Prepared by Paul Lauenstein
Present at meeting:
WMAC Acting Chairman Rory McGregor; WMAC members Paul Lauenstein, Richard Mandell, Mike Sherman and Jack Sulik; DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper; Selectman David Grasfield; Consultant Paul Millett of Watermark; and Radio Meter System Evaluation Committee Members Fred Clay, Ed Connelly, David Crosby, and Ed Welch
1.
Emergency Backup by Paul Millett of Watermark
2. Major Leak
3. Radio Meter System RFP
4. New well sites
5. ASR and February reports
6. Approval of the minutes of
7. Water Conservation
8. Next meeting scheduled for
Detailed Minutes for the
1. Emergency Backup
by Paul Millett of Watermark
Paul Millett said Watermark completed a vulnerability assessment study and an emergency response plan (ERP) for Sharon, both required by EPA, as the first two parts of a four-part contract in 2004. He presented the third and fourth parts of the contract: assessment of feasible locations for obtaining short-term emergency backup water, and assessment of long-term supplementary supply options.
Paul Millett said DEP’s draft five-year Water Management Act
permit for
He said three locations along
Paul Millett indicated that the next step is to meet with
the Town of
Once a site has been selected, Paul Millett said he will investigate availability of a small parcel of land for the connection. He said a number of factors must be considered such as availability of enough space, ownership of the land, density of utilities, ease of access, hazardous waste, and the presence of ledge.
Eric Hooper said Paul Millet would have another progress report by June.
Paul Lauenstein commented that two wells had problems in the past month, underscoring the urgency of moving forward as quickly as possible with an emergency backup connection.
Paul Millett said that he doubted that water conservation
alone could compensate for increased demand for water with all the 40-b
development planned for
Paul Millett explained that joining MWRA in order to obtain supplementary water would entail an entrance fee of over $5,000,000 for every million gallons per day, plus permitting costs plus the cost of running a pipe to connect to MWRA.
Paul Lauenstein commented that permitting costs for Dedham-Westwood to join MWRA to obtain 0.1 mgd of supplementary water were around $250,000, and took close to three years. He asked how much the pipe would cost.
Paul Millett replied that it would be hard to estimate because there are many variables, but he said approximately two miles of pipeline would be needed. He added that the permitting process is lengthy and expensive.
Mike Sherman commented that MWRA is considering changing their policy to make it easier for suburban communities to join the MWRA system.
Paul Millett said that in addition to entrance fees, plumbing costs and permitting costs, MWRA charges close to $2.20 per thousand gallons, a rate that is expected to rise significantly over the next few years. Nevertheless, Paul Millett said MWRA water would cost less than desalinated water from Aquaria.
2. Major Leak
Eric Hooper circulated a graph of monthly well pumping that showed elevated pumping from February through June, 2005. He attributed this to a major water main leak that ran undetected at a high rate due to its location in a culvert.
Paul Lauenstein commented that indoor water use appears to be trending upwards on the graph over the past decade.
3. Radio Meter System
RFP
At this point in the meeting, Fred Clay, Ed Welch, David Crosby and Ed Connelly of the radio meter evaluation committee arrived. Eric Hooper said the discussion should be limited to the process of evaluating the radio meter proposals rather than discussing the merits of various systems.
Eric Hooper recounted the history of the radio meter system procurement process that began about four years ago. He expressed concern that past prejudices should not be allowed to influence the present procurement process. He said radio meter reading technology has been evolving rapidly since the original RFP process was terminated, and better systems are available today as a result.
Eric Hooper said the evaluation committee would consist of the four evaluation committee members appointed by the Selectmen, plus one appointee from the WMAC, plus himself.
Richard Mandell commented that he is confident that the one common trait among the nine diverse members of the WMAC is their open-mindedness and commitment to the best interests of the town. He said he did not see why the Selectmen felt compelled to appoint a separate evaluation committee.
Eric Hooper acknowledged the loss of expertise and understanding of radio meter systems that the WMAC had accumulated as a result of having been through the evaluation process once before, but he said he was obliged to respect the decision of the Board of Selectmen. He reported that Michael Birschbach (who was absent at this meeting) as Chairman of the WMAC had appointed Mike Sherman to be the delegate to the radio meter evaluation committee.
Mike Sherman said he had only learned recently of his appointment. He presumed he had been appointed due to his general knowledge of electric meters and meter reading systems, some of which is relevant to water meters. He said Paul Lauenstein knew more about radio meter reading systems for water supply. He said evaluating radio meter systems is a complex challenge involving both technical and financial knowledge, and questioned the new committee’s ability to get up to speed in the short time available. Mike Sherman went on to say that the decision to appoint a separate committee to evaluate the radio meter system implied a massive lack of recognition by the Selectmen of the constructive working relationship that has been forged between Eric Hooper and the WMAC over the past year, and the progress toward a better water supply system that has resulted from that working relationship. He referred to the Selectmen’s decision to appoint a separate committee a slap in the face to the WMAC.
