WPCA Minutes 02/14/2019
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 14, 2019
“Subject to Vote of Approval”
1. CALL TO ORDER
Jay Sheehan called the regular meeting of the Water Pollution Control Authority to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Program Room at the Simsbury Public Library, 725 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury. The following members were present: Michael Park, Lucian Dragulski, Tom Hickey and Jacques Brignac. Also present were Thomas Roy, Director of Public Works; Anthony Piazza, Water Pollution Control Superintendent; and Alison Sturgeon, Clerk.
2. SAFETY BRIEF – Mr. Sheehan gave a safety brief noting the exits in case of an emergency.
3. PUBLIC HEARING – WINTERSET LANE SEWER EXTENSION
Mr. Sheehan read the legal notice.
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF SIMSBURY
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
The Simsbury Water Pollution Control Authority will hold a public hearing on Thursday,
February 14, 2019, at 7:00 pm in the Program Room at the Simsbury Public Library, 725 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, CT. The purpose of the hearing is to review a proposal, and possibly take action, for extending sanitary sewers to serve 9-65 Winterset Lane, Simsbury, CT. All interested property owners shall have the opportunity to appear and be heard.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
Paul Gilmore, Chairman
Dr. Park made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Hickey seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Roy, Director of Public Works, gave a presentation regarding the Winterset Lane project. He gave an overview of the Water Pollution Control facility in terms of the operation and maintenance as well as the sewer installation process. He stated that the WPCA installs sewers when there is an order from the State Health Department or DEEP; when a developer builds within the sewer service area; and by a neighborhood request. The funding for projects are through a revolving sewer assessment fund. The WPCA includes funds in the yearly budget for potential extensions and rehabilitation. This fund is maintained by assessments, liens and refinancing commitments.
Mr. Roy stated that Town staff has done a preliminary analysis of the Winterset Lane project, including a cost estimate. He showed a map depicting the project area. He stated that the proposed sewers would need to connect to existing sewer lines. The options included going through Somerset; connecting to the sewer lines at the bottom of Winterset Lane; or connecting within the Westminster community. Most of the flows that go to the treatment facility are by gravity, which is sometimes a challenge. Mr. Roy stated that there are several challenges in this project area because of the topography, although they have tried to come up with the most cost effective strategy. Because of the depth of the pipe, they will need to keep in mind that they may encounter rock, which would increase the cost. He stated that the gas and water lines are also challenging as well as the curvature of the roadway; sewers are installed in straight lines.
Mr. Roy stated that Town staff looked at three alternatives to the plan including connecting directly to Somerset Lane, directly to Westminster, as well as connecting to the beginning of Winterset Lane, which is already connected to the sewer. The last alternative, connecting to existing sewers on Winterset Lane is the most cost effective. He stated that test borings were done; rock was found in a few locations, although most of the rock will be below the depth of the sanitary sewer lines.
Mr. Roy stated that the proposed project will involve 3,900 linear feet of 8 inch sanitary sewers, and 23 manholes. The project will allow for 49 residential homes on Winterset Lane to connect to the sewers. Several homes will require pumping systems. He stated that the preliminary cost estimate for this entire project will be approximately $900,000. Each benefited property owner would be assessed approximately $18,400. Each individual homeowner would then be required to get from their existing pipe, which currently serves their septic system, to the lateral line in the street. The cost for this house lateral would cost in the range of $30-$60 per linear foot for a 6” gravity lateral. There is also a facility connection charge of $4,095 and a yearly sewer use fee, which is currently $352. Mr. Roy stated that the assessment as well as the facility connection charge could be finance through the Town over a ten year period at the Town’s bond rate.
Mr. Roy stated that some homes that are below the roadway may need a grinder pump system. This is a small pump that pushes wastewater from the home through a pressure lateral up to the street. Pump systems cost between $3,000-$6,000, which includes the lateral cost as well as the pump. Pumps usually last approximately 8-10 years without any significant maintenance.
Mr. Roy stated that if this project is approved, construction would not begin until 2020 or later. He stated that Winterset Lane was paved about 8 years ago so the preliminary cost estimates need to include the cost to repair the street once the project is complete. If this project is not approved tonight, in another 7-8 years, the cost could be reduced if combined with the Town’s scheduled repaving of Winterset Lane.
Mr. Sheehan opened the meeting up to public comments and questions.
