HomeMy WebLinkAbout04052013 Sewer Planning Work Group Minutes
Sewer Planning Work Group
April 5, 2013 – 9am
Town Building Conference Room
16 Broad Street, Nantucket, MA
NOTES
Attending: Nancy Wheatley, Charlie Stott, Bob Williams, Dual McIntyre, Steve Anderson,
Michael Glowacki, Rick Atherton, Andrew Vorce, Kara Buzanoski.
Guest: David Worth, Leslie Forbes
1) Call to order
2) Review minutes from previous meetings.
Minutes were not available.
3) Continue discussion of potential connections to understand capacity.
MG – So as not to use sewer as a growth control mechanism – look at gallons
Look at capacity by parcel and gallons
Nancy reviewed Town sewer spreadsheet based on discussion with Helen Gordon and Rosemary
Blacquier from Woodard & Curran.
Questions to ask Rosemary: Where does gallonage in Column BC) come from? Title 5?
In Col. AU & AV – why are there no bathrooms noted?
In the Col. listing utilities, this doesn’t match the Col. re: sewers.
NW – We need to go through a reality check on the decisions made about the number of lots and
gallons per acre (col. BC & BD).
NW – There are effects of unbilled properties. The effect is that the nitrogen loading in the MEP
can be reduced for parcels that are actually connected. Also, for parcels that are actually
connected and not presently paying, this will add more revenue.
RA – Data will need to be checked to make sure we agree with W&C assumptions.
CS – Nancy, the effects of the parcels not presently billed, if they are on sewer, will the MEP be
revised?
NW – The actual nitrogen loading can be adjusted. W&C is spending more time on this to be
sure they get it right.
DM – If you look at data, pick one at random, the data should be accurate. So when we go to the
public we can pick an address and it will be accurate.
AV – Second dwelling is “unit” of existing, not another building.
KHB – We should reiterate this to W&C, col. BB may be misrepresented.
AV – round number of lots in col. AY to an even whole number.
NW – This data shows that 35% of parcels in sewer district are not connected.
KHB – Diane Holdgate is still working on list of connected and not paying. According to Town
Counsel case law says we can go back three years for billing in arrears.
NW – SPWG should decide if we want to do this.
CS – we shouldn’t hit these people to hard. There should be some forgiveness.
KHB – but we are forgiving many years in many cases.
RA – Start charging them starting now and bill them for what the 3 year charge would be.
DM – Before we go after this group, we have to be sure the data is correct.
RA – And the SPWG should send letters to these users informing them.
NW – And maybe article in I&M about the bills.
MG – There will be a lot of phone calls. We have to address any inequities.
SA – Should we do two notices?
NW – We should go to the BOS once to inform them.
RA – KHB should do a memo to the SPWG and BOS. Nancy – should SPWG vote on this?
NW – yes
BW – I move we can bill 3 years, and give them 3 years to pay.
MG –We should review this at our next meeting. We should look at the inequities of the Sconset
WWTP. We need to take time.
NW – We don’t have the luxury of time. Tim is bringing financial data. We need to address the
fact that there are data issues.
DM – multiple
1) Recognize that there are people not paying.
2) Acknowledge there are other issues.
MG – We need to address the Sconset plant.
NW – The issue of the unbilled people is a quickly fixable issue.
Sconset is a bigger issue. We shouldn’t wait to fix unbilled users to figure out Sconset
financing.
MG – Moved: We found serious inequities with billing so we are going to bring to BOS in 6
weeks. There are no second.
BW – Moved: Bill back one year and give them up to three years to pay.
NW – Through the consultants work, we have discovered some unbilled properties in the sewer
district. We should go to the BOS and inform them and recommend that we go back 3 years.
SA – Seconded
DM – Made an amendment: “send this info and require that notice be sent to the unbilled owners
prior to billing.”
MG – Made an amendment: “There are other sewer inequities that need to be addressed.”
NW – Made an amendment: “Start all billing at same time” Case law would have allowed us to
go back 3 years.
David Worth (DW) – I would go for 3 years.
AV – To echo what Michael said, you should go back the 3 years. My issue is the inequity that
I’ve been paying and someone else hasn’t. That is not fair.
BW – I can amend my motion to say “pay for 3 years”.
AV – I would suggest that the group wait until all info is complied. Get the actual monetary
value.
DW – And find out how big the dollar value is.
DM – How long to finish identifying?
KHB – 2 weeks
SA – Can the arrears bill be based on actual usage?
DM – Moved: I suggest we prepare draft a recommendation and vote at the next meeting.
MG – Second
Vote was unanimous
CS – I suggest that the further we go back, the longer we give them to pay.
MG – Does anyone think it’s fair that everyone including Surfside users paid for Sconset?
RA – There is a report on that by Mark Abrahams.
4. Data needed for discussion of options for changing current capital recovery
This will be discussed when financial data is available.
Next meeting is scheduled for 2 Fairgrounds Rd on 4/26/13 at 9 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
Kara Buzanoski