Mike Sherman respectfully declined to serve as a member of the radio meter evaluation committee.
Rory McGregor said in that case it would be necessary to ask Chairman Birschbach to appoint a new delegate.
Eric Hooper said 12 companies had obtained copies of the RFP. He said the vendors would have two months to run a pilot demonstration if they chose to do so, and had until April 21 to submit written proposals. He said the goal is to select a system in time for the Selectmen to make a decision by Tuesday, May 30. To accomplish that, the vendors would be invited to make their preliminary presentations on March 23 and March 30, and final presentations following written proposals between May 1 and May 12.
Eric Hooper said all meetings would be open to the public, but opportunities for public comment and input would be limited. He added that the evaluation committee would be invited to one or two WMAC meetings during the process so that WMAC members would have an opportunity to comment. However only the WMAC member appointed by Michael Birschbach as Chairman of the WMAC to participate on the evaluation committee would be able to actually vote with the other evaluation committee members on which system to recommend to the Selectmen.
Ed Welch asked if the evaluation committee would receive literature from the vendors. Eric Hooper replied that they would receive lots of literature. Fred Clay added that literature would be an important way to get an overview of each system’s features.
Ed Welch asked if software would be evaluated. Eric Hooper replied that software is an important component of a radio meter system, and would definitely have to be evaluated.
Dave Crosby said it would be important to evaluate each system’s ability to interface with the town’s accounting software. He asked if the RFP calls for replacement of 100% of the water meters.
Eric Hooper replied that the RFP calls for replacement of
all the meters. He added that
Paul Lauenstein commented that
Eric Hooper said he thought contacting and possibly visiting
communities that have installed radio meter systems would be a more productive
way to evaluate radio meter reading systems than running pilot installations in
Paul Lauenstein commented that Jeanne Richardson of Boston
Water & Sewer Commission had offered to show a delegation from
Eric Hooper said the issue revolves around the usefulness of
data that AMR systems could provide now and in the future. He added that all
systems would facilitate more efficient collection of meter readings in order
to do quarterly billing instead of the current twice per year routine. The question
is what additional data does
Rory McGregor asked if all the vendors will provide both fixed network and drive-by options. Eric Hooper replied that some provide both but most provide one or the other.
Richard Mandell asked if the RFP requires vendors to bid on both the radio reading system with the water meters, or if vendors can bid on just the radios or just the meters.
Eric Hooper replied that both meters and radios must be provided, adding that some meter vendors partner with radio vendors to provide an integrated solution.
Mike Sherman commented that a radio meter system with open architecture that could read all brands of water meters would be preferable to buying a proprietary system that locks the town into buying one brand of water meter for the next ten or twenty years.
Eric Hooper pointed out another variable to consider: whether or not to buy a system that requires a dedicated, FCC-licensed radio frequency, or one that hops among several unlicensed frequencies to transmit the data.
Paul Lauenstein commented that Sharon loses about 10% of the water it pumps, or about a million gallons per week, in unaccounted-for water. He said some of this is attributable to under-reading meters, and some of it is attributable to leaks. He said Sharon’s water main grid and service lines spring leaks ranging from the huge 200,000 gallon per day leak in a culvert that ran for months in 2005 down to small leaks that nevertheless continue around the clock and drain away thousands of gallons. He said new acoustic leak detection systems are available that can be integrated into a comprehensive radio meter solution and provide daily feedback to the Water Department on the approximate location and magnitude of leaks. He said acoustic leak detection systems cost a fraction of what an AMR system costs, but greatly enhance the functionality and payback of the overall system by helping to reduce leakage. He said an integrated solution benefits from advance planning. Some radios are provided with dual ports to accommodate transmission of leak data, and installing the AMR and leak detection systems simultaneously reduce installation labor cost, which is a significant fraction of the entire system cost.
Eric Hooper added that the acoustic leak detection data is broadcast via radio in the same way that meter reading data is transmitted, and might be of interest in the future.
David Crosby asked if the acoustic leak detection technology finds leaks in homes or in the water main grid.
Eric Hooper replied that it can do both.
Paul Lauenstein said that acoustic leak detection systems only need to have a listening device installed in one out of every ten or so homes. He added that the RFP does not mention an acoustic leak detection feature. Eric Hooