SHARON WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WMAC) MEETING MINUTES FOR June 9, 2005
Prepared by Paul Lauenstein
Present at meeting:
WMAC Vice Chairman Lealdon Langley; WMAC members Paul Lauenstein, Richard Mandell, Rory McGregor, Len Sekuler, Jack Sulik and Cliff Towner; DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper; Selectman David Grasfield; Conservation Agent Greg Meister; and Planning Board Vice Chairman Eli Hauser.
1. Review and approval of May 12 meeting minutes
2. Avalon Bay’s water needs
3. New well sites
4. Emergency backup
5. General discussion
- Nitrates
- Radio meter RFP
6. Water Conservation
- Water audit RFP
- Rebate policy
7. Declaratory judgement filed for Gobbi access
8. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 7, 2005 at 7:30 PM
Detailed Minutes for the 6/9/05 WMAC Meeting
1. Review and approval of May 12 meeting minutes
Eric Hooper objected to several items in the May 12 meeting minutes. First, he explained that Article 31 would not have exempted the Wilber School from all the constraints of the Groundwater Protection District. He said it would have allowed wastewater treatment over 10,000 gallons per day by special permit, and it would have allowed mixed use as envisioned by the Planning Board’s Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD).
Eric Hooper also objected to characterizing the printing of the water bill inserts as a lousy job by the Water Department. He said the Water Department was not even responsible for printing the inserts. He said the town treasurer had made the arrangements.
Cliff Towner took exception to Eric Hooper’s assertion that the Water Department had no responsibility for the quality of the insert, saying that the Water Department is responsible for all aspects of the water bills that get mailed to its customers.
Eric Hooper replied that the Water Department delegates printing and stuffing of the inserts to the town treasurer, and does not review their work.
Greg Meister said the Water Department should monitor and control what goes out with the water bills.
Lealdon Langley asked who proofs the water bills.
Eric Hooper replied that the Treasurer’s Department does this.
Lealdon Langley asked if the town received any credit from the printer for poor quality work.
Eric Hooper said no.
Richard Mandell asked if the money for the printing came out of the Water Department’s water conservation budget.
Eric Hooper said it did.
Lealdon Langley asked if it was the Water Department or the Treasurer’s Department that removed reference to the Sharon Water Department from the credit line.
Eric Hooper said the reference to the Water Department was removed on his own initiative because he felt that the Water Department had nothing to do with creating the insert. He added that the Selectmen had instructed him to include the Water Department on the credit line in the next water bill insert. He also said some comments in the minutes are unsupportable.
Lealdon Langley said the minutes should reflect what was said at the WMAC meetings, regardless of whether they are accurate representations of fact. He commented that the intent of the WMAC in putting both the Water Department and the WMAC in the credit line was to foster a spirit of cooperation.
Rory McGregor asked Eric Hooper if he needed any assistance from the WMAC with the next water bill insert.
Eric Hooper said he did not.
Rory McGregor moved to accept the minutes with modifications to the description of Michael Birschbach’s comments about Article 31. This motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
2. Avalon Bay’s water needs
Jack Sulik commented on a letter sent by Paul Lauenstein to the Board of Selectmen asking that Avalon Bay be required to contribute to the existing infrastructure and offset the cost of sourcing supplying the additional demand represented by Avalon Bay. Jack Sulik said the Sharon Water Department charges $4,000 per unit for new hookups
Richard Mandell asked if the $4,000 were for each apartment or for the entire development.
Jack Sulik said it was per apartment.
Rory McGregor calculated that, at that rate, Avalon Bay would be assessed a fee of $624,000 for the 156-unit Avalon Bay development.
Jack Sulik acknowledged the amount, and added that the bill must be paid in order to obtain a building permit. He said the funds help pay for the cost of connecting the development to Sharon’s water system.
Eric Hooper said the development has a choice of paying the hookup fee up front, or agreeing to paying for water at the highest block rate, currently $7 per thousand gallons. Eric Hooper said it would be less expensive to pay the $624,000 lump sum than to pay for water at the highest rate.
Jack Sulik said the condos at Apple Valley each have their own water meter and paid $4,000 per condo to hook up to Sharon’s water system.
Richard Mandell expressed concern that Avalon Bay might be eligible for the rebate program, in which case the entire budget for rebates for FY ’06 could be wiped out, leaving nothing for other residents. He said he thought it was inappropriate for Sharon to subsidize a developer.
