Water Pollution Control Authority s2

Water Pollution Control Authority

2007 Annual Report

Most, if not all of us on the Water Pollution Control Authority, are servingbecause we believe that a sanitary sewer collection system, a robust, undergroundwater system and all new, curb to curb, roads, are good things for the community and worthour time and effort. We believe we owe it to the generations to come to leavePoint O' Woods in pristine condition, the condition most of us knew growingup here.A year ago at this time, when we were still seeking capacity for our sewers, we had no idea the controversy over the project was just really beginning.Now, after finally getting capacity, and having received the $875,000 grant and loanto pay for the design of the system, maybe not so ironically the rhetoric from the forces against the project is rising.Maybe earlier the anti groups felt theyhad not much to be concerned about but now that it looks like a new sewer and water system might actually happen, the efforts to stop or stall the project have escalated.

This letter will briefly summarize the accomplishments of the last year and will also attempt to identify and clarify the more significant issues raised by the forces opposed to the project.

WE HAVE CAPACITY!

THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH EAST LYME OVER DETAILS ARE ONGOING.

In July of 2006 the DEP issued a Pollution Abatement Order to East Lyme declaring that theirneighbor POW,has a pollution problem which E. Lyme has the ability to helpremedy. TheOrder declared that the State would loan E. Lyme approximately 145,000 GPD of excess capacity from Rocky Neck State Park and then E. Lyme is required, in turn, to loan 105,000 GPD capacity to POWto use until such timeE. Lyme has acquired additional capacity inan expanded New London sewer treatment facility.When that occurs the Order requiresthat E. Lyme sell 105,000 GPD of their expanded allotment in the New London plant to POW.Then POW will return the loaned capacity to the state. The loan is for an indefinite period.When the New London facility has expanded and East Lyme’s allotment in it has increased,then theywill sell us the capacity we have been borrowing from the state through E. Lyme.

POW and E. Lyme have been negotiating the basis for the rates E. Lyme will charge us for transporting our waste through theirsystem, the method of measuring our use, the cost of the new capacity, frequency of billing, etc.,since November of 2006. As usual these negotiations are prolonged but we expect they will be completedwithin a reasonable time.

WE HAVE RECEIVED AN $875,000 GRANT AND LOAN FROM THE STATE OF CT FOR DESIGN.

In January of 2007 POW received an$875,000 grant and loan from the DEP's Clean Water Fund for the purpose of designing the proposed sewerand water system.When the design is completed the loan will be rolled into the new grants and loans we expect to receivefor construction. The grant and loans will come from the DEP's Clean Water Fund for sewer construction and fromthe State Departmentof Health'sDrinking Water Fund for the construction of a new drinking water system. The present 2%/20 year loan for design will not have to be repaid until we have to start repayingthe construction loan forthe completed sewer and water system. As you are aware, we began engineering design last summer in anticipation of receiving the necessary grants and loans to pay for it.By starting design when we did we gained about a six month advantage with little risk, important, since we are all concerned about the effect of time on the ultimate cost of construction.

The design is being done by RFP Engineering LLC, a successor firm to CEEwhom POW had hired to do the pollution study several years ago.CEE dissolved and its former president, Robert Prybylo, subsequently formed RFP Engineering LLC.Before the WPCA contracted with RFPMr. Prybylosubmitted his credentials to us and to the DEP. He also provided a quote for the design of sewers and water which did not significantly exceed the CEE quote from five years earlierfor sewers only.That quote was also reviewed on our behalf per line item by the DEP and approved.RFP is on schedule to complete the design in 8-9 months. RFP is qualified, they know our circumstances well, have hit the ground running and the price is right.

Let's identify and try to clarify the more significant issues raised by others, in no particular order.

ISSUE: Are we polluting our environment?

YES

There have been two engineering studies, one commissioned by Old Lyme and never completed and one paid for by POW.Both concluded that the size of our lots, the geology of the area, our topography and low lying properties all contribute to unacceptable conditions for remediating sewerage on our individual parcels. You don't have to measure it,itis a scientific fact, our circumstances are simply unsuitable for septic systems. It is very difficult to measure pollution when it dumps into a large body of water.That doesn't mean it's not there. In the matter of nitrogen pollution people at our meeting in October at DEP facilities completely misunderstood Rob Prybylo's response to the nitrogen question.For the record he said, you don't measure nitrogen pollution from individual homesites on an annual basis, you measure it by its peak flow.By any measure our homesites cannot remediate nitrogen.They are too small.Betsy Wingfield, Deputy Commissioner of the DEP, at the same meeting stated that in order to find a pollution plume on any one site, 30-40 sensors would be requiredbecause you can't predict which way it flows. And on our sites, with large outcroppings of ledge, sewerage finds cracks in the ledge and just disappears. The irony is, on most days, the very body of water we are trying to protect absorbsour pollution, and you can't measure it, but its effects, with new algae growth, decreased fish and shellfishpopulations and sick kids is unmistakable.

This conversation frustrates everyone and couldgo on forever. What are the realities?The DEP has said we are polluting and that we must take measures to stop it.We signed a Consent Order which stated that we agree and that we will fix it. POINT O' WOODS IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE AND WE OWE TO IT TO FUTURE GENERATIONS TO KEEP IT BEAUTIFUL AND FIX THE PROBLEM, ONCE AND FOR ALL.

ISSUE:There are new, alternative sewer treatment systems that could be used instead of the sewer collection system being planned. Why can't we use them?

WHY SHOULD WE OPT FOR EXPENSIVE, HIGH MAINTENANCE, UNSIGHTLY SOLUTIONS THAT DON'T INCLUDE THE BENEFITS AND CERTAINTY OF A COMMUNITY WIDE COLLECTIONSYSTEM?

There have been advances in sewer treatment plants.And that'sjust what they are, miniature sewer treatment plants on the homesite. First, according to our consultants, they wouldn't work on most of ourparcels because of conditions sited earlier.On sites where they would work they would often be big and ugly, requiring bulges of hauled in leaching material and usually a shed to house the treatment plant. They also require periodic maintenance, usually quarterly, another expense.They are often at least as expensive as our proposal to install. They would probably not qualify for 25% state grants and 2% loans as the system under plan would.They are mechanical and do, from time to time, break down. The individual is responsible for their maintenance and repair.We would be left with an unsightly, less dependable, uneven, expensive solution without a new water system, no new roads and little or no outside financial support. And probably most importantly – how do we insure that every homeowner installs them? Last, but not least, the DEP has determined that POW is not a candidate for this type of technology.

ISSUE: It has been claimed that construction costs have grown to $35,000-$40,000 per cottage.

THAT ISN'T SO. THE PRESENT COST ESTIMATE'S ARE FOR LESS THAN $24,000 PER COTTAGE

As recently as last August our engineering consultants re-estimated construction costs in 2009 dollars and determined we are still below budget.How can that be?For several reasons.The original estimate was done in 2006 dollars meaning we had already accounted for 5 years of inflation.To determine a new estimate, in 2009 dollars since construction spans two years, 2008-2010, we had onlyto lookthree years ahead.Costs increased but not as significantly as they would have had it been an 8 year change.Also, one major original budget item, acquiring an allotment of sewer capacity from a neighbor,was purposely inflatedin casewe would have hadto payan exorbitant amount for the capacity.The state helped, in this case considerably, by arranging for the sewer capacity loan I described above. By doing so afair price hasbeen established for the costof capacity which will helpto keep our costs down below that which was feared.In additiona $2 million contingency amountwas included in the budget for just such circumstances as the delays we have beenfacing.Finally, the state has increased its subsidy to small communities like ours from 20% to 25%. The result is, assuming we pay the full budget amounts for both sewers and water, that at this writing the estimates are below that, and the cost estimate is less than $24,000 per cottage. Those costs do not include hooking up sewers and water from each cottage to the street.The WPCAwould like to include the cost of connecting each cottage in the overall project costs but we aren't certainthatour budget will allow it. If it doesn't then we are considering changing the original plan which was to include connection costs for cottages with grinder pumps, to perhaps require those homeowners to pay hookup costs just as the homeowner with a gravity system must. That issue is still undecided. Lastly, on this issue,if construction quotes for some reason exceed the budgeted amount to construct the system, the project cannot proceed until the POW association votes to appropriate additional funds

ISSUE: Numerous claims of high operating costs have been circulating.

OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR WATER AND SEWERS SHOULD NOT BE HIGHER THAN SIMILAR CHARGES IN MOST SMALL COMMUNITIES.

The simple truth is wearen't certainyet what the exact charges will be,we are still negotiating those prices. But we shouldn't expect to pay more than you would in an average community.We won't know actual costs until the agreement has been signed, and there is no use speculating until it's done.We have no reason to believe however that costs will deviate significantly from normal costs.

ISSUE: It is rumored that E. Lyme will not contract to maintain our system.

IT IS PLANNED THAT MAINTENANCE EXPENSES WILL BE PART OF THE POW-WPCA BUDGET.

Itis possiblethat E. Lyme may not maintain our entire system, right up toour cottages.But that subject is still under negotiation so it is still undecided whether they will orto what extentthey will. In any case there are a number of firms in that business that will work with us soif E. Lyme declines we aren't in the position of having no other source.Ourexpectation is that E. Lyme will agree to maintain certain parts of the system and others will have to be hired to do the rest.The costs of maintaining the system will be borne by POW-WPCA, and the costs should not be unreasonable.

ISSUE: Financed costs for the system could exceed $2000 per year per cottage?

ANNUAL DEBT AMORTIZATION PER COTTAGE SHOULD BE LESS THAN $1400 PER YEAR, INCLUDING INTEREST

It has been rumored that if a property owner chooses to take advantage of available 2% financing that the annual costs are expected to exceed $2000 per year. THAT ISN'T SO. Assuming we simply divide 430 cottages into the present cost estimates the cost per cottage will be less than $1,400/year for a new sewer system, year-round water availability and new roads.

ISSUE:POW will be required to participate in the cost of capital upgrades to the regional sanitary treatment plant.

TRUE.

Here's a rumor that is true.POW will have to pay our share of upgrades to the regional sanitary sewer treatment plant.We will pay based upon our share, like everyone else.Our share will be 1% or less.So for example, if there is a $1 million expansion we will have to pay our share which would be $10,000, or a little over $20 per cottage.

ISSUE: Grinder pumps. What are they? Who gets them? Who pays for them?

USING GRINDER PUMPS FACILITATES THE DESIGN OF AN ECONOMICAL SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM

Basically a grinder pump is a mini pumping station that is used to pumpthe sewerage from an individual cottage that is below the sewer mainup to the sewer main.They are about 24 inches in diameter and are about 6-7 feet tall.They are usually sunk into the ground with about 6 inches exposed above the ground and are located in the yardbelow the lowest sewer drain in the cottage. The annual operating cost should be less than $100 per year. The use of grinder pumps, presently about 180 of them in our plan, facilitates the design of an economical sanitary sewer collection system. If POW tried to design a gravity only sewer system its costs would be multiple times higher than the expected costsof the present design.

THE NEED FOR A GRINDER PUMP ISN'T A PROPERTY OWNER’S FAULT. RATHER, ITS LOCATION IS CHOSEN FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

In the present design grinder pumps will probably be used on Champion Rd, the lower points of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Shore Acre, and Walnut Roads, all of Stanhope Road and certain of the cottages on the East side of Seaview Road. There may be other scattered locations that happen to fall below the sewer main that will also require them.

THE ORIGINAL PLAN, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, ENVISIONED THAT GRINDER PUMPS AND THEIR CONNECTION WOULD BE PAID FORBY ALL OF US.