 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
| WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY MINUTES |
| Click
here for January 9, 2006 Minutes Click here for March 13, 2006 Minutes |
For minutes prior to January 2004, please
contact Judy Archer of Public Works
at 203-854-7791 or jarcher@norwalkct.org
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 10, 2006
ATTENDANCE: John Atkin, Chair; Ralph Kolb; Friedrich Wilms; Beatriz C. Ruiz;
Jim McInerney; Mayor Richard A. Moccia; Vicktor Hulien.
STAFF: Hal Alvord, Director of Public Works; Lisa Bardon, Operations Manager.
OTHERS: Thomas Hamilton, Director of Finance; Ricardo Caballos, Lochner; Anne Gragg.
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED SEWER USER CHARGES TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006
Mr. McInerney opened the Public Hearing portion of the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
Ms. Anne Gragg stated she works for Mr. George Britto who manages a mixed-use property located at 79 South Main Street in South Norwalk with two commercial units. The problem she would like to address is that the proposed charges are charging mixed use as commercial. Ms. Gragg said in the past they have been pro-rated amount for the three spaces, and now that they are being charged for over 110,000 gallons the sewer assessment becomes phenomenally high. She said the property is a total of seventeen apartments and three commercial spaces. Ms. Gragg said that Norwalk Redevelopment asked them to move the tenants down the street because they wanted to purchase the building to build the new police station, so she had no choice but to move the lock shop and the beauty salon. The first time she was hit with the sewer assessment the bill was approximately $8,800, and now it would be even more. She stated that they provide affordable housing. Ms. Gragg questioned if the charges stay like this, does she simply ask her commercial tenants to leave?
Mr. McInerney asked if the volume of sewage being discharged by her three commercial
tenants was unusually large? Ms. Gragg said no. Mr. Alvord said the property
is on one water meter at the moment. She said these are three very small storefronts
and they use less water than the seventeen apartments do. Mr. McInerney said
he wondered what was making up the bulk of the $8,800 charge, was it the commercial
tenants or the residential units? Ms. Gragg said it was about 110,000 per quarter,
and it was more in the summer, she felt it was the residential units with the
higher uses. She said she provides affordable housing and it’s very difficult.
She said between the three commercial tenants, she collects rent of about $550/mo.,
$500/mo., and $550/mo., and are not triple net. One tenant is nine months behind
since they had to move, the businesses are not moneymakers. Ms. Gragg said the
sewer charges are taking money she can’t afford to pay, and she was also worried
about what this would do to the property tax bill.
Mr. McInerney asked if Ms. Gragg had appealed any of the other rate proposals.
Ms. Gragg said she had not. She said it was a substantial expense and it was
tough between the taxes, the insurance, and now the sewer charge. She said that
taking a mixed use and charging commercial rates was not good.
Mr. McInerney said he would take Ms. Gragg’s statement and have staff look into the situation and get back to her. Ms. Gragg asked if the WPCA reads what goes into the sewer as well as what comes out in the water. Mr. Alvord said there are no meters to determine how much comes in, and the charges are based on the water consumption. Ms. Bardon said that businesses that use water in their processes, such as the former Pepperidge Farms for example, use water in the manufacturer of their bread. Ms. Gragg said she was sure the beauty salon used more water than the lock shop. Mr. McInerney said they will take note of Ms. Gragg’s statements, and if she knew of any tenants who were using water in their processes, as Ms. Bardon described, there would be room for adjustment.
Ms. Gragg asked what she should do now and questioned whether she should appeal the charges. Mr. McInerney said that was not part of this process, but yes. Mr. Alvord explained the appeal process. Ms. Bardon said that in some cases when the WPCA went back and looked into certain issues, they found inconsistencies and were able to make adjustments. She assured Ms. Gragg they would look into her situation and see what could be done.
There were no other members of the public in attendance who wished to speak.
The Public Hearing portion of the meeting was closed at 5:45 p.m.
2. CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Atkin called the Regular Meeting of the WPCA to order at 5:47 p.m.
3. APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM WPCA MEETING HELD ON MARCH 13, 2006
Corrections to the minutes of March 13, 2006 are as follows:
Page 1, Attendance, change “John Atkins” to “John Atkin” throughout.