Lealdon Langley disagreed, saying that the developer could not be forced to implement water conservation, and the rebates would serve as an incentive to ensure that water conservation would be implemented. He said he would favor additional Water Department funds being allocated for the rebate program if necessary to provide rebates for both new developments and retrofits. He said he would support any outcome as long as water conservation gets implemented. He said water conservation at Avalon Bay could lead to a million gallons saved annually.
Eric Hooper said in order to install non-standard water conserving fixtures and appliances, approval would have to come from Avalon Bay corporate headquarters because they have established specifications for toilets and washing machines. He said High Efficiency Toilets are not yet common in the marketplace, and suggested that more water could be saved with washing machines than with toilets, even though small washing machines may already be specified for the rental units at Avalon Bay.
Jack Sulik said he thought the Water Department has the authority to specify the types of fixtures and appliances to be used at a major development like Avalon Bay.
Richard Mandell pointed out that Avalon Bay is eager to obtain the Selectmen’s endorsement of their project, so time is critical.
Greg Meister said that since the project is a LIP, the Selectmen have leverage. He approved of Jack Sulik’s approach of requiring Avalon Bay to install water saving fixtures and appliances rather than offering rebates. He added that water conserving technology continues to advance.
Jack Sulik said the town would not be allowed to specify particular brands, but could specify performance criteria.
Cliff Towner said if the Selectmen are allowed to require specifications for the fixtures and appliances to be used at Avalon Bay, then the WMAC should send a letter to the Selectmen recommending what to use.
Lealdon Langley offered to compose a letter to the Selectman.
Rory McGregor suggested that the letter be copied to the Zoning Board.
Jack Sulik suggested recommending that the Selectmen steadfastly insist on water conserving fixtures and appliances.
Paul Lauenstein suggested that the letter specify the same parameters used for the toilet and washing machine rebate program, plus specifying 2.0 gallon per minute showerheads.
Eric Hooper said providing rebates to the development is not a good idea. He favored requiring Avalon Bay to install water-conserving devices.
Richard Mandell said that unless a hook up fee was assessed, Sharon would be providing water to the new development without being adequately compensated for the full cost of obtaining and delivering the extra water that will be needed by the development. He said the hook up fee could be used to purchase an automatic leak detection system for the town that would save enough water in the rest of Sharon to compensate for the water to be used by Avalon Bay.
Lealdon Langley volunteered to revise his draft letter and recommend 1.3 gallon per flush High Efficiency Toilets, 15 gallon per load washing machines, and 2 gallon per minute showerheads.
Richard Mandell made the following motion:
MOTION:
The WMAC requests that the Board of Selectmen steadfastly require that Avalon Bay install water saving appliances as a requirement of the permitting process.
This motion was seconded. The following discussion ensued.
Lealdon Langley described an innovative wastewater re-use system at a large development called Pinehills in Plymouth. He said wells down-gradient of a leach field recapture filtered wastewater and recycle it to the golf course. The elevated nutrient concentration in the recycled water offsets the need for fertilizer on the golf course. Lealdon Langley speculated that an innovative approach like this might be applicable to Avalon Bay’s non-turf landscape irrigation.
Jack Sulik said drip irrigation for Avalon Bay’s landscaping should be mandated to minimize evaporation losses of water provided by Avalon Bay’s on-site irrigation well.
Lealdon Langley asked how the Selectmen should respond if Avalon Bay insists on participating in the town’s rebate program.
Cliff Towner responded by asking why Sharon should subsidize developers who are here to make money.
Eric Hooper said the rebate program is intended for replacement of inefficient fixtures and appliances rather than for new construction. He said only 10 or 20 building permits were issued last year and none requested rebates.
Greg Meister said about 30 permits were issued last year, including a 66-unit 40B development on Old Post Road.
Lealdon Langley said water conserving fixtures and appliances specified by the rebate program could save half a million gallons a year at a development the size of the Old Post project.
Len Sekuler said rebates should be for replacement. He said there is no need to give developers any additional incentives.
Jack Sulik said the Water Department Rules and Regulations can be invoked (with the approval of the Board of Selectmen) to require developers to install water conserving fixtures and appliances as a condition of connecting to the Sharon water supply.
Greg Meister said a public hearing might be needed.
Richard Mandell’s motion was passed unanimously, 7-0.
