SHARON WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WMAC) MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 6, 2004
Prepared by Paul Lauenstein
Present at meeting:
WMAC Chairman Rory McGregor; WMAC members Michael Birschbach, Richard Mandell, Jack Sulik, Roger Thibault, Len Sekuler, Lealdon Langley and Paul Lauenstein; DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper; Lake Management Committee Chairman Cliff Towner; and Lake Management Committee member Richard Kramer
Summary of Minutes for the 5/6/04 WMAC Meeting
Review and approve the minutes of the April 15, 2004 Meeting.
The minutes of the April 15 meeting were approved with alterations. Eric Hooper added supplementary information regarding iron and manganese contamination at the Islamic Center well site.
Review and approve the minutes of the March 18, 2004 Meeting.
The minutes of the March 18 meeting were approved with alterations.
3. Report of the Radio Read Meter Subcommittee
The subcommittee selected three vendors from the original seven to present their offerings. All three presentations have been completed. All three vendors offer walk-by/drive-by systems with an option to upgrade to fixed network. Findings were discussed at this meeting.
Several WMAC committee members questioned the omission of pure fixed network systems from consideration. Eric Hooper reiterated his position that the primary need for the town would best be served by the less expensive drive-by system as opposed to the fixed network system.
The WMAC committee will vote at the next meeting on whether to accept the recommendation of the subcommittee. One possibility is to recommend halting the present procurement process and start over again with a process that would allow consideration of all types of systems and their prices. Eric Hooper stated that he may still decide to make his recommendation to the Selectmen for the solution that he feels works best for the town, even if different from the WMAC’s recommendation.
4. Report of the Water Conservation Subcommittee
The need for accurate accounting for when and where water is used was discussed, and questions were raised concerning the Annual Statistical Report (see appendix).
A by-law requiring that low-flow toilets be installed when homes are sold was discussed, as were enhancements to Sharon’s rebate program to induce residents to install water saving appliances.
The importance of addressing lawn irrigation systems in a water conservation program was discussed.
The balance of the water conservation subcommittee’s proposals and any new ideas to promote water conservation will be discussed at the next meeting.
5. Progress Report on New Well Sites
The Water Department is obtaining price proposals to conduct exploratory test wells at the Gobbi and Canton Street sites.
6. Discussion of Pumping and Tank Level Data for March and April
7. Status of Edge Hill Road Water Main Replacement Project
8. Status of Vacant WMAC Seat
9. Discussion of Sharon High School Student Involvement
10. Schedule the next meeting for Thursday, May 20 at 7:30 PM
Detailed Minutes for the 5/6/04 WMAC Meeting
1. Review and approve the minutes of the April 15, 2004 Meeting.
The minutes of the April 15 meeting were approved with alterations.
As a supplement to the discussion at the April 15 WMAC meeting of the presence of iron and manganese at the Islamic Center well site, Eric Hooper presented the following information suggesting that there is no significant iron/manganese contamination at that site.
Water quality data from the March 1997 Weston & Sampson Groundwater Resources Exploration Study indicate non-detect for manganese and 0.04 mg/l for iron at Well 1-96 located approximately 10’ from the 8” production test location and 0.3 mg/l for manganese and 17.5 mg/l for iron at well 6-96 located approximately 230’ and across the railroad tracks from the test location. Subsequent water quality data collected in 1999 at 1-96 indicated similar manganese levels (non-detect) and iron levels (0.13 mg/l). Manganese levels at the production test location were at non-detect levels until day three of the pump test after which the levels went from non-detect to 0.07 mg/l during day three and 0.09 mg/l during day four (recommended MMCL is 0.05 mg/l). Iron at the production test site was at non-detect levels
during all four days of the pump test.
It was decided to incorporate this information in these May 6 minutes rather than alter the minutes of the April 15 meeting.
2. Review and approve the minutes of the March 18, 2004 Meeting.
The minutes of the March 18 meeting were approved with deletion of the four appendices.