Mr. Earl, 17 Winterset Lane, questioned if the project would be stopped if the majority of homeowners tonight vote for it to not go forward. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Water Pollution Control is an agency that has enabling legislation by the State of Connecticut. Chapter 130 of the Connecticut State Code enables each WPCA to make decisions on behalf of their community. The WPCA has the sole discretion to make decisions, although they take into account all information, including comments from residents. He stated that this is not a public vote, but public participation only.
David Russell, 48 Winterset Lane, stated that back in September of 2018, he sent back to the town an interest card stating that he was not interested in this project. Although he appreciates the presentation made tonight, he is still opposed to the project based on the costs. He stated that the first six houses are connected to the sewer, but would like to know why the rest of the neighborhood was not also connected at that time. Mr. Russell stated that it would be approximately 150 feet to run his lateral from the house to the street since his septic connects to the back of his house. He feels that the cost projected by the Town is low. He questioned if the $30-$60 per linear foot to hire a contractor to connect to sewer would also include getting rid of the septic. Mr. Roy stated that this cost usually includes crushing the septic in place. In response to Mr. Russell’s first question, Mr. Roy stated that he was not here 40 years ago when this development was built and does not know why only certain houses were connected to the sewer. He stated that there are good soils in Simsbury for septic systems. Environmentally, there are more stringent regulations on septic systems today than there were in the past. This is why septic systems are less common today.
Richard Talbot, 24 Winterset Lane, stated that the FVHD has records of all work that has been done on all properties with septic systems. He stated that not many of Winterset Lane residents have gotten permits for septic repairs. He does not believe septic systems need to be replaced at this time. He is opposed to this project because of the costs as well as all of the associated costs.
Bill Eddy, 37 Winterset Lane, stated that he is the original owner of his house. He stated that there is some ledge at the beginning of the street, although the rest is sand. He stated that, to his recollection, it did not seem logical for everyone to be connected to the sewer system back when the neighborhood was built because the leaching was so good.
Rick Lenz, 55 Winterset Lane, stated that he has never had a problem with his septic system because of the sand content of the soil. He would also need a pump for his house. Losing electricity would be a concern with a pump. He is not in favor of this project. He questioned how long the project would take. Mr. Roy stated that the challenge on the street is that the street curves, but the sewers are laid in straight lines, which means the pipes need to make a lot of turns. He stated that this is what pushed the cost up on this project. The project would take one construction season to complete, approximately from June through September.
Chris Riso, 42 Winterset Lane, stated that at the beginning of this meeting, it was stated that there would be a straw poll taken. He questioned why bother taking the poll if the Authority has the ultimate decision. Mr. Sheehan stated that this is part of the public process; they have heard great comments so far. He stated that all of this is taken into account by the Board when making their decision. Mr. Riso stated that he feels residents are at the mercy of this board.
Chuck Wolfe, 59 Winterset Lane, stated that he is another house that would need a pump. He stated that the costs are too high and then having to include generator costs, that could be another $10,000. He stated that most of the neighborhood does not want this sewer. He questioned what criteria would make this Authority decide to go forward with this project. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Authority gathers data, looks at pollution problems within the area, as well as the neighborhoods will to do the project.
Steve Swan, 30 Winterset Lane, stated that the Authority is basing this project on pollution concerns and neighborhood willingness. He stated that, he believes, there are no pollution problem in the neighborhood. Mr. Sheehan stated that above ground, there are no pollution problems, although there has not been a study done below ground. Mr. Swan stated that no one here tonight has commented that they are in favor of this project. He questioned if at the end of the night there is a significant opposition to the project, will the Authority cancel the project. Mr. Sheehan stated that the WPCA will ultimately make a decision based on all information. He stated that not everyone has spoken as of yet. He also has letters from residents who are in favor and who are opposed to the project that will be read into the record. Mr. Swan stated that it seems unfair that the Authority would tell residents that they have to pay possibly $25,000 or more with additional costs. Mr. Roy stated that the cost estimates are based on past projects and feels comfortable with the numbers presented tonight.
Ann Ritson, 35 Winterset Lane, stated that she is opposed to the project because of economics and disruption of the neighborhood. She stated that she appreciates the time the Board is putting in to this process.
Mr. McDonough, 40 Winterset Lane, questioned what the future projection for capacity is for the treatment plant. He questioned if the plant would need to be expanded. Mr. Piazza stated that the current sewer service area in Simsbury is only approximately 50% used up. The plant was designed to handle the entire service area.
Rebecca Goldstien, 25 Winterset Lane, stated she is opposed to this project. She questioned that if the majority of the households are opposed to this project, what other criteria the Authority would use in making their decision. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Authority will listen to all of the residents, as well as the information presented tonight.
Patti Riso, 42 Winterset Lane, stated that there are a lot of people upset because there is a lot of money on the line and this is an emotional topic for residents. She questioned what would happen if the project goes forward and someone does not have the money. Mr. Sheehan stated that the process is that the town would put a lien on the property, which would be payable when the house is sold. Ms. Riso questioned what that would do to someone’s credit rating. Mr. Sheehan stated that he is unsure. He recommended that she speak to a financial advisor.
Terry Goff, 26 Winterset Lane, stated that he has been through this process before when he lived in Weatogue. He stated at that time, the people who bought his house assumed the lien. He believes this is not an option anymore. Mr. Piazza stated that some banks will pass the lien on to the new homeowner and some will not.
Mr. Macio, 27 Winterset Lane, stated that he is opposed to this project because of the financial impact. He asked that the Authority keep that in mind when making their decision. He stated that he has recently negotiated a new septic for the house. He is very opposed to this project.
Amanda Kelly, 19 Winterset Lane, asked if the WPCA would encourage every household to speak. Mr. Sheehan stated that this is a public process and everyone who would like to speak would get that chance. Ms. Kelly stated that because of financial issues, she is opposed to this project. She asked that the Authority not impose this cost on Winterset Lane residents.
Karen Keene, 56 Winterset Lane, stated that she has been opposed to this project from the start. She stated that their lateral installation would be higher than the costs presented tonight. Her septic system has been maintained and inspected and has not had any issues. She stated that this would be a financial hardship for her family and she would not want a lien on the house when they go to sell it.
Ms. Sullivan, 10 Winterset Lane, stated that this project would be a financial hardship and she is opposed.
Melanie Bowers, 25 Winterset Lane, asked that the Authority answer the question regarding what other factors are used in making their decision. Mr. Sheehan stated that, again, the WPCA looks at pollution problems within the area as well as the neighborhoods want to do the project. He stated that there are variables that are specific to each project.
Ms. Lenz, 55 Winterset Lane, thanked the board for volunteering their time. She stated that she has a lot of concerns. She does not feel the neighborhood need sewers, and it would be a financial hardship for her as well. She stated that she does not want a lien on her house. She has not heard of anyone in the neighborhood that is having issues with their septic system. Also, she was told by a real estate agent that they would never be able to recoup this money if this project were to go forward. She stated that it was her understanding that there were 32 people not interested in learning more information in terms of sewers while 11 residents were in favor. She stated that she believes 6 of the 11 residents that were in favor are owned by Westminster School, which she feels is unfair because they are only one owner. She questioned why the process would continue if so many were not in favor from the start. Mr. Sheehan stated that back in September when the interest cards came back, the interest was about 50/50. He stated that there was information being distributed among the neighbors that was possibly incorrect. In order for the WPCA to do their due diligence, they decided to move forward with the public hearing process.
Mike Gattinger, 19 Winterset Lane, stated that the WPCA should check the verbiage on the letter where they ask for an expression of interest and information about sewers. He did not interpret that as the next step being a vote. Mr. Sheehan stated there was about 50% interest from residents who responded that they would like to learn more about sewers in the neighborhood. Mr. Gattinger questioned if the WPCA could share more in terms of the decision criteria other than the environmental impact and public comment. He asked how Winterset Lane could possibly be an environmental risk when there is low density. Also, he would like an opportunity for the Authority to comment on what was inaccurate with the information that was sent out by the neighbors. Mr. Piazza stated that he is unsure of what the information was that was sent out by residents. He does know that it did not come from the WPCA. Mr. Roy stated that there have been other projects, such as Musket Trail, that was higher in cost than what it generally would be. He stated that the topography of that neighborhood made the cost estimates higher, as well as other variables. He stated that the last project that was done in another part of Town was approximately half the cost. He stated that without going through the cost analysis to come up with the preliminary design for Winterset Lane, it would be a guess at the cost. Because of the topography and the curvature of the street, the cost is similar or lower than Flintlock. But at the time, it was someone grabbing figures from another project and distributing that information that may not have been accurate. He stated that the numbers presented tonight for the Winterset Lane project are the most accurate numbers available.
Josh Kons, 50 Winterset Lane, stated that he is not necessarily opposed to this project. He stated that the costs, he understands, no one wants to pay, but eventually septic systems do fail. His septic system is almost 50 years old. Also, to be able to spread the financing over a span of 10 years would be very helpful.
Darlene Skeels, 39 Winterset Lane, read a statement saying that she is oppose to this project. She stated that they have a financial hardship. She said looking at the long view in terms of this project would not be practical given their age. She feels that the town should find a better way than passing these costs to homeowners as well as they should share these estimated costs prior to the meeting.
Joe Fahon, 9 Winterset Lane, stated that he is opposed to this project because of financial hardship. Everyone that has spoken, he believes, has viable reasons for not wanting this project to go forward.
Lisa Neary, 18 Winterset Lane, stated that she does not see this project as being a benefit to her home or neighborhood. She stated that she could replace her septic system twice for the cost of the sewers. This would be a real financial burden for them. Ms. Neary stated that she feels the first letter sent out from the Town should have outlined the biggest costs, or possibly a range of the costs. She stated that she never received this cost prior to this meeting. Although she understands that Town staff does not have the estimated cost at that time, residents should have been given a range so they could have been more prepared for this meeting. She stated that she is opposed to this project.
Barbara Wolfe, 59 Winterset Lane, stated that she has lived on Winterset Lane for 59 years. They are retired. She stated that she is another house that would need a pump. If the WPCA decides to go forward to this project, her household will not be hooking up. Mr. Sheehan stated that if sewer passes in front of a home, they would need to pay the assessment costs, but can defer the facility connection charge until the time of connection. Mr. Piazza stated that also, if a septic system fails and there are sewers in front of a residence, by law that homeowner would need to connect to the sewer. Ms. Wolfe stated that she is 100% opposed.
Mr. Paul, 58 Winterset Lane, questioned how the cost of the project would decrease if this was done in conjunction with the road being repaved. Also, as more development occurs, he questioned if the facility connection charge could decrease as more people connect. Mr. Roy stated that within the construction cost estimate, part of the cost is to repave the road once the project has been completed. This is a substantial cost. He stated that if Winterset Lane is scheduled to be repaved, the contract would save the costs for repaving the trenches. This could be a savings of up to several thousand dollars to each homeowner. Mr. Roy stated that he does not see this as an option for Winterset Lane and this project at this point in time. Mr. Sheehan stated the FCC would not decrease; when the treatment plant was upgraded, all possible users of the plant were taken into consideration when establishing the FCC charge.
Chris Doskos, 46 Winterset Lane, thanked the volunteers on the WPCA. He stated that he is against this project because of a financial hardship.
Tom Earl, 17 Winterset Lane, questioned if action would be taken by the WPCA tonight. Mr. Sheehan stated that once the public hearing is closed, the WPCA will discuss to see if they are ready to take action tonight. If they have heard something that needs further investigation, they would take that into consideration and possibly wait to vote.
Tom Hood, 61Winterset Lane, stated that he is opposed to this project. He questioned if the Authority has looked in to connecting just Westminster’s system. Mr. Roy stated that when a cluster of homes is interested, town staff will look to see if there is an option to move forward that would make sense for those few homes.
Peter Anderson, Westminster School, stated that the school’s interest was just for information. He stated that the school would be opposed to this project because of the costs.
Brenda Goff, 26 Winterset Lane, stated that they are opposed. She stated that they did have a good experience when connecting to sewer at her other house in Weatogue. She feels that the process was different back then; it was better.
Joanna Hamilton, 16 Winterset Lane, stated that she is strongly opposed to this project because of financial hardship. She feels that some of the information presented tonight makes this project even worse. She stated that 23 manholes, she believes, is a safety concern. The construction process would not work with all of the kids in the area. She feels that this project will destroy her neighborhood.
Buzz Keene, 56 Winterset Lane, stated that they are opposed to the project. He believes Town staff should possibly be targeting neighborhoods where the roads are needing to be paved. Mr. Roy stated that this is a possibility. This particular project was initiated by a neighbor who asked about sewers in this neighborhood.
Jim Flowers, 29 Winterset Lane, stated that he has lived here for several years and he is opposed to this project.
A resident asked that the Authority please go with the majority of the comments they have heard tonight. He stated that he loves Simsbury and love Winterset Lane.
David Hovey, 20 Winterset Lane, stated that he is opposed to this project.
Bernie Gaffney, 22 Winterset Lane, stated that he has lived in this neighborhood for 12 years. He is glad to hear that many people do not want this project to go forward. He is opposed because of the financial hardship. He feels that the original letter from the WPCA was difficult to read and very confusing.
Tom Gasho, 62 Winterset Lane, stated that he will be moving soon. But, based on the cost of this project, he is opposed.
Raul Jaramillo, 65 Winterset Lane, stated that he is opposed to this project.
Karen Topalis, 21Winterset Lane, stated that she is opposed to this project.
Kevin Lazich, 12 Winterset Lane, stated that he is opposed to this project because of financial reasons.
Jeff Mortillaro, 23 Winterset Lane, stated that he is opposed to this project.
Kathy Ryan, 32 Winterset Lane, stated that she is opposed to this project.
Mike Gattinger, 19 Winterset Lane, questioned if developers pay the same facility connection charge as residents. Mr. Sheehan stated that, yes, they do.
Mr. Sheehan read 8 letters from Winterset Lane residents into the record.
Dr. Park made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Brignac seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Hickey made a motion to deny the Winterset Lane sewer extension project as presented. Dr. Park seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
4. 200 HOPMEADOW STREET – REQUEST TO TRANSFER FCC FROM SOUTH TO NORTH LOT
Mr. Sheehan stated that at the last meeting, the WPCA discussed this request to transfer the FCC from the south to the north lot. He stated that further information was necessary before a determination could be made.
Mr. Piazza stated that up until recently, both parcels had the same address of 200 Hopmeadow Street. The north site is now known as 250 Hopmeadow Street. He has verified that the owners of both properties are owned by SL Simsbury, LLC. He provided the Authority members with the flow allocation documents that were requested. An allocation study was done in 1981 for The Hartford building. The flow was estimated at 319,000 gallons per day. The estimated flow from the new construction on the north site is just under 83,000 gallons per day.
Attorney T.J. Donahue, representing SL Simsbury, LLC, distributed The Hartford-Simsbury Form-Based Code as well as mapping of 200 Hopmeadow Street to the Authority members. He stated that this 173 acres is all one site; it is unified by a single zone. The Hartford building has been demolished, which was on the south parcel.
Attorney Donahue stated that SL Simsbury is requesting the FCC that was paid by The Hartford be allowed to be utilized on Lot B. He stated that Lots A & B would pay the difference in fees as well. Lot C will pay the full connection charge when constructed. He stated that the Simsbury WPCA has done reallocations for connection charges as well as reallocation for capacity in the past.
Attorney Donahue asked the Authority consider this request because it is fair and equitable, there is no loss to the Town, as well as to allow a major investor in Town to not have a stranded investment for an unknown period of time. Also, he has not found rules, regulations or precedents to prohibit the Authority from approving this request.
Mr. Piazza stated that the initial FCC calculation was $1.4 million for the entire north site. The FCC for The Hartford was $890,000. The difference will need to be paid.
Mr. Sheehan read the Facility Connection Policy, Change of Use, to the Authority members.
Dr. Park made a motion to approve the request to transfer the FCC from the south lot to the north lot at 200 Hopmeadow Street. Mr. Dragulski seconded the motion, which was approved. Mr. Brignac voted in opposition.
5. STATUS REPORT ON SEWER EXTENSION PROJECTS, ETC.
Mr. Roy stated the assessment public hearing for 5-9 Phelps Lane will be held in March. The assessment hearing for Maple Court will be held in April.
6. TREATMENT FACILITY REPORT
Mr. Piazza stated that all permit requirements were met for the month of January. He stated that a new water heater has been ordered to replace the 100 gallon hot water heater which started leaking last month. It is scheduled for replacement in the coming weeks. The replacement system for the Plant fire alarm has been ordered. The new system will provide for future replacement of obsolete parts with minimal financial impact.
Mr. Piazza stated that DEEP staff has submitted the NPDES for final signature. The Town is expected to receive the new permit this month and will be required to start monthly reporting requirements in March. He stated that staff is continuing to work with DPC Consulting to finalize the policy to ensure that the document will be understood by the general public. Staff expects to distribute copies of the new policy at the March meeting for review with possible approval at the April meeting. With assistance from Jay Sheehan, Mr. Piazza stated that he attended and presented to New England members of NEWEA an overview of the Simsbury WPCF and how Simsbury has conducted energy efficiency upgrades within the plant and how to incorporate all plant systems together for future savings.
7. CORRESPONDENCE
There were none.
8. DECEMBER MEETING MINUTES – POSSIBLE APPROVAL
Mr. Hickey made a motion to approve the January 10, 2019 minutes as written. Dr. Park seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
9. ADJOURN
Mr. Hickey made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Dr. Park seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
_______________________
Jay Sheehan, Vice-Chairman