Belden Forest Court for all 44
units with only one bill. Their last bill, prior to the switch, was approximately $14,000. Mr. Uanino stated that
Belden Forest Court was originally built as condominiums. Mr. Gilmore stated that from 1985 until 2011, every
dwelling unit was individually billed. Mr. Uanino stated that is correct, except that it came all in one bill for all 44
units; residents were not directly billed. Mr. Gilmore stated that the billing was switched to water usage for the last
11 years.
Mr. Gilmore questioned if Mr. Uanino noticed a substantial drop in the sewer billing for the complex in 2011. Mr.
Uanino stated that he did; they were notified by the WPCA in a letter dated November 8, 2010, that they would be
switching to water usage.
Mr. Gilmore questioned if there are any other buildings in Simsbury where there are multiple units in a building that
had a similar change from being billed by the number of units to water usage. Mr. Piazza stated that there are no
other buildings in Town that are set up like Belden Forest Court. There are condos in Town which have a common
sewer for the building, although they have individual water meters. Mr. Kelly questioned how these other
condominiums are billed. Mr. Piazza stated that they are billed by EDU.
Mr. Gilmore questioned when the last time the billing policy was examined in terms of user fees for single-family
dwellings. Mr. Piazza stated that it was last reviewed in 2010, which is the policy as it exists today. It was looked
at during the time that the switch to water use billing for commercial use occurred. Mr. Gilmore questioned if it was
considered at that time, whether the Authority should treat single family dwelling units differently based upon the
size of the dwelling. Mr. Piazza read the policy, stating, “Sewer users are divided into two classifications:
residential and non-residential. Residential users are properties that are used for residential purposes only. They
may be single or multi-family units. Non-residential users are properties that are engaged in business, education,
non-profit enterprises, government, residential units with non-resident ownership, etc. Residential sewer rates are
based on equivalent dwelling units (EDU). Single-family dwelling unit, or each single-family unit in a
multi-family structure will be billed one EDU per year.”
Mr. Gilmore questioned if an analysis has ever been done in terms of the variants of water usage based upon the size
of the dwelling. Mr. Piazza stated that this has not been done based upon the size. From the last flow study done in
2018, they did an average using water bills from Aquarion Water and Avon Water. The average was based on what
was coming through the sewers based on water usage, but not based upon individual homes. Mr. Kelly stated that
the size of the home does not matter; how many people living in the home is what matters. Mr. Gilmore questioned
if the number of bedrooms was ever evaluated. Mr. Piazza stated that this has not been done since he has been
employed with the Town.
Mr. Gilmore questioned if every single-family dwelling in Town has a separate water meter. Mr. Kelly stated that
there are some homes on wells. Mr. Gilmore questioned if there were any studies available in terms of the
percentage of housing with certain numbers of bedrooms and how they are likely to be occupied. Mr. Piazza stated
that this calculation is used when developments are constructed to ensure the sewers have adequate capacity.
Mr. Kelly stated that when the WPCA has set their user fee in the past, they have compared Simsbury to other sewer
districts to see how the pricing lines up. If he remembers correctly, Simsbury is one of the Towns with a lower fee.
Mr. Gilmore questioned if the Authority members wanted to establish a subcommittee to evaluate whether
or not it may be meritorious to base the user fee for single family dwellings upon the number of bedrooms in
the dwelling and/or other factors. Mr. Piazza stated that if the Authority tries to based this off of the number of
bedrooms, it would be an enormous undertaking as well as having to coordinate with other departments to be
notified when additional bedrooms are added onto homes. Also, there are currently two sewer codes; changing
sewer billing based off of number of bedrooms would make it necessary to have at least one dozen user codes. He
stated that he does not disagree with looking at the sewer use charge in order to look at potential different situations.
He feels that looking at the number of bedrooms would be a laborious task.
Mr. Gilmore stated that the Authority members could ponder this issue until the next meeting to decide if there is
any merit to having a subcommittee formed, and if so, they could report back with their findings. Dr. Park stated
that he does not like the idea of a subcommittee. He asked that a list be compiled in terms of what has been said
tonight so they each have time to digest the information to be discussed at the next WPCA meeting.
Mr. Hickey questioned if Belden Forest Court Condominium is truly a unique case in Town. Mr. Piazza stated staff
has looked at different potential units; nothing has been found that is similar to this complex.
Mr. Gilmore stated that this discussion will be continued at the next meeting. Also, the WPCA will defer the
informational meeting for Belden Forest Court Condominium residents until the Authority has time to look into this
issue.
5. 10 MASSACO STREET, APT. P – ELDERLY RELIEF
Mr. Piazza stated that the resident at 10 Massaco Street, Apt. P is requesting elderly relief for next year’s sewer use
bill. He stated that, currently, the Town of Simsbury does not have a policy for elderly sewer relief. Mr. Piazza read
State Statute, Chapter 103, Section 7-253a, stating “Any municipality may, by ordinance, permit any property owner
who is eligible for tax relief for (1) elderly taxpayers under the provisions of section 12-129b, section 12-170aa, or a
plan of tax relief for elderly taxpayers provided by such municipality in accordance with subdivision (1) of
subsection (a) of section 12-129n or (2) any property owner under age sixty-five who is eligible under the provisions
of a plan for tax relief provided by such municipality in accordance with subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section
12-129n to apply to the water pollution control authority in such municipality for approval of a plan of payment of
such property owner's sewer assessment in a manner other than as provided under section 7-253.” Section “C” of
that same chapter states, “(c) Any municipality may, by ordinance, provide for optional methods of payment of
sewer use charges to the water pollution control authority by (1) elderly taxpayers who are eligible for tax relief
under the provisions of section 12-129b, section 12-170aa or a plan of tax relief for elderly taxpayers provided by
such municipality in accordance with section 12-129n or (2) any taxpayer under the age of sixty-five who is eligible
for tax relief under the provisions of a plan for tax relief provided by such municipality in accordance with
subdivision (2) of section 12-129n.”
Mr. Piazza stated that the WPCA has the authority to allow for elderly relief, which would be based upon income.
The income levels range from $11,000-$30,000; there is a percentage of relief based on that income. He stated that
if the WPCA allows relief, they will be reimbursed from the State of CT for that relief. Residents would need to
apply for the relief between February and May 15th of the same year. Mr. Piazza stated that the Town has a policy
already in place based on the State Statutes.
Mr. Gilmore stated that since the Town already has an Ordinance in place, that it does speak as to the authorization but also, a public policy that favors giving relief to elderly in the lower income bracket. He would recommend that the WPCA create a policy for the elderly to obtain relief. The WPCA members agreed.Mr. Piazza stated that he will draft language for the WPCA to discuss and possibly approve at their next meeting.
6. AMORTIZATION - DISCUSSION
Mr. Piazza stated that, at their last meeting, the WPCA briefly discussed the installment of payments of assessments, which is currently a 10-year payback for new sewers. State Statute Chapter 103, Section 7-253 states, “…the Water Pollution Control Authority may provide for the payment of any assessment in substantially equal annual installments, not exceeding thirty, and may provide for interest charges applicable to such deferred payments.” Mr. Piazza stating that although they could approve up to a 30-year payback, he would recommend changing the amortization to a 15-year payback for new sewer assessments.
Mr. Kelly questioned what the impact to the WPCA would be going from 10 to 15 years. Mr. Piazza stated that the impact would be minimal.
Mr. Kelly made a motion to establish a 15-year amortization schedule as an option for a property owner to pay the sewer assessment over a 15-year period of time. Mr. Dragulski seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
7. STATUS REPORT ON SEWER EXTENSION PROJECTS, ETC.
Mr. Piazza stated that Woodland Street will be paved next week. Regarding Eagle Lane, he is waiting for pricing from contractors. Also, Pine Hill Homeowner’s Association will need to be rescheduled since he continues to wait on the surveyors. At this time, there is no estimate or design for the project.
8. TREATMENT FACILITY REPORT
Mr. Piazza stated that all permit requirements were met for the months of June, July & August. He stated that the work on the secondary clarifier launder covers has proved to be successful to date with eliminating the growth of algae in the clarifiers. Staff has since put up sun blocking curtains around the UV system and will be covering the remaining part of the effluent channel this month.
Regarding sewer lining, Mr. Piazza stated that this year’s work has started and will be completed in September. The lining of the Tunxis pump station force main is scheduled for the week of September 12. This will complete the lining of the Tariffville section of Town.
Mr. Piazza stated that the WPC Inspector left last month to take another job; interviews are scheduled at the end of the month for his replacement.
The Manchester Landfill is no longer accepting special municipal waste. This affects the grit disposal. The only place to dispose of the grit is in Fitchburg, MA. They are currently looking at costs and haulers to do this. The grit disposal will be double to triple the current cost. Mr. Piazza stated that an upgrade to a grit washing system has been in the capital projects for many years, which would eliminate the need to dispose of the grit. He will be getting a bid specification together. He believes the unit will cost between $350,000-$400,000.
9. CORRESPONDENCE – None.
10. ADJOURN
Mr. Hickey made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:21 p.m. Dr. Park seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
_________________________
Paul Gilmore, Chairman