3. Report of the Radio Read Meter Subcommittee
Len Sekuler, chairman of the radio read meter system subcommittee, explained that the selection committee is comprised of three WMAC members Jack Sulik, Paul Lauenstein, and Len Sekuler, plus two Water Department representatives, Eric Hooper and Dave Masciarelli. Len Sekuler reported that eight proposals were received in response to Sharon’s RFP for a radio read meter system. One was immediately rejected because it arrived after the deadline. Copies of the remaining seven proposals were reviewed by the subcommittee, which then met to narrow the field to three finalists; Everett J. Prescott, Inc. of Brockton, Ti-Sales Inc. of Sudbury, and Stiles Company Inc. of Norwood. All have installed systems in Massachusetts. The subcommittee heard presentations from the three finalists on April 15, April 20 and April 22.
Eric Hooper said the subcommittee plans to open the sealed price quotes and select the winner at its next meeting, which has not yet been scheduled. He explained that the Massachusetts Inspector General ruled that price quotes of proposals of all three finalists could be opened, but that price quotes of proposals rejected based on evaluation of the specifications could not be opened.
Richard Mandell asked what the criteria were for selection of the finalists.
Len Sekuler answered that each subcommittee member used evaluation forms supplied by Weston & Sampson to rate each vendor’s conformity to the criteria stated in the RFP. The committee also met to discuss the relative merits of the proposals. Len Sekuler added that after the three finalists were selected, Dave Masciarelli conducted telephone interviews with their references.
Roger Thibault asked if the subcommittee is satisfied with the response to the RFP.
Eric Hooper said he thought there is a satisfactory array of vendors serving a range of needs. He said the signal strength varies among the proposed systems.
Richard Mandell asked if there are any fixed network systems among the finalists.
Eric Hooper explained that a condition of the RFP is that the vendor must be able to provide both walk-by and drive-by capabilities. The ability to upgrade to fixed network, although desirable, is not required.
Lealdon Langley asked how the cost of purchasing a walk-by/drive-by system, and then subsequently upgrading it to fixed network, would compare with the cost of a system designed specifically to function as a fixed network system.
Eric Hooper responded that the method of receiving the signal (fixed vs. walk-by or drive-by) is not as important as the accuracy of the data being transmitted, which is a function of the quality of the meter and encoder.
Lealdon Langley said he understood the importance of accurate data, but his question had to do with the cost and efficiency of collecting the data.
Eric Hooper replied that accuracy is of paramount importance, and that a limited amount of accurate data would be preferable to a deluge of data pouring in on a daily basis from a fixed network system.
Len Sekuler added that each of the three finalists offers a migration path to fixed network. He said a large part of the cost of implementing any radio read meter system in Sharon will be the labor to visit each of the 5,600 customers and install the new metering system. After that is accomplished, there are multiple methods of collecting the data. He also pointed out that it may take years to complete the installation of the radio meters, and having flexibility to use a variety of signal reading methods (i.e. walk-by, drive-by or fixed network) would make the transition easier.
Michael Birschbach asked why a fixed network system could not be installed on an incremental basis, dividing the town into sections and installing one section at a time. Neighborhoods not yet converted could be read by the existing manual method.
Jack Sulik said he thought the $30,000 to $60,000 cost of setting up the infrastructure to receive fixed network signals would be more expensive than a hand-held approach during the transition period.
Lealdon Langley reasoned that if fixed network were the ultimate goal anyway, setting up the fixed network infrastructure would be inevitable in the long run. Installing a fixed network at the outset would avoid the cost of the walk-by and drive-by data collection units, as well as the labor to collect the data.
Len Sekuler challenged the assumption that fixed network is the ultimate goal. He said the walk-by/drive-by technology is efficient, and may be significantly less expensive than a fixed network system. He added that a walk-by/drive-by meter reading system might be all Sharon ever needs.
Michael Birschbach asked if there were any way to compare the cost of buying a walk-by/drive-by system and subsequently upgrading it to fixed network versus buying a dedicated fixed network system up front.
Eric Hooper repeated that the RFP process only allows the prices of the three finalists, which are walk-by/drive-by systems, to be opened.
Michael Birschbach then asked how the committee could weigh the costs and benefits of these generically different approaches.
Eric Hooper replied that a hand-held receiver would be needed for a smooth transition and also for a variety of circumstances where on-site verification would be necessary.
Richard Mandell asked why the meters themselves could not be read directly in instances where a fixed network reading had to be verified.
Eric Hooper replied that gaining access inside the home is often difficult. He said that with the current setup, most meter reading errors are attributable to the remote readout devices mounted outside the house. The encoders mounted on the meters read accurately,
Lealdon Langley said that since there are no mechanical parts between the encoder and the radio transmitter, if the encoder is accurate, the likelihood of errors should be very small.
Richard Mandell reported that Boston has a fixed network system that reads all the meters every 15 minutes. He said frequent meter readings are useful for detecting leaky toilets that consume large amounts of water if allowed to leak for a long time. He said specialized software might be able to analyze the incoming data and flag readings that suggest leaks, a major advantage of a fixed network system from the standpoint of water conservation.
Eric Hooper responded that Sharon experiences very few catastrophic water main breaks, and they are so obvious that they are detected and repaired promptly. He said intermittent leaks are more common, but detecting and fixing them would not justify the additional cost of a fixed network system.
Paul Lauenstein questioned the basis for this conclusion, saying that neither the amount of water lost due to persistent slow leaks, nor the additional cost of a fixed network system is known at this time. He added that the current RFP process would not reveal the cost differential between a walk-by/drive-by system and a dedicated fixed network system.
Eric Hooper commented that fixed network systems rely on antennas, which are vulnerable to lightning. If the Water Department depended on such a fixed network system, a lightning strike could wipe out their entire meter reading capability.
Paul Lauenstein replied that only one or two antennas the size of a fishing rod would be required. The likelihood of a lightning strike is low, and the antennas can be easily replaced if necessary. Although there might be a temporary interruption in the data flow, this should not interfere with monthly billing.
Richard Kramer suggested another advantage of a fixed network system would be that homeowners could be given access via internet to view a graph of their daily water consumption, which might help them reduce water use as the cost of water rises. Gathering the data daily with a drive-by system is impractical.
Lealdon Langley said he thought fixed network systems are better for promoting water conservation. Water rates could be adjusted seasonally according to any scheme deemed advantageous without any constraints imposed by a meter reading schedule.
Len Sekuler countered that drive-by systems are very efficient. Meter readings for all 5,600 meters in Sharon could be gathered in less than a day, so they could be taken monthly or even weekly or daily if desired.
Lealdon Langley pointed out that, with a fixed network system, obtaining readings for monthly billing would never be compromised by other Water Department priorities or inclement weather, since there would be no need to drive around town to collect the data. Furthermore, a fixed network system would eliminate labor cost for data collection.
Eric Hooper said DEP might require Sharon to increase its present semi-annual billing frequency to a quarterly basis as a condition for obtaining a permit for a new well site.
Lealdon Langley said the DEP sometimes makes exceptions in cases where a town is making a good faith effort to upgrade its meter reading capability, so as long as Sharon’s efforts to find an appropriate meter reading system continue, the DEP would be flexible.
Len Sekuler said a drive-by system would be more than adequate to obtain quarterly meter readings for billing purposes. He said fixed network systems require costly data collection units, sophisticated computer systems, and specially trained MIS personnel to manage the large quantities of data pouring into the Water Department daily. These costs would make a fixed network system cost an order of magnitude more than a drive-by system. By way of illustration, he estimated that if a drive-by system for Sharon cost $1 million, a fixed network system might cost $10 million.
Paul Lauenstein reported that the Town of Walpole, which declined to even consider drive-by systems, had just held its public opening of the bids for fixed network systems. The low bid was approximately $800,000. The Town of Walpole has about 7,200 customers, approximately 28% more than Sharon.
Len Sekuler said even if the cost of a fixed network system were the same as a drive-by system, the cost of a powerful computer system and the MIS staff to manage the large quantities of data would make a fixed network system undesirable.
Rory McGregor commented that monthly data collection might be sufficient for Sharon.
Richard Mandell suggested that a fixed network system could be programmed to transmit the data on any schedule (daily, weekly or monthly) desired by the Water Department, and would have the added advantage of eliminating the labor cost of collecting the data.
Richard Kramer said managing the data involved in hourly meter reading is a simple task that could be easily accomplished using existing town employees and readily available software. He estimated that an off-the-shelf desktop computer costing as little as $700 could easily store up to 10 years of hourly meter reads. He felt that the benefit of a fixed network system in promoting water conservation is a significant consideration. He said Weston & Sampson had done the town a disservice by writing an RFP that categorically excludes fixed network systems, and should make good by doing it over again at no charge.
Paul Lauenstein said it might be more expensive to purchase and then upgrade a drive-by system to fixed network than to simply purchase a system engineered to be a fixed network system. The reason he cited is that drive-by systems typically involve a relatively weak radio signal with a range of a thousand feet or so. To upgrade such a system to a fixed network requires several dozen data collection units strategically located around town to gather the data from various neighborhoods and relay it back to the Water Department. One vendor said these units cost $10,000 to $15,000 each, plus installation and annual maintenance costs. By contrast, dedicated fixed network systems offer radio units that can transmit over five miles, eliminating the need for the expensive data collection units. Furthermore, fixed network systems eliminate the
need for hand-held or drive-by data collection units, which are expensive.
Len Sekuler said fixed network technology is relatively new. He said far more towns have installed drive-by systems than fixed network systems, and he was not in favor of Sharon experimenting with unproven technology.
Paul Lauenstein said one fixed network vendor had offered to put in a free 10-unit pilot installation in Sharon free of charge and operate it as long as necessary to demonstrate its features and reliability.
Richard Kramer said he had been following the WMAC minutes regularly and recalled that the December minutes stated that the RFP process would be open to both fixed network and drive-by systems.
Paul Lauenstein said he voted for including $150,000 for a radio read meter system in the FY ’05 budget on the assumption that the RFP process would be fair and open to all appropriate technologies.
Michael Birschbach asked for an explanation of how the town’s best interests could be served by an RFP process that rules out consideration of fixed network systems.
Eric Hooper replied that if the WMAC feels that the current RFP process for purchasing a radio read meter system is flawed, he would be willing to cancel it and start over again. He warned that doing so could add up to a year to the lead time of implementing a radio read meter system. He also said that he had personally invested a considerable amount of time visiting other towns such as Milton and Nantucket to see their radio meter systems. If the procurement process must be done over, he would hope that committee members would be willing to invest their time in evaluating all types of systems.
Eric Hooper outlined the three options facing the committee:
• Allow the present selection process to continue.
• Charge Eric Hooper as DPW Superintendent to open the bids and make a recommendation to the Selectmen.
• Re-do the procurement process from scratch.
Jack Sulik said his choice would be to allow the present selection process to continue. He recounted the process of writing the RFP, advertising it, forming a subcommittee, studying the proposals, narrowing the field to three finalists, calling the references, and interviewing the three finalists, and concluded that the process had been conducted fairly and should be allowed to proceed.
Roger Thibault asked if it would be possible to salvage the situation by sending a letter to all the vendors requesting that Sharon be allowed to open all the price estimates.
Eric Hooper said that would not be allowed by the Inspector General, and would probably lead to legitimate protest from some vendors.
Paul Lauenstein said he would favor cancelling the present RFP. He said he thought the town would be better served by allowing consideration of fixed network systems, and taking advantage of any free pilots offered by vendors. Also, he said it might be valuable to see how Walpole and Norwood fare with their fixed network systems before re-initiating a new procurement process.
Richard Mandell said that when the search for a radio read meter system began two years ago, some currently available fixed network technology was not yet on the market. He said he would favor a new, more open selection process that would allow consideration of all technologies, because the system Sharon chooses will have a long-term impact on the town’s ability to monitor and manage its water supply.
Eric Hooper said he felt that drive-by systems should not be excluded if the process is started over. He said that if the WMAC insists on starting over, it would have to specify how to structure the new RFP.
Roger Thibault said he thought the track record of each vendor should be weighed carefully before making a final decision.
Paul Lauenstein agreed, but said that it would be pointless to consider the track records and references of the fixed network vendors who submitted proposals since they cannot be considered according to the rules of the present RFP.
Richard Kramer also agreed that weight should be given to the vendors’ track records and references, and the town should not necessarily go with the low bidder. He added that a prudent strategy might be to delay a decision until other towns have had time to demonstrate the pros and cons of new fixed network systems, and then hire outside help to accelerate installation of a system in Sharon. That way the installation of a radio read meter system could still be completed within the present multi-year time frame, while allowing more time to observe and learn from the experiences of other towns.
Rory McGregor said the committee should think about the issues raised and be prepared to vote on recommending a course of action to the Selectmen at the next meeting on May 20. He said the WMAC could vote to make a recommendation to the Selectmen independent of Eric Hooper’s recommendation and then it would be up to the Selectmen to decide the matter.
4. Report of the Water Conservation Subcommittee
The water conservation subcommittee, consisting of Michael Birschbach, Lealdon Langley, Paul Lauenstein and Richard Mandell, made a list of five ideas to promote water conservation in Sharon.
The first item on the list is to improve accounting for water.
Richard Mandell expressed a need to better understand when and where water is going in order to formulate a sensible water conservation plan.
Roger Thibault asked whether the meters at town facilities like schools and ball fields are installed and working properly.
Eric Hooper said all municipal meters are now in good working order.
Lealdon Langley pointed out that gallons per capita daily (gpcd) water consumption is becoming an important yardstick for measuring towns’ success with water conservation. He questioned the methodology used to calculate this statistic.
Eric Hooper said it is simply residential use divided by residential population not including residents using private wells. He said the population figure is an average of winter and summer populations, adjusting for factors such as attendees of summer camps.
Lealdon Langley observed that so-called “snow birds” (people spending the winter months in Florida) can affect the gpcd calculation.
Eric Hooper said they are not. He said the calculation for gpcd was formerly calculated as total water pumped divided by population, but it was decided that non-residential water use and unaccounted for water should not be included in the calculation.
Paul Lauenstein said the water conservation subcommittee initially turned to the Annual Statistical Reports (ASRs) to get a better idea of Sharon’s water usage patterns. However, apparent discrepancies undermined the subcommittee’s confidence in these reports. A list of discrepancies on the 2003 ASR was circulated (see appendix).
Eric Hooper agreed to review these discrepancies and meet with the water conservation subcommittee to address these issues.
Lealdon Langley said other towns have similar issues with their ASRs. He said DEP has withheld permit approvals in some cases until the issues are resolved. With Sharon’s potential near-term need for a new well permit, it is important that the ASRs be done properly.
Richard Kramer asked if estimates are made and a log kept of unmetered water use such as water main flushing and water used to fight fires.
Eric Hooper replied that such records are kept. He said it is possible to estimate such water use with reasonable accuracy based on factors such as duration, pressure and the size of pipe involved.
The second item on the list is a by-law requiring installation of low-flow toilets when homes are sold.
Paul Lauenstein said the majority of homes in Sharon were constructed prior to 1992 when 1.6 gallon low-flow toilets were first required, and most still have older 3.5 or 5 gallon toilets. He said if all old toilets were replaced with low-flow toilets, it could save 30 to 40 million gallons annually. He said a by-law requiring low-flow toilets would result in a gradual phase-in over the next decade or so, adding that about 260 homes changed hands in Sharon in 2003.
Roger Thibault said that although he personally would support such a measure, he feared it would be a tough sell at Town Meeting, since people are already unhappy about the cost of Title V and high taxes in general.
Lealdon Langley said the sale of a home is a logical occasion to upgrade to low-flow toilets. A by-law would accelerate the rate that existing homes get retrofitted with low-flow toilets.
Jack Sulik asked if other towns have by-laws requiring low-flow toilets.
Eric Hooper asked whether installation of low-flow toilets would be the responsibility of the seller or the buyer.
Lealdon Langley said the buyer should be involved in the selection of style and color, but the by-law would be silent on this point and let the parties decide.
Rory McGregor said the cost, while not insignificant, is also not prohibitive. He retrofitted his home with two low-flow toilets for under $1,000 including installation.
Eric Hooper said low-flow toilets must be installed by a plumber, which adds to the cost.
Jack Sulik said a member of the WMAC might be called upon to present the argument for a low-flow toilet by-law at Town Meeting. A cost/benefit analysis will be needed to make the case for the by-law, and should be prepared by the subcommittee. Len Sekuler suggested calculating the pay-back period for an investment in a low-flow toilet.
The third item on the list is the Water Department’s rebate program for an array of water saving appliances such as front-loader washing machines, water-saver shower heads, and low-flow toilets.
Paul Lauenstein emphasized the importance of publicizing a rebate program for it to be effective. He cited the mailing by the Neponset River Watershed Association last year to Sharon residents that resulted in the installation of 58 front-loader washing machines. He suggested that there should be inserts in water bills promoting rebates for water-saving appliances, as well as free shower heads, faucet aerators, toilet leak detection kits and water audits. He said the Water Department should be seen as promoting water conservation and helping the community save water.
Lealdon Langley suggested involving the building inspector in promoting the rebate program. He pointed out that the building inspector interacts with homeowners when they are most likely to be receptive to making improvements to reduce water use.
Outdoor watering
Len Sekuler commented that none of the suggestions by the water conservation subcommittee targets summertime water usage when the town’s water resources are most stressed. He said an effort should be made to educate owners of lawn irrigation systems on how to save water, and said proper usage of lawn irrigation should not be banned in Sharon.
Paul Lauenstein said although he did not advocate a total lawn watering ban, he felt the WMAC should seek effective means to curtail wasteful lawn watering.
Roger Thibault suggested that owners of lawn irrigation systems should be required to obtain permits. The permit fee should be proportional to lawn size.
Lealdon Langley commented that Sharon already has a by-law limiting lawn size.
Eric Hooper said he thought the by-law only limits lawn size in zones requiring lot sizes of 60,000 square feet or more. He said the limitation restricts the area covered by an automatic irrigation system rather than the area of lawn.
Richard Mandell said poor management of lawn irrigation systems such as watering during rainy weather or sprinkler heads aimed towards roads and sidewalks is a significant problem. He suggested requiring controls that would automatically shut off irrigation systems when soil moisture is adequate.
Eric Hooper said it is not difficult to equip a lawn irrigation system with an automatic shut-off connected to a rain gauge.
Roger Thibault commented that better training is needed for workers responsible for setting up lawn irrigation systems.
Richard Kramer said the town sets a bad example when it allows ball field sprinklers to operate in rainy weather.
Lealdon Langley said any outdoor watering restrictions should apply uniformly to all users to encourage cooperation.
5. Progress Report on New Well Sites
The Water Department is obtaining a price proposal from ESS to oversee drilling of exploratory wells at the Canton Street and Gobbi sites. It is also obtaining price proposals directly from several drilling firms to drill the wells. Eric Hooper said he expects to have received these proposals before the May 20 WMAC meeting.
6. Discussion of Pumping and Tank Level Data
Eric Hooper presented committee members with reports on daily well pumping and tank levels in March and April.
Jack Sulik asked if the dip in tank levels on April 12 were related to flushing.
Eric Hooper said he was unsure if flushing was the reason. He said all the town’s water mains must be flushed every two years to purge them of accumulated sediments, which could otherwise interfere with fire-fighting equipment.
Paul Lauenstein asked how much water is needed for flushing of water mains.
Eric Hooper said every hydrant does not have to be opened. Instead, strategically located hydrants are opened to clear segments of water main, and allowed to run for a short period (under an hour) until the sediment is cleared.
Richard Mandell noticed that Well #6 was not used at all during March and April. He asked when it does get used.
Eric Hooper said Well #6 only gets used in July, August and September because of objectionable (though not unsafe) levels of iron and manganese that can cause discoloration of the water and laundry.
7. Status of Edge Hill Road Water Main Replacement Project
Eric Hooper reported that bids have been received for plans, specifications and estimates for the Edge Hill Road A/C pipe replacement project. He said the estimates were in the vicinity of $30,000, and added that the bids for the actual construction are not in yet.
8. Status of Vacant WMAC Seat
Richard Mandell asked if there are any candidates for the vacant seat on the WMAC, and said he had a candidate in mind.
Rory McGregor replied that the seat is still open and applications should be submitted as soon as possible to the Selectmen.
Eric Hooper suggested that Andrew Stead might consider the job since the WMAC meets less frequently than the Board of Health from which he resigned.
9. Discussion of Sharon High School Student Involvement
Rory McGregor inquired about the absence of Jeff Starusky (the representative from Sharon High School to the WMAC) and suggested that since Jeff is a graduating senior a replacement for the coming year should be recruited.
Richard Mandell said the earth science curriculum at Sharon High School has been discontinued due to budget cuts. He commented that this is unfortunate considering the growing importance of the environment to future generations.
Eric Hooper suggested involving the social studies department at Sharon High School in a project to enact a water conservation by-law.
Paul Lauenstein suggested collaborating with Mary Ann Janosko of the Sharon High School video department on a video about water conservation.
10. Schedule the next meeting for Thursday, May 20 at 7:30 PM
APPENDIX
Questions about 2003 Sharon Water Department Annual Statistical Report (ASR)
1. Why does "Amount pumped from own sources" (Page 5, part D-1) add up to 441,317,000 gallons, when the totals pumped by the six town wells (Pages 6 and 7, part E) add up to 569,142,000 gallons? (Note: the Town of Sharon Annual Report says 541,309,000 gallons were pumped.)
2. Why are the monthly pumping totals reported on Page 5, part D-1 so erratic? These figures are not credible, and they do not correspond to monthly totals in part E.
3. Why do the percents reported on Page 5, part D-2 only add up to 91.54%? (Adding the 13.46% unaccounted-for water from Page 8, part F-4 gives a total of 105%).
4. On Page 5, part D-2, residential area consumption is reported to be 77.73% of total consumption. On Page 8, part F-3, total residential metered volume is stated to be 413,980,000. Dividing 413,980,000 gallons by .7773 implies total consumption of 532,587,160 gallons. Is this the total amount sold? If the total pumped were 569,142,000 gallons, then unaccounted for water would be 36,554,840 gallons, not the 76,600,000 gallons reported on page 8, part F-4. How can these numbers be reconciled?
5. Why is the 413,980,000 gallons of residential water consumption reported on the 2003 ASR (Page 8, part F-3) so much lower than the following residential water consumption from ASRs over the past seven years, given Sharon’s stable population? (The same lawn watering restrictions applied in 2002 as 2003.) What would have caused a 36,846,000 gallon decrease (-8%) in 2003 over 2002?
Residential Water Usage (reported on ASR)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average
462,598 485,883 479,781 423,499 478,550 461,972 450,826 463,301
Population (from Town Clerk)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
17,298 17,392 17,441 17,558 17,962 18,283 17,988
6. Why is “Unaccounted for” water reported in 2003 (76,600,000 gallons) so much higher (+35,092,000 gallons) than the 41,508,000 gallons reported in 2002?
7. Why is part F-5 on Page 9 classifying "Unaccounted for" water not filled out?
8. How is "Other Area" on Page 5, part D-2 different from "Unaccounted-for" water reported on Page 8, part F-4? What's the difference between "Industrial/Agricultural" and "Commercial?” What's the difference between "School" and "Institution?" What’s included in “Recreational Area”?
9. Should net water consumption reported on Page 5, part D-1 be 443,982,000 gallons, or 438,652,000 gallons?
10. Should “Watershed Difference” for the Taunton River watershed reported on page 8, part F-1, be +0.269 MGD or -0.269 MGD?
| 