It was decided that Lealdon Langley as Vice Chairman would revise his draft letter to the Board of Selectmen, circulate it to Michael Birschbach, Chairman, and Paul Lauenstein, Secretary, for edits, if any, and then send it in to the Board of Selectmen.
3. New well sites
Richard Mandell asked Eric Hooper for an update on ESS’ progress in evaluating new well sites.
Eric Hooper said the only change in status is that Blair Circle has been added to ESS’ list of potential well sites.
Lealdon Langley asked if the Islamic Center data had been forwarded to ESS.
Eric Hooper said it had, but that it should not be relied upon. He said hard data is needed because modeled results are not reliable enough.
Cliff Towner asked if access would be gained from Rte. 1 along the high tension lines.
Eric Hooper said it would be accessed either from Rte. 1 of Commercial Street.
4. Emergency backup
Eric Hooper said testing of emergency connections to neighboring towns under the supervision of Paul Millett of Watermark would begin in a week and would take another two weeks to complete.
Paul Lauenstein asked if the relative merits of the Chemung Street, Cobb’s Corner and Plain Street sites along Bay Road would be compared as to their respective flow rates and costs, so the WMAC would be in a position to make a recommendation to the Selectmen regarding which would be most suitable.
Eric Hooper replied that the flow rates would be evaluated, but cost estimates would not be part of the final report. He said cost would depend on whether there would be a temporary pump or a permanent pump.
Greg Meister asked how the WMAC could be expected to decide which site was best without the cost.
Eric Hooper said the focus of the study would be to address the question of emergency backup for crises lasting more than 12 hours and less than 6 months.
Cliff Towner asked Eric Hooper if high nitrates were discovered in Sharon’s water if the system would be drained, or if an attempt would be made to dilute the contamination.
Eric Hooper cited a comparable situation in Stoughton in which the contaminated well was turned off and the remaining wells were used to dilute the residues of nitrate. He said the same strategy would probably work in Sharon.
Greg Meister asked if Watermark would be investigating a location for a permanent connection to MWRA.
Eric Hooper replied that he could hook up a garden hose tomorrow but it would not solve the problem. The first step is to determine the capacity of the various potential locations for an emergency backup connection.
Greg Meister asked what the next step would be.
Rory McGregor asked if the evaluation of the 11 existing emergency connections was ongoing.
Eric Hooper said yes, all the gates have been checked. A problem was discovered at a site on the Foxboro line, which requires follow up.
Richard Mandell asked when the Watermark report will be ready.
Eric Hooper replied that the report would probably be available in early August, about 10 days after completion of field testing in July. The field testing will involve checking static pressure, residual pressure and pumping capacity.
Paul Lauenstein asked if the testing would be done during “worst case” dry summer conditions.
Eric Hooper said the testing would not be done during peak demand because it would be too disruptive of service, but demand during testing would be high nevertheless.
Lealdon Langley observed that during a water crisis in which it became necessary to import water, there would surely be a watering ban. He asked when the testing would be done.
Eric Hooper replied that testing would be conducted at night following the 6:00 to 8:00 lawn watering period when the tanks would be low but demand would have subsided.
5. General discussion
Lealdon Langley expressed dismay that monitoring wells as recommended by the Woodward & Curran report had never been installed to learn more about the impact of septic systems in the center of town on the wells in the Beaver Brook Valley. He said the source of nitrates at these wells could be better understood by installing monitoring wells at various locations between neighborhoods and the wells.
Eric Hooper acknowledged that monitoring wells had not been installed around the neighborhoods up-gradient from the wells. He said that since the nitrate levels in the wells is generally below 5 ppm, they are not on the Department of Environmental Protection’s “watch list.”
Lealdon Langley said he was concerned that there might be a plume of nitrate migrating slowly toward the wells. He said if detected early enough something might be done about it, but without monitoring wells we would not find out about the problem until too late for remediation.
Eric Hooper said previously existing sources of nitrogen within the 400’ radius of the Beaver Brook wells has been removed, reducing the chances of a serious problem. He said recent sampling results indicate that nitrate concentrations at Well #2, which typically exhibits the highest nitrates of any Sharon well, had gone down, although nitrates at Well #3 have been higher lately. He said the wells in the Beaver Brook Valley had only spiked over 5 ppm twice in the last 10 years. He added that only a very unlikely occurrence such as dumping fertilizer could cause a spike that could lead to intervention by the Board of Health.
Paul Lauenstein pointed out that none of the $50,000 approved for nitrate study and mitigation in FY ’05 had been spent for that purpose, and asked Eric Hooper if any money had been budgeted for this purpose in FY ’06.
Eric Hooper said there is no line item in the FY ’06 budget for nitrate mitigation, but that funds could be shifted should the need arise.
Greg Meister said the Woodward & Curran report recommended monitoring wells, and asked Eric Hooper why he resisted following that recommendation.
Eric Hooper said he was not resisting the idea, but the Board of Selectmen felt nitrate monitoring was not necessary.
Greg Meister replied that without the recommended monitoring wells, the source of the nitrates could not be determined.
Eric Hooper said the data indicates that there is not a problem. He said he is confident that there is no single point source of nitrates. He said if monitoring wells were installed that he was confident they would show 4 to 5 ppm concentrations throughout the environs of the Beaver Brook Valley.
David Grasfield asked if there were any other ways to evaluate the nitrate problem besides monitoring wells.
Greg Meister replied that the Woodward & Curran report recommended monitoring wells.
Eric Hooper said only if concentrations persisted above 5 ppm would any remedial action be indicated.
Lealdon Langley said that nitrates can accumulate as “hot spots” and that renovation of the Wilber School may lead to additional nitrate load in the Beaver Brook Valley. He said the Zone II’s of Wells #2 and #4 extend to Main Street and the densely populated center of town. He added that if a waste treatment plant for the center of town is constructed at the Wilber School site, nitrates may be coming from areas beyond the Zone II’s of the wells in the Beaver Brook Valley, in addition to the nitrates from the renovated Wilber School itself.
Eric Hooper acknowledged these possibilities, but commented that the most likely scenarios do not involve a waste treatment plant for the center of town on the Wilber School site.
Greg Meister concurred that it had been decided not to overload the Wilber School site with wastewater from beyond the site itself, but there is still a risk that there may still be a significant nitrate contribution from the school redevelopment itself. He expressed concern that the current background nitrate levels are so high.
Eric hooper said nitrate levels on the surface are low.
Jack Sulik asked why are we even discussing nitrates. He said the nitrate issue should be put into perspective. He said the DEP does not require remedial action until nitrates reach 5 ppm, and nitrates would have to reach 10 ppm before a well had to be shut down.
Lealdon Langley responded that the nitrate issue is central to the problem of renovating the Wilber School.
Jack Sulik said he disputed that assertion.
Lealdon Langley said he participated in the deliberations last time the town tried to renovate the Wilber School, and recalled that wastewater disposal issues contributed heavily to the failure of the project.
Richard Mandell asked if the town should be proactive or reactive with respect to nitrates. He said he favored dealing with the problem before it gets any worse, even though it has not quite reached the action level. He asked if anyone remembered if the committee voted in the past to recommend action on the nitrate issue.
Cliff Towner said the WMAC voted to recommend monitoring wells as recommended by the Woodward & Curran report. He said the Selectmen did nothing about it, adding that there is nothing further the WMAC can do.
David Grasfield said he would like to think that the Board of Selectmen would be receptive to an occasional reminder.
Cliff Towner said his remark had not been directed at Selectman Grasfield.
Paul Lauenstein spoke to Richard Mandell’s previous question about WMAC motions on the nitrate issue. He said that on January 22, 2004, the WMAC had voted to recommend spending $50,000 on nitrate study and remediation in FY ’05. He said the minutes of that meeting show a color graph of upward-trending nitrate levels. He suggested making a motion in response to David Grasfield’s invitation to send a reminder to the Selectmen about the nitrate issue.
Rory McGregor suggested tabling the motion until the July meeting to allow time to review past motions regarding nitrates.
Jack Sulik said there is no need for action as long as nitrates remain below 5 ppm.
Eric Hooper warned that if the WMAC elects to recommend action on the nitrate issue to the Board of Selectmen that he will recommend that action is not warranted.
Cliff Towner said doing nothing about nitrates is analogous to holding off on mosquito spraying until someone gets sick.
Jack Sulik said there will be plenty of time once nitrates climb above 5 ppm before they get all the way to 10 ppm.
Cliff Towner asked what nitrate levels look like when Well #4 is turned on after a period of being turned off.
Jack Sulik replied that nitrates are high at first, but decline to normal within 15 minutes or so.
Eric Hooper said nitrates do not accumulate significantly when the well is turned off.
Greg Meister, referring to a recent nitrate contamination in Stoughton caused by a spill of Chemlawn fertilizer, asked if Stoughton’s well were back on line. He added that he appreciates the regular testing of nitrate levels at Sharon’s wells.
Eric Hooper said it was, noting that it had taken about 20 days for the plume to dissipate.
Paul Lauenstein asked if the IG had rendered a decision on the revised radio meter RFP. He said it is not in the town’s best interest to bundle the procurement of replacement meters with the procurement of a radio meter reading system because doing so effectively denies the town the opportunity to consider state-of-the-art fixed network systems. He explained that companies offering the latest fixed network systems usually do not have water meter dealerships. The water meter dealers typically offer older drive-by technology that is very expensive to upgrade to a fixed network system. Because vendors of the latest fixed network systems generally do not have meter dealerships, their pricing of meters is not competitive. He said that using separate RFPs would not stop any vendor from bidding on both meters and radios, but would allow the specialists to bid on just radios or meters, so the town would have the advantage of looking at all the latest options.
Paul Lauenstein also challenged the RFP’s requirement of a secondary method of reading the meters. He pointed out that other towns with fixed network systems do not seem to need such secondary meter-reading devices. He said at present the meters get read once every six months. He said if something breaks, it could be fixed in a matter of days, long before the situation becomes critical. He said drive-by systems typically emit a weak signal every 8 seconds, 24/7, so a passing meter reader can always obtain a signal by car or on foot. A fixed network system, which eliminates the need for meter readers entirely, typically emits a strong signal only twice a day, so collecting the data on a walk-by/drive-by basis is impractical. He said the requirement of a secondary meter reading method should have been left out of the RFP in the interest of allowing the town to consider fixed network systems.
Eric Hooper said the IG’s decision would be forthcoming within a few days. He added that the town of Brookline had recently purchased a fixed network system from Hexagram which he said cost Brookline about 25% more than a drive-by system would have cost. Eric Hooper insisted that redundancy is important, and said the fact that the radios are linked to the meters and have to work with them is a good reason to bundle them into one RFP.
6. Water Conservation
Paul Lauenstein asked when the RFP would go out for water audits to be conducted in FY ’06.
Eric Hooper replied that an RFP would not be called for in this kind of procurement. Instead it would be a 3039M bidding procedure. Eric Hooper said that although some consulting firms such as Camp, Dresser & McKee have the capability of providing water audits, their cost structures renders them uncompetitive. He presumed that Energy New England would win the contract, but added that it is still necessary to follow open bidding regulations and solicit multiple bids. He said he would be meeting with Energy New England next week, and that he would base the scope of work for the bidding on an Energy New England proposal obtained by Paul Lauenstein. He said he planned to limit the scope to indoor and outdoor water audits rather than including web site design and a newsletter.
Paul Lauenstein said one way to officially prevent large-scale developers from taking advantage of the rebate policy would be to place a limit such as $500 on the amount any one customer could receive in a year.
Lealdon Langley said he thought the rebate program should be open to all because saving water is the paramount consideration.
Eric Hooper said the rebates should be referred to as water bill abatements because they take the form of water bill credits rather than cash refunds.
Paul Lauenstein pointed out that, in a case such as Avalon Bay, the tenants living in the apartments pay their own water bills. If Avalon Bay purchased the water-saving toilets and washing machines they would have no way to redeem the abatements since they do not pay the water bills.
Lealdon Langley said this posed a problem, but said a way should be found to encourage developers to use water-efficient toilets and washing machines.
Eric Hooper said Jack Sulik was right – the requirement to use water efficient fixtures and appliances should be codified in the Water Department Rules and Regulations as a condition of connecting new construction to the water system.
Richard Mandell said a motion would be needed to include such a provision in the Rules and Regulations.
Jack Sulik said he would review the Rules and Regulations and draft something for the committee to consider at the next meeting.
Rory McGregor asked if there had been any progress toward gaining access to the Gobbi property to drill exploratory test wells.
David Grasfield said the town has the right to access the land for the purpose of well testing. He reported that Town Counsel had filed for a declaratory judgement to require the developer Intoccia to permit the town to drill some exploratory test wells at the Gobbi site.
David Grasfield also reported that he would be meeting with representatives of Sharon Memorial Park the next day to discuss possible arrangements for using their wells to provide the town with supplementary water.
8. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 7, 2005 at 7:30 PM