Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02042013 Sewer Planning Work Group Minutes Sewer Planning Work Group Monday February 4, 2012 1:00-3:00 pm Town Building Conference Room 16 Broad Street NOTES Attending: Nancy Wheatley, Charlie Stott, Bob Williams (by phone), Steve Anderson, Dual McIntyre, Tim Soverino, Michael Glowacki, Rick Atherton, Kara Buzanoski. 1. Discussion of Work Plan: Goals, Objectives and Tasks - Review Charlie’s goals and objectives - Nancy has made new agenda - Group enormously frustrated with consultant - Tim very frustrated with consultant - Nantucket wants regulatory drivers TS- SPWG wants consultant here for next meeting. NW -We should be looking at the big picture. The capital plan of 2006 did not have much implementation. There was no involvement of the public. Now the new CWMP is based on the results from the Nantucket Harbor and Madaket Harbor MEP studies. We should also look at the areas that will be sewer vs. septic. NW- I would like to go over with SPWG: - Updating the areas we were going to sewer and are not now: Shimmo and Pocomo - Mounded systems are not an option for Nantucket. - How many connections can be made into Surfside? KB – Discussed the present state of the Madaket WWTP and the possibility of a route to pump the sewerage to the Surfside WWTP. DM –Asked what the number of septic systems is on island currently? A year and a half ago the Health Inspector said it was 2500+, but the GIS shows 6581 not on sewer. What is the number? NW- Noted that important decisions need to be made based on the number of septics and sewer. MG – Noted we have to look at the big picture. Where do we go for accurate data? He further noted that the MEP is ridiculous data. Before, it was much less complicated. We need to get sewers expanded. It’s important to make it clear that infrastructure is not about growth. The Administration has to make the recognition that this is not about growth. TS – Stated the comment that the Chief operator doesn’t have information, the lack of data is a ruse. The data is out there in a million forms. We need an open a book to look at the numbers. I trust Andrew for data and he isn’t here. We’re spinning our wheels. Get the right people here. NW – Stated that we will have Andrew here for these discussions. She is most disturbed about the numbers. We need the numbers to show that Madaket can go into the Surfside WWTP or not. If 700 units have been freed up by zoning, and Madaket has only 400 dwelling units, why isn’t it obvious that it should go to Surfside? TS – Questioned if we need legal help? When you put things in an ACO (Adminstrative Consent Order from DEP), this becomes memorialized in law. NW/KHB –both noted that the Town doesn’t have an ACO. This CWMP process has been triggered by the MEP studies and will require acceptance of the CWMP results at Town Meeting. TS – If the info is sound, and we are building on a solid foundation, then public will be behind this. Make sure the CWMP is iron clad and that it’s the right thing to do. CS – Agreed and added emphasis to the expansive review of all the information, including alternative technologies. MG – Noted that that’s where we will get public support is if all the alternatives have been evaluated. SA – Concurred that we have to look at all alternatives. KHB – Noted that the foundation of the CWMP will be to look at all technologies to get public support. TM – Stated that the first step is to address the financing. SA –Stated that there are not enough users, we need new users without spending huge amounts of money to install pipes. RA – Noted that he agreed with all this discussion and that we need to build a plan. BW – Noted that this is a very productive conversation to move forward from. MG – Stated that we should throw out the CWMP. NW/KB – Both noted that the CWMP is needed to get approval from DEP for any work on sewers. TS – Stated that in 2004 it was the “gold rush” vs. conservation interests. The discussion of sewers was very contentious. If we could get agreement then, we can get consensus now. NW – Noted that the numbers have to tie back to the previous study. TS – Stated that the consultants now are the same as last time, this is a boondoggle. We need to move on, get Andrew in here. We need to get the flow, the capacity, and the base line data. NW – Added that the regulatory drivers are not in work plan. Also tell Woodard& Curran not to use bubble chart. RA – Noted that we need to communicate with Andrew and consultants. DM – Stated that if we need to we can do longer meetings with consultants. MG – Stated that we are impatient for this data, they’ve had 4 months. CS – Noted that we need to have a number for the lots that are not being served. MG – Asked why isn’t Andrew here, hasn’t BOS voted? We voted to make him a member of this group. KB –Noted that she is not a member, but staff support. Andrew will be staff support also. TS – Stated that we can hold off on the financing discussion. NW – Asked if we should we assign tasks to members? Create work group chairs to review the 2004 CWMP what was done, what wasn’t done? MG – Said no to sub-groups. CS – Noted that in between meetings, some could dig deeper into topics. RA – Noted that the group needs stuff in advance. TS – Stated that if we can’t get consultant to meetings, what point is 2 people looking into things in between meetings? NW – Stated that without data we wait until it is available. NW – Stated that regarding financing:  How much SEF money is debt for Surfside/Sconset?  How of sewer bill is debt?  For the Surfside WWTP (1/3 – 1/3 – 1/3) What is the debt schedule? NW – Noted that regarding septic system management, it is quality of life issue. Regarding the Sewer commission, it was given powers to act. Have they acted? The Act allows/requires taxpayers to be charged for I/I. Have they been charged? We need a Town counsel review of the Act to look at how the Sewer Commission is structured. Are we required to take action on it or can we keep status quo? NW – Further noted that it’s a personal issue. The Sewer Act of 2008 was not done correctly. There are some things on there that could be changed. The Town should affirmatively vote as to how the Board of Sewer Commissioners should act. MG – Stated that the Act was a “secret zoning act”. NW – Noted that we need Public outreach. Charlie’s map is great. MG – Further stated that the Act was run through without adequate review and presented the day before Town Meeting. NW – Asked if the numbers combine real capacity at plant with the flow necessary for the needs alternatives? NW – Asked how many times should we meet: Once per month? longer meetings if consultants can be here? Next month’s Agenda: discussion of CWMP drivers/criteria/connections if the consultant is available. If they are not, then financing. The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 pm. Respectfully Submitted Kara Buzanoski