Page 1, Attendance, change “Beatrice Ruiz” to “Beatriz Ruiz” throughout.
Page 2, 3rd paragraph, 4th line down, change sentence to read, “However, this
pushes the net
request down to 2.5 million.”
Page 3, last paragraph, 9th line down, change end of sentence to read, “…and
impact fees.”
Page 4, 1st paragraph, 9th line down, change “Advisory” to “Authority.”
Page 4, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line down, change to read, “…deferred until a later
year.”
Page 8, b. OMI Report, 1st paragraph, item #1, change “Advisory” to “Authority.”
Page 8, b. OMI Report, 2nd paragraph, item #2, change “Advisory” to “Authority.”
** MS. RUIZ MOTIONED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2006 AS CORRECTED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVE THE SEWER USER CHARGES TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006
** MR. McINERNEY MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE SEWER USER CHARGES EFFECTIVE JULY
1, 2006.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH OMI FO RREPLACEMENT OF THE HUCKLEBERRY AVENUE PUMP STATION
GENERATOR FOR A SUM NOT TO EXCEED $55,000 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LETTER PROPOSAL
DATED APRIL 4, 2006.
ACCOUNT NO. 0906 4062 5777 C0360 PUMP STATION CAPITAL ACCOUNT
** MS. RUIZ MOTIONED TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH OMI FO RREPLACEMENT OF THE HUCKLEBERRY AVENUE PUMP STATION GENERATOR FOR A SUM NOT TO EXCEED $55,000 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LETTER PROPOSAL DATED APRIL 4, 2006. ACCOUNT NO. 0906 4062 5777 C0360 PUMP STATION CAPITAL ACCOUNT.
Mr. Kolb stated that the pump station was located at the intersection of Fox Run Road and Huckleberry Avenue near Fox Run School. He said that in March he reported to the Board that the generator was unreliable at the time, and included a letter from OMI to the DEP informing the DEP of the issues they were having. Mr. Kolb said a portable generator was being used as backup along with a truck, and they have asked OMI to put together a proposal, which they have included in the bid package.
Mr. Kolb said OMI went out and contacted various vendors and included a breakdown of the quotes received. OMI was able to get three quotes for generators. They talked to six vendors for fencing and received only three quotes; and they received one quote for an access cover for the station.
Mr. McInerney said the proposal provides for a 138-gallon diesel tank sub-base; he asked if there was any other tank. Mr. Dahl said it was a sub-base tank, which eliminates the above ground storage tank. He said one of the proposals stated that 27 hours was the operating time. Ms. Bardon stated there was an error on the agenda and the account number was incorrect. She gave the correct account number as 0906 4062 5777 C0360.
Mr. Hamilton asked if they felt this constitutes an emergency, and given the amount of money they are discussing here, they haven’t gone through the sealed bid process but they have gone out and gotten three quotes. He said he was just raising this for discussion purposes, but asked if this was a situation where they need to do it as soon as it was possible to do it was that the reason for not going through the sealed bid process, or did the Authority have a different standard as to what should or should not go through the sealed bid process.
Ms. Bardon said their initial thought was to just go through the major repair. She said they normally go through the bid process, but when this project came up this year, it exceeded what the remaining budget was, so that was why they pulled it out as an out-of-scope project, and that was why they decided that this was a major repair and replacement. Mr. Alvord said it is some emergency at this time as they have a potential permit violation; if the power should go out and the backup generator doesn’t start, there will be sewage bubbling out of the ground and there will be violations given by the DEP.
Mr. Alvord said that if this was not an emergency, they would expect to go through a sealed bid through a competitive bid process. Mr. Hamilton said, as he sees it, this is almost a split responsibility financially, the MMR account will provide approximately $28,000 and they will have to come up with an additional amount to meet the rest. Mr. Alvord said that OMI’s annual responsibility, MMR-wise, is $50,000. The reason they went through this procedure is that they would have needed them to have $55,000 balance in the pump station MMR account, which would have been the quickest way to handle it, but that account doesn’t exist, so they took the alternative next-best step. A brief discussion followed.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUTHORIZE TRANSFER OF $82,000 FROM REPLACEMENT RESERVE ACCOUNT (2240 62 5789)
TO OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ACCOUNT (2240 62 5230) TO PAY FOR THE UST AND
AST PROJECT BY CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES (CRA).
** MR. McINERNEY MOTIONED TO AUTHORIZE TRANSFER OF $82,000 FROM REPLACEMENT RESERVE ACCOUNT (2240 62 5789) TO OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ACCOUNT (2240 62 5230) TO PAY FOR THE UST AND AST PROJECT BY CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES (CRA).
Ms. Bardon stated that this was just an accounting exercise because they can’t
pay for projects
directly out of the replacement reserve account, so it moves the funds from
the replacement
reserve account to the other professional services account.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT
a. YTD Revenues/Expenditures Report (MUNIS Report included)
Mr. Hamilton stated that staff has provided the Board with the regular MUNIS report showing the revenues and expenses year-to-date. He said the fund remains in good financial condition; revenues now exceed the budget by $409,000; and expenses are running at about 76% of budget at this point. He said there wasn’t anything really new to report, and that the Authority continues to operate with all favorable results of operation based on how it looks so far.
Mr. McInerney asked, the revenues that we are realizing from load shedding, will that reach 75 in the budget amount? Mr. Hamilton said he thought it would but wasn’t sure; he believed the 75-6 was what they knew it was going to be. Mr. Alvord said there was an 80-day delay from the actual end of the month for which they owe us until we actually receive it; for example, he just received the January payment.
Mr. McInerney asked if there was enough budgeted for electricity. Mr. Hamilton said this was an area where they were definitely going to run short on the time they had bought, but because of revenues that were coming in stronger than anticipated, there is certainly enough money to cover the overage and still end the year with favorable results. He wasn’t sure if there would need to be a transfer or an addition to the budget in the last couple of months.
Mr. Wilms asked if they run over on the electricity and they can’t shift funds from another account, would it then be a special appropriation? Mr. Hamilton said that the WPCA is authorized to transfer funds internally; if they need an appropriation, they would have to go back and see whether or not they require any action from the Board of Estimate and the Council, since the Board of Estimate and the Council would have to approve the original budget, and they may technically need to approve an increase to the budget, but it would be from their own revenues, it wouldn’t be asking for an appropriation from the City. He said the City Code doesn’t say much to guide them, but after it is approved by this Board, it is also approved by the Board of Estimate and the Council. He thinks it’s within the control of the WPCA and wouldn’t require them going back to the City as they have enough resources at this point.
b. Operating Highlights and Approved Operating/Capital Budget (copy included)
Mr. Hamilton stated that the budget has been forwarded on to the Board of Estimate and they have approved it; and it is scheduled to be reviewed by the Finance Committee of the Council this Thursday, and then it will go to the full Council for approval on April 25th. He said the Council doesn’t have any role in the setting of the rate, but they do approve the operating budget according to the City Code.
Mr. McInerney observed for the record that as an activity goal for 2006-07, they continue to develop the Asset Management Plan.
8. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REPORT
Ms. Bardon stated that there was one emergency item added to the agenda, which was item 8b.
** MS. RUIZ MOTIONED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ADD ITEMS 8a AND 8b TO THE AGENDA.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
b. Collection System Issues – General: 36-inch Gravity Sewer at WWTP
1) AUTHORIZE THE WPCA CHAIRMAN TO ISSUE AN EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER (#e35950) IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 TO H.W. LOCHNER, INC. AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SAME FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES (PREPARATION OF EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, BID PACKAGES, AND SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION) RELATED TO REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF THE COLLAPSED FORT POINT INTERCEPTOR SEWER.
** MS. RUIZ MOTIONED TO AUTHORIZE THE WPCA CHAIRMAN TO ISSUE AN EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER (#e35950) IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 TO H.W. LOCHNER, INC. AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SAME FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES (PREPARATION OF EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, BID PACKAGES, AND SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION) RELATED TO REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF THE COLLAPSED FORT POINT INTERCEPTOR SEWER.
Mr. Kolb stated there was a drawing included in the Board members’ packages, which shows the area off the wastewater treatment plant on South Smith Street. There is a 36-inch faulty line from the Fort Point station that comes into it, there is 150 feet of pipe in bad shape; it is cracked and there is a major sinkhole in this location. It is a DPW catch basin; a leaf pit area; street sweepings are piled in this location; it is screened and out of sight. The pipe is located under this area. The project will relocate the pipe under the street and bypassing the DPW operations. The pipe services about 6 million gallons a day in southeast Norwalk.
Ms. Bardon stated the pipe was put in in 1929 and this is an emergency situation. They have tried to jet through it with the vacuum truck and the hose is stuck in the pipe and can’t get through. This is a catastrophic failure in the system. What they are proposing to do is to bring out H.W. Lochner who is working right now through OMI to do the pump station service area project. They met with someone from Lochner this afternoon. Ms. Bardon said the problem became apparent late Thursday or Friday, and Mr. Linnartz, the City’s principal engineer, went out to the site and said that the repair can’t wait, and advised them to move forward. She said the most expeditious way was to have clearance prepared and it’s Lochner’s position that since they are currently working on plans for another project, they’d rather have the specs and everything in place in order to make the repair as soon as possible. She said it will probably be in the range of an $80,000 to $100,000 repair and they will have to come back to the Board at that point, but they can’t wait another month to start it.
Mr. McInerney questioned spending $25,000 to come up with specs to do a $100,000 project. Ms. Bardon said this was a not-to-exceed amount, and is a standard amount. She said Mr. Caballos would be preparing a scope for tomorrow and it might come to less than that, but it is usually 25% of construction costs, and covers design and services during construction such as construction inspection. She said this was an industry standard for small projects.
Mr. McInerney asked why is it only this section of pipe with problems and not anywhere else along the pipe. Mr. Alvord said it was most likely because the yard debris site sits right on top of the site. All of the yard debris gets offloaded; all of the sweepings from the street; the sifter and screener is there; there are 18-wheeler trucks going over the site after being loaded with yard debris to be hauled out; and all of the soil in that area under the wastewater and public works center site is unstable to begin with.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
2) AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF $25,000 FROM THE REPLACEMENT RESERVE ACCOUNT (#2240
4062 5789) TO THEOTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ACCOUNT (#2240 4062 5230) TO FUND
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEEREING SERVICES (H.W. LOCHNER, INC.) RELATED TO REPAIR AND
REPLACEMENT OF THE FORT POINT INTERCEPTOR SEWER
** MAYOR MOCCIA MOTIONED TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF $25,000 FROM THE REPLACEMENT RESERVE ACCOUNT (#2240 4062 5789) TO THEOTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ACCOUNT (#2240 4062 5230) TO FUND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEEREING SERVICES (H.W. LOCHNER, INC.) RELATED TO REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF THE FORT POINT INTERCEPTOR SEWER.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The regular meeting agenda was resumed.
a. Discussion of Impact Fees (copy included)
Mr. Atkin stated that all members received documents regarding the impact fees in their packets. There had been some discussion of it at the last meeting when it was introduced by staff.
Mr. Alvord stated that what was provided last time was a spreadsheet that showed what other communities in the State are doing on things like this. Now he was providing further information on why Norwalk should consider impact fees, again what other communities are doing, and they have cleaned the previous spreadsheet up to break it down just to the sewer impact fees. Mr. Alvord said there was also a program in the packets that has been implemented by the City of Frederick, Maryland. He is offering this for two reasons: one, to demonstrate what other cities have done; and two, the information on the residential piece.
Mr. Wilms asked if it was within the WPCA’s authority to do this, or will they have to go through the Ordinance Committee of the Common Council? Mr. Alvord said his suspicion was that this would go beyond their authority because we are now considering fees that will have an impact on development and zoning and those kinds of things. Ms. Bardon said they would probably have to get Corporation Counsel to make that determination. She said the Authority does have the ability to set its fees, but she wasn’t sure how this differs from that authority.
Mayor Moccia said he feels they will have to move slowly in this area. He suggested the Authority also remember that eventually they will be looking at a minimum of 500,000 square feet of office space going in by I-95/Route 7, and perhaps office and retail space on West Avenue, plus other developments on Wall Street. This will include commercial and not just residential. Mayor Moccia said it will have a dramatic financial impact on people developing this town, and although the background information is good, it has a long way to go before implementation. Mayor Moccia said he thinks it should go before Corporation Counsel and ultimately it has to go back to the Ordinance Committee and a full-blown public hearing. He has concerns about it because he thinks there are development agreements with people in town that this could affect their budgetary considerations and their future plans. It’s never been on the table with Redevelopment or any other Board that this has had to go before.
Mayor Moccia said he understands the impact on residential and commercial, but if we are going to begin with these development projects and have people come in, it might be something they could deal with, but he was not quite sure how you won’t alienate the developers with some massive impact fees, especially if there’s going to be all that office space in Reed-Putnam, not to mention the retail, the hotel, and the other planned parts of the project. This is a major financial impact to developers, and he feels they have to move very cautiously.
Mr. Alvord said that, following on the Mayor’s comments, there are a sequence of steps, the first to be to get Corporation Counsel’s advice on what is the appropriate process. Second, do we want to develop and move forward with consideration on how something would be developed in this process? The other concerns, along with the Mayor’s concerns, are the operational and cost implications this will have on the operation of the wastewater treatment system. There is a balance there. He said they haven’t done any research to see if there are communities that have done a transition or phase in to minimize impact on developments that are already in progress as opposed to new developments not received yet. What we need to get is a sense of do we want to proceed down that path? The next steps would be to meet with Corporation Counsel, and to do more research on transition and phase-in programs. Also, from the standpoint of setting a flat rate for the residential is a relatively easy exercise. The more difficult part will be coming up with a recommendation on the industrial and commercial part of the program, which has yet to be developed and presented to the Authority.
Mayor Moccia stated that before they do anything else, they refer this to the Corporation Counsel for their opinion on how the impact fees would have to be implemented, if they wanted the concept. Would it be by ordinance change, or however it would be handled, the concept versus the implementation.
** MAYOR MOCCIA MOTIONED TO REFER TO CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR AN OPINION AS TO THE PROCEDURES NECESSARY, SHOULD THE AUTHORITY WANT TO MOVE DOWN THAT ROAD.
Mr. Atkin said he agreed with the Mayor on the motion but he would ask staff if they were to research what they have just discussed, is that something that would be a burden on staff time, or is this something that could be done, if they were to move down that path. Mr. Alvord said he wouldn’t suggest that research would be a burden because they will take the median advantage of our membership in the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and the membership in the U.S. Conference of Mayors and go to their research services and ask them to provide information on what transition and implementation programs other communities have used. We have a ready research source we can be used without having to have staff spend days online or going through volumes.
Mr. Wilms stated he also supported the Mayor’s motion and agreed that this will require an extensive public conversation.
** MR. WILMS SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
c. Information Copies:
1) DEP Invoice Notification for 2005 Nitrogen Credits (copy included)
Ms. Burdon said they would make budget next year. There was a brief discussion concerning the differences between 2004 and 2005. Mr. McInerney questioned the graph on page 3 of the report and the differences between what the State shows and what the City shows, and said it shows the City in violation. Mr. Kolb explained the graph and said the City is not in violation. Mr. Alvord concurred.
There was a brief discussion on the Keeler Brook violation and the study that was done.
Mayor Moccia left the meeting at 6:29 p.m.
9. CONTRACT OPERATIONS REPORT
a. Public Works Director Report
1) Contract Operations Monitoring
Mr. Alvord said there were inspections that had been conducted last week. Mr. Kolb said that on one day two engineers toured the wastewater treatment plan, and the following day two more engineers visited five pump stations that they had selected, and then they came back to the wastewater treatment plant and went through the MP2 software that OMI uses to manage the plant. The engineers all reported that things were looking very good. Mr. Kolb stated that he should have a report by next month’s Board meeting.
b. OMI Report
1) Monthly Operating Report – February 2006 (copy included)
There were no violations to be discussed. There were no performance guarantee issues.
2) Collection System and Pump Station MMR Accounts (copy included)
There were no current repairs or upgrades to the pump stations. There was a report on 2 Park Street, which was a grease blockage with a 200-gallon overflow. There were no personnel changes. There was one reportable safety incident.
** MR. WILMS MOTIONED FOR THE WPCA TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS
GENERATOR REPLACEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The WPCA went into Executive Session at 6:55 p.m.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
a. Generator Replacement Negotiations
11. ACTION ON ANY ITEM DISCUSSED HEREIN
12. ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Linda J. Hayes
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |