SHARON WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WMAC) MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 13, 2005
Prepared by Paul Lauenstein
Present at meeting:
WMAC Chairman Michael Birschbach; WMAC members Lealdon Langley, Paul Lauenstein, Richard Mandell, Rory McGregor, Len Sekuler, Mike Sherman, Jack Sulik and Cliff Towner; DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper; Selectman David Grasfield, Finance Committee member Charles Goodman; Conservation Agent Greg Meister; and citizen Alice Cheyer
Summary of Minutes for the 1/13/05 WMAC Meeting
1. Introductory discussion
2. Minutes of 11/18/04 and December 9 approved with changes
3. Fiscal Year 2006 (FY ’06) Water Department capital budget
4. Discussion of capital budget and motion to recommend revisions
5. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 10, 2005 at 7:30 PM
Detailed Minutes for the 1/13/05 WMAC Meeting
1. Introductory discussion
Michael Birschbach opened the meeting, emphasizing the importance of conducting WMAC business with professionalism and mutual respect among the participants.
Michael Birschbach described the presentation of the WMAC’s three priorities (new wells, emergency backup and water quality) at the January 4, 2005 Selectmen’s meeting, and the Selectmen’s unanimous support. He said the Selectmen voted to direct the Water Department to evaluate the viability of the four potential well sites recommended by the WMAC (Gobbi property, Canton Street, Blair Circle and Edge Hill Road). He said they also voted to have the Water Department investigate an emergency backup connection to the Stoughton water supply at Cobb’s Corner and report back to the Selectmen and the WMAC by February 1. Finally, he said they voted to instruct the Water Department to identify the source of nitrates at Well #4 as soon as possible.
Michael Birschbach then described Eric Hooper’s presentation the following week at the Selectmen’s meeting of January 11, 2005, at which Eric Hooper rebutted the arguments presented by the WMAC at the previous Selectmen’s meeting. Michael Birschbach said the WMAC members present made no comment, preferring to allow Eric Hooper to present his point of view.
Michael Birschbach said he thought the exchange had resulted in progress toward the goals identified by the WMAC and approved by the Selectmen.
Rory McGregor commented on the media exposure concerning the WMAC’s initiatives in the Sharon Advocate. He reported that he had met with Shelley Myerson of Sharon High School regarding ways in which students could assist with promoting water conservation and other WMAC initiatives.
Paul Lauenstein reported that the water conservation subcommittee met on January 6, 2005 to discuss rebate policy.
2. Minutes of 11/18/04 and December 9 approved with changes
The minutes of two WMAC meetings, one on November 18, 2004 and one on December 9, 2004 were unanimously approved with minor alterations.
3. Fiscal Year 2006 (FY ’06) Water Department capital budget
Michael Birschbach established the “ground rules” for addressing the Water Department’s FY ’06 capital budget. He said Eric Hooper would be allowed to present his budget without interruption, and then the floor would be opened up to questions and answers.
Eric Hooper began by stating that the entire Water Department budget for FY ’06 totals $2,096,490. Of this total, $1,561,490 consists of personnel costs (about $900,000), other operating costs such as electricity, phone, gas, taxes, uniforms, rentals, etc., and debt service for Rattlesnake Hill ($225,000). Eric Hooper said the remaining $500,000 for capital improvements is controllable and should be the focus of the WMAC’s deliberations.
Eric Hooper reported that revenues for FY ’04 of about $1.59 million were the basis for his projection of $1.6 million for FY ’06. He said that adding the debt service for the purchase of the Maskwonicut Street property and the purchase of the Upland Road property near the train station to the previously mentioned uncontrollable costs of running the Water Department would bring total uncontrollable costs to approximately $1.6 million. That meant that total revenues would be about the same as total uncontrollable costs, leaving no surplus to fund capital improvements.
Eric Hooper pointed out that in the past the Water Department used to run an annual surplus of several hundred thousand dollars. Eric Hooper recommended that a rate study be conducted, since rates might have to be increased.
Eric Hooper cautioned the committee that water conservation causes loss of revenue. He said that the true cost of the rebate program includes the rebates themselves plus the revenue loss resulting from reduced water usage. On the positive side, he said that water conservation reduces the cost of chemicals used for water treatment.
Eric Hooper said the Water Department budget for FY ’06 proposed $500,000 in capital spending. He said it did not include an allocation for meters.
Jack Sulik asked if the two installments of $150,000 each from FY ’04 and FY ’05 for a radio meter system were still available.
Eric Hooper said they were, adding that the Inspector General (IG) is reviewing the revised radio meter system RFP as to format, not its technical aspects. He said that after the IG completes the format review, the RFP will be submitted to the WMAC to review the technical content. If there are any changes, the RFP will once again be submitted to the IG for final review and approval. Eric Hooper said this time around he wants to be certain the IG has no issues with the RFP process.
Eric Hooper said that he hopes the new RFP will be issued by next summer. He said that following receipt of all the proposals there would be a selection process lasting about five months. Then the Selectmen would approve and sign a contract. After the award of the contract, the chosen vendor would have to demonstrate his product by conducting a three month pilot installation.
Rory McGregor asked for clarification on the allocation status of $300,000 for FY ’04 and FY ’05 for a radio meter system. Eric Hooper said that although the allocations for a radio meter system had expired, the funds had not been used for other purposes and were earmarked for a radio meter system.
Eric Hooper said the iron/manganese (Fe/Mn) filtration plant was originally budgeted for completion in FY ’06 at an estimated cost $500,000, with $25,000 allocated in FY ’05 for a feasibility study. However, he said the project is likely to take three years instead of two as originally planned. The budget now calls for $25,000 for the feasibility study in FY ’05, $100,000 for a pilot study in FY ’06, and $750,000 to complete the project in FY ’07. He said the feasibility study is due on February 15 from Weston & Sampson. It will be based on results of water quality tests to determine the concentrations of iron and manganese at Well #6. Samples for these tests were obtained while the well was actually in use, so that they would better represent typical water quality than if the samples were taken at well startup.
Eric Hooper said two technologies will be evaluated: the traditional greensand method and the more recent membrane filtration method, which also removes bacteria. Eric Hooper commented that he believes the greensand method to be less efficient in terms of wasted water and ongoing costs of disposing of the byproducts of Fe/Mn removal, but he expects to know more upon receipt of the Weston & Sampson feasibility study.
Lealdon Langley asked if the Fe/Mn filtration plant could be configured to remove iron and manganese from other wells in addition to Well #6.
Eric Hooper replied that this would not be practical due to the distances involved.
Lealdon Langley asked why the time and expense required for the Fe/Mn plant had increased so much.
Eric Hooper replied that his latest estimates were based on Walpoles’s experience with constructing a similar plant. He said he would have a better idea after release of Weston & Sampson’s feasibility study on February 15. Eric Hooper added that the pilot study would begin in spring. The pilot study involves diverting a portion of the flow from the well while it is in operation through a miniature treatment system housed in a trailer parked nearby. It is important that the pilot study be conducted while the well is in operation so the water diverted through the trailer for the test is truly representative.
Eric Hooper moved on to the subject of cast iron pipe replacement near the center of town. He said hydrant testing related to supplying water for a proposed development on Glendale and Glenview Roads had revealed insufficient flow through old 6” cast iron water mains. He said that fire safety is the issue, and that a plan is needed to address this issue. He projected $200,000 in FY ’06 and $500,000 per year for the following three fiscal years for replacement of old cast iron pipe. He said these figures were “guesstimates” based on pipe replacement costs at Winslow and Gabriel Roads, Morse Street and Edge Hill Road.
Lealdon Langley said the second block of Highland Street had been replaced within the past ten years.
Eric Hooper replied that only certain pipes need replacement, and said that the configuration of the pipes in the area lends itself to creating loops so that hydrants can be supplied by more than one pipe.
Eric Hooper next discussed the $345,000 Billings Street asbestos/cement (A/C) pipe replacement project. He said this pipe breaks frequently and is difficult to repair because the A/C material of which it is made is brittle. Repairing leaks in the pipe tends to cause hairline cracks that extend along the pipe away from the spot being repaired, compounding the problem. He said this project would be done in FY ’06 only if the SRF loan applied for by the Water Department to fund this project came through.
Eric Hooper moved on to the $75,000 budgeted in FY ’06 for the exploratory test well program and preferred outside source engineering. He said two sites had been recommended by ESS: the Gobbi property and the Canton Street site. Of the two sites, Canton Street was preferred. Eric Hooper said access to the Gobbi property for drilling 2.5” exploratory test wells had been denied. A larger 8” exploratory test well could not be drilled at the Canton Street site until the Sharon Conservation Commission granted a permit to drill 150’ into the wetland. Eric Hooper said that the Water Department had an appointment in about two weeks with the Conservation Commission to apply for a drilling permit, but that drilling in a wetland may not be permissible. In addition to the question about the wetlands at the Canton Street site, Eric Hooper pointed out that a road (Canton Street) runs through the 400’ Zone I, which might be an obstacle to obtaining a permit for a well from DEP. Also, in order to prevent construction of any homes in the Zone I, the town may have to purchase the property from NSTAR.
Lealdon Langley said that the DEP has some flexibility with respect to roads passing through Zone I. He said the spill risk would have to be assessed in light of the types and amount of vehicle traffic using Canton Street.
The next item on the FY ’06 capital budget discussed by Eric Hooper was regulation and permit driven consulting services. He said that the Water Department must budget for consulting services required by law, such as the Vulnerability Assessment and Emergency Action Plan, and the Consumer Confidence Report, for which $75,000 is budgeted in FY ‘06. Eric Hooper said that as part of the Vulnerability Assessment, Watermark Environmental studied short-term and long-term emergency connections to neighboring towns. He said there is a need for a comprehensive look at how much water neighboring towns could supply to Sharon in an emergency, particularly during a drought. He said that “wet testing” (the physical opening of hydrants to measure residual pressure) should be done during a drought to verify how much water would actually be available in an emergency in summer. Eric Hooper said he thought Sharon has sufficient water resources available from neighboring towns to deal with a short-term emergency, but a longer term emergency might present problems depending on how long it lasted, how many wells were taken off-line and what time of year it happened. He said the best location for a long-term emergency connection is not obvious.
As for capital expenditures for the proposed High Pressure Service District (HPSD), Eric Hooper said there is no spending related to this project scheduled until 2008. His said the HPSD project is contingent upon what happens with the Rattlesnake Hill property.
Eric Hooper said he scaled back expenditures for water conservation in FY ’06 to $25,000 from the $50,000 budgeted for FY ’05. He said this figure is negotiable. He commented that the water bill insert recommended by the WMAC only cost around $600. It is already printed and will be going out with the water bills soon. The annual leak detection procedure has just been completed. One leak was found near Bluff Head Court.
Paul Lauenstein asked how much water is lost every year to leaks.
Eric Hooper replied that this information could be found in the Annual Statistical Reports. He said leak detection equipment is available, but it is expensive, so the Water Department hires a contractor to inspect the grid for leaks every year.
Alice Cheyer asked if the proposed replacement of cast iron pipe in the center of town were part of a regular program of pipe replacement, or if it were caused by a need to provide water to a proposed development. She said she objected to spending public money to facilitate private development. She mentioned a number of other capital projects, such as closing the Pine Street loop and replacing A/C pipe on Billings Street, which could be accomplished if the cast iron pipe project in the center of town were postponed.
Eric Hooper said the cast iron pipe replacement project could be paid for with the remaining reserves in the Water Department account. He indicated that water rates might have to be increased to service the debt incurred to finance capital improvements scheduled over the next few years.
Len Sekuler said the cast iron pipe replacement project would use up considerable capital over the next few years.
Eric Hooper replied that adequate residual pressure is required at the hydrants for fire safety.
Jack Sulik asked if there might not be some kind of blockage impeding flow to the hydrants.
Eric Hooper replied that it is still uncertain whether the low flows observed in the hydrant tests could have been the result of sediment or other blockage, in which case replacement of the pipe might not be necessary. He said use of a mole to ream out the pipes is not easy along a densely populated street because there are many service connections that could get blocked in the process. He said re-lining the pipes is another alternative to replacing the pipe.
Jack Sulik suggested a third alternative involving an inverted balloon-like liner that is used to re-line pipes to restore flow. He said this might not be practical in areas with numerous service lines.
Eric Hooper commented that the problem of low flows in central Sharon was not discovered as part of routine hydrant flushing because accurate residual pressure testing is a much more involved procedure than hydrant flushing. Incorporating residual pressure testing into routine annual hydrant flushing would significantly increase labor costs.
Paul Lauenstein asked how much flow was measured at the deficient hydrant.
Eric Hooper replied that he did not have that information at the meeting.
Alice Cheyer recalled that the decision to proceed with the HPSD and new storage tank was put on hold pending resolution of the Rattlesnake Hill development. She said this assured that the town would not install infrastructure that might inadvertently benefit the developer. She said the same principle should apply on Glendale and Glenview Roads, and advocated that the cast iron pipe replacement project be delayed until negotiations related to the nearby development are finalized.
Paul Lauenstein agreed that Town funds should not be used to facilitate development.
Jack Sulik responded that fire safety is paramount and trumps all other considerations.
Rory McGregor changed the subject to exploratory test wells. He asked if there were sufficient capital allocated to execute all necessary test wells in FY ’06.
Eric Hooper replied that there would be enough money to drill several 2.5” test wells at $2,500 each, but only enough for one 8” test well at a cost of about $25,000.
Paul Lauenstein asked what kind of permitting would be required for the 8” test well.
Eric Hooper said only permission from the Conservation Commission would be needed for the test well. The next step, a formal pump test, would require a DEP permit.
Rory McGregor commented that formal permitting for the pump test and the well would probably cost over $100,000.
Eric Hooper said the DEP would give the Canton Street site a low preliminary grade because it would have to be located within a wetland, which means higher risk of being denied a permit to build a well there. He added that if sites in wetlands are fair game, the town should consider other wetland sites also. He indicated that there is not enough money available to test every conceivable site.
Michael Birschbach countered that identifying and securing sites with real potential for locating a town well is the top priority, and water rates could be raised if necessary to fund the necessary exploration.
Lealdon Langley questioned spending money on evaluating importation of water from MWRA or Aquaria before exhausting all options for new town wells. He pointed out that obtaining Interbasin Transfer and other permits to import water would be predicated on exhausting all possibilities for a new town well.
Eric Hooper agreed. He then commented that part of Watermark Environmental’s Vulnerability Assessment and Emergency Action Plan (which is a classified document and cannot be made available to the WMAC) was to inventory short-term and long-term emergency connections. Also, they studied the ability of surrounding towns to satisfy Sharon’s emergency requirements, and the need for MWRA water from Stoughton in the event of an emergency occurring during a drought. Eric Hooper said that, like Cliff Towner, he is not a fan of importing water from MWRA. He said that Stoughton is paying a heavy price for supplementary MWRA water. He said tie-ins with neighboring towns are important because a spill along the railroad tracks could quickly develop into a serious emergency.
Lealdon Langley reiterated that an emergency connection to the MWRA is free except for the cost of the plumbing.
Eric Hooper responded that in the event of an emergency lasting over 30 days, MWRA Operating Policy #10 would be triggered, resulting in significant cost to the town.
Cliff Towner said that although he is opposed to joining MWRA to obtain supplementary water on a routine basis, he is in favor of an emergency backup connection to the MWRA system.
Michael Birschbach said he understands that existing tie-ins to neighboring towns are sufficient for short-term emergencies. The issue is long-term emergencies. Should a long-term emergency develop, it would be prudent to have in place an emergency connection to an inexhaustible source of water such as MWRA.
Eric Hooper said an emergency connection to Stoughton’s MWRA water, though not critical, is advisable.
Cliff Towner described two hypothetical emergency situations: 1) if Well #4 were struck by lightning, and 2) if Beaver Brook aquifer were contaminated. He asked if an emergency backup connection to MWRA would be required in cases like these.
Eric Hooper replied that the case of the lightning strike could be addressed in a matter of days, so MWRA water would probably not be needed. The contamination scenario might develop into a long-term emergency requiring MWRA water, especially if it occurred during a drought in summer when demand is elevated. Eric Hooper went on to describe how outlying sections of Sharon would be isolated with valves in an emergency and supplied by neighboring towns to reduce demand on Sharon’s remaining water resources.
Lealdon Langley said there was a 15-month drought a few years ago. He said a water emergency during that time would have been very difficult to deal with.
Cliff Towner said a water emergency during the critical summer months could cause real problems.
Eric Hooper responded that declaring a total outdoor watering ban would immediately reduce summertime water consumption by one-third, which would probably be enough to cover most emergencies. He added that installation of an iron/manganese treatment plant at Well #6 would make available additional supplies of good quality water in the event of an emergency.
Lealdon Langley commented that water conservation could buffer the severity of a water emergency. He said the reduced revenues caused by reduced water consumption would be somewhat offset by reduced chemical and power costs. He said the main economic benefit of water conservation would be avoided capital costs associated with building new wells and/or importing water. He said reduced water pumping would prolong the life expectancy of the town’s wells and allow postponement of expensive well repair and well construction.
Mike Sherman said a cost/benefit analysis of various water conservation strategies is needed. He agreed that avoided infrastructure costs would probably be an important factor.
Eric Hooper said he based his water conservation budget for FY ’06 on the approximately $20,000 worth of rebates awarded in FY ’05 for water-efficient washing machines. He said these rebates took the form of water bill credits, adding that further reductions in revenue would occur because of reductions in demand attributable to the more efficient washing machines. He said that last year he when he presented his capital spending plan to the Finance Committee, he was put in the position of trying to justify the $50,000 in water conservation spending voted by the WMAC. He asked for input from the WMAC regarding cost-justification of expenditures for water conservation for this year’s presentation to the Finance Committee.
Paul Lauenstein agreed to work with the water conservation subcommittee to come up with a cost-justified water conservation plan for the Water Department’s presentation to the Finance Committee.
Eric Hooper pointed out that water conserved in winter doesn’t matter nearly as much as reducing summertime peak demand. In fact, reductions in winter use actually make it harder to lower the summer/winter water use ratio in order to meet the DEP’s target ratio.
Paul Lauenstein suggested scheduling hydrant flushing for early spring so water used for this purpose would help meet the DEP’s summer/winter target ratio.
Richard Mandell asked why the line item for consultant services, which was budgeted for $100,000 in FY ’05, was reduced to $75,000 in FY ’06. He added that these figures seemed high.
Eric Hooper replied that the budgeted figures include the government-mandated Vulnerability Assessment in FY ’05 and the Emergency Action Plan in FY ’06. Both years include the federally mandated Consumer Confidence Report, which includes compilation of the data, printing and mailing to all residents. This line item also includes an allowance for required consulting and/or testing services that may arise from unexpected events such as bacteria hits.
Len Sekuler inquired when Rattlesnake Hill would be resolved so the presence or absence of the $225,000 annual debt service in the Water Department budget would be known.
Cliff Towner said he believed it would probably be resolved before Town Meeting next May.
Eric Hooper said the original plan to purchase Rattlesnake Hill called for the Town to contribute $6,000,000, the Water Department to contribute $1,500,000 and the Commonwealth to contribute $7,500,000. The rationale for the Water Department’s share was to avoid having to provide water to a development in a remote part of town that would drain out of town instead of percolating back to the source aquifers. He said that negotiations currently under way involve 40 to 80 units representing 200 to 400 bedrooms. Although the demand for water arising from a smaller development would be less than the original 40-B development of 250 units, the 40 to 80 unit scenario currently being discussed would still require water, so the Water Department would not receive full value for its $1,500,000 contribution.
Cliff Towner changed the subject back to discussion of the Fe/Mn treatment plant, asking if $75,000 per year were too high a figure to anticipate for disposing of iron and manganese residues removed from the water.
Eric Hooper replied that the residual iron and manganese go into a lagoon. Mansfield uses the greensand method that involves precipitation of the iron and manganese with potassium permanganate. The precipitate is costly to remove.
An alternative method is micro-filtration through a permeable membrane that does not involve potassium permanganate. The residual iron and manganese can be dried in an adjacent lagoon. Because it is naturally occurring, it is harmless to the environment, so disposal costs would be minimal.
Michael Birschbach said the Water Department FY ’06 budget should include money for wet testing of emergency backup connections with neighboring towns, as well as construction of a hard connection to Stoughton in order to make MWRA water available to Sharon in case of a long-term emergency.
Paul Lauenstein asked how much an emergency hookup to Stoughton might cost.
Eric Hooper said he thought the cost would be in the range of $100,000 to $200,000.
Paul Lauenstein commented that if Sharon were to install an emergency backup connection to MWRA water in Stoughton, neighboring towns such as Foxboro, Mansfield and Walpole without any access to MWRA water would be able to “wheel” MWRA water through Sharon to provide them with water in an emergency. This could be critical in summer when water supplies are tight. He suggested they might be willing to contribute to the cost of Sharon’s emergency connection to obtain the enhanced backup.
Eric Hooper said that although these other towns might benefit from Sharon’s connection to MWRA water in an emergency, they would probably be unwilling to contribute to the cost of constructing the hookup. He added that Sharon would be entitled to a mark up on any water provided to neighboring towns.
Jack Sulik cautioned that the practice of “wheeling” water (using a town’s water mains as a conduit to pass water from one neighboring town to another) could cause problems. He said significant changes in flow patterns could stir up sediment and other debris.
Eric Hooper said he agreed with Alice Cheyer that the cast iron pipe replacement in the center of town could be postponed.
Richard Mandell asked it the Fire Department could bypass the hydrants with poor residual flow by means of a longer hose, but was told that this would not be practical. Richard Mandell said the developer should pay for any infrastructure upgrades that must be done for the sake of the new development.
Michael Birschbach asked how much it would cost for monitoring wells to detect the source of nitrate contamination at Well #4, and whether there are sufficient funds for this purpose in the Water Department’s FY ’06 budget.
Eric Hooper replied that monitoring wells would cost about $2,500 (similar to exploratory test wells). He said they are included under the consulting services line item.
Jack Sulik suggested charging for parking on Water Department property near the railroad station as a means of raising funds for the Water Department.
Paul Lauenstein said now that the water conservation inserts are now going out with the water bills, preparations must be made to offer assistance to those who call the Water Department asking for advice about water conservation.
Having concluded his FY ’06 capital budget presentation, Eric Hooper departed.
4. Discussion of capital budget and motion to recommend revisions
Jack Sulik proposed approval of the Water Department budget for FY ’06 as presented. He said the Water Department has considerable latitude to accommodate the WMAC’s priorities within the framework of the budget.
Paul Lauenstein said the Water Department’s FY ’06 capital budget included very little money to address the three priorities identified by the WMAC. He said he thought it was important to have a budget that reflected these priorities.
Jack Sulik replied that Eric Hooper had left the room with the impression that he had the WMAC’s support of the Water Department’s FY ’06 capital budget. At this point, failure to vote to approve the budget would be a stab in the back.
Rory McGregor expressed concern that there might not be sufficient funds in the budget to address the WMAC’s three priorities.
Cliff Towner said the sites identified by the WMAC should be tested and locked up if they showed promise as well sites. He added that a site such as Blair Circle that already belongs to the town and is not in jeopardy of development should not be at the top of the priority list for testing.
Michael Birschbach asked if unspent funds from FY ’05 carry over into FY ’06.
Jack Sulik said that if a contract is signed before the end of the fiscal year (June 30) then the funds are encumbered and may be disbursed in the following fiscal year upon completion of the project. However, if no contract has been signed before the end of the fiscal year, appropriated funds revert back to the general fund and must be re-appropriated.
Cliff Towner complimented Eric Hooper on an excellent presentation of the Water Department’s FY ’06 capital budget. Cliff Towner said the actual amounts of money allocated for various items in the budget are the concern of the Selectmen, not the WMAC. The WMAC should concern itself instead with identifying priorities and providing the Selectmen with reasons for these priorities. Cliff Towner said the burden of determining the actual amounts to be spent does not fall on the WMAC. Cliff Towner said the town is vulnerable to a long-term water emergency as a result of a train wreck. He said a vacuum of leadership at Town Hall has resulted in lack of progress on all three priorities. Cliff Towner said that Sharon should strive to maintain its water independence. He said that locking up well sites with real potential should be the Water Department’s top priority because all six of Sharon’s aging wells have significant problems.
Rory McGregor asked how long it will take the town to get a court order to force the owners of the Gobbi property to allow exploratory test wells. Someone said it would take just a few weeks.
Cliff Towner questioned the need to replace the A/C water main along Billings Street, saying it only breaks where Massapoag Brook runs under the road. He said occasional leaks should be repaired on an as-needed basis. He said it is imperative that new wells receive higher priority than water main replacement.
Chuck Goodman agreed with Cliff Towner that the WMAC should concern itself more with priorities than actual dollar amounts. He said that once the priorities are agreed upon, funds will be found to get the job done.
Greg Meister said the WMAC made specific recommendations to investigate the potential of four possible well sites where there is evidence that adequate quantities of good quality water exist. He concurred that the WMAC does not need to get too specific with regard to dollar amounts in the budget.
Lealdon Langley said he didn’t think the Water Department’s FY ’06 capital budget adequately reflected the WMAC’s three priorities. He also expressed concern that alternative well sites must be tested in case the wetland issue prevents a well from being developed at the Canton Street site.
Cliff Towner said Weston & Sampson made the mistake of prematurely narrowing down the search for a new well site, settling on the Islamic Center site and spending a large amount of money on a formal pump test without adequately evaluating all alternative sites. They also failed to adequately screen the Islamic Center site itself. Cliff Towner also mentioned his philosophical difference with the Water Department regarding the importance he placed on Sharon maintaining a self-sufficient water supply, as opposed to importing supplemental water from MWRA or Aquaria.
Cliff Towner said that ESS had been hired to screen the alternative well sites identified by the WMAC. He said that ESS only regurgitated information provided to them by the Water Department, and never actually visited any of the recommended sites. Cliff Towner said that, contrary to Eric Hooper’s earlier claim, ESS did not recommend the Gobbi Property. He said that the ESS screening eliminated all but the Canton Street site as having good potential as a well site. Cliff Towner pointed out that Eric Hooper has taken the position that the Canton Street site is not viable because of the wetlands.
David Grasfield said that the WMAC voted to drill test wells at four locations over a year ago. ESS was hired last spring to profile these sites, not select or reject them. Although the Selectmen never reversed their vote to drill test wells, no test wells have yet been drilled.
Rory McGregor asked David Grasfield why no test wells have been drilled yet.
David Grasfield replied that he thought it was a case of “analysis paralysis.” He said it was his opinion that the town would be better off to just drill some test wells in places that had been identified as promising. He said even if the test wells came up dry, that information would be useful in deciding what to do next. David Grasfield also said that he was surprised to hear that ESS had not even visited the sites that they evaluated. He added that while hiring ESS might have been necessary for protocol, there was no reason why the exploratory drilling could not have proceeded simultaneously.
Mike Sherman said he thought it would be inappropriate for the WMAC to try to micromanage the Water Department. However, he said the WMAC should speak up about the Water Department’s failure to reflect the top priorities in the capital budget.
Len Sekuler suggested postponing the cast iron pipe replacement project and replacing it in the FY ’06 capital budget with an emergency backup hard connection to Stoughton. He added that the Water Department should be allowed some flexibility.
Cliff Towner said the Water Department had failed to drill a single test well during the past year. He said that in view of the Water Department’s stated skepticism about Sharon’s ability to maintain its future water independence, there would be no reason to expect that they would get the job done in the coming year unless it were spelled out in the budget.
Jack Sulik said the WMAC should not be concerned with anything but FY ’06 since everything beyond that is hypothetical. He said that the cast iron pipe replacement project is flexible and could be redirected. He added that if the WMAC recommended changes in the Water Department’s FY ’06 budget, the Selectmen would ask the WMAC for specifics.
Michael Birschbach asked Selectman David Grasfield if this were in fact the case.
David Grasfield said the WMAC would not be called upon to come up with an alternative budget, but they might be asked for rough ballpark figures. He cited the Recreation Advisory Committee’s persistence in promoting their priorities and making sure they got accomplished as an example for the WMAC to follow.
Mike Sherman asked how long it would take to drill test wells at all of the identified sites.
Cliff Towner replied that it could be done in one summer.
Paul Lauenstein made the following motion:
The WMAC recommends that the Selectmen request the Water Department to revise the FY '06 Capital Budget to better reflect three priorities: new wells, emergency backup, and water quality. Sufficient funds should be allocated to accomplish meaningful progress toward these three goals.
The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 8 in favor and 1 opposed.
Lealdon Langley moved that this motion be forwarded to Eric Hooper in advance of sending it to the Selectmen. His motion was not seconded.
Rory McGregor suggested that, as chairman of the WMAC, Michael Birschbach do Eric Hooper the courtesy of letting him know about the motion to recommend revision of the Water Department’s budget. Rory McGregor added that it would be appropriate to point out that no disrespect was implied by the motion.
5. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 10, 2005 at 7:30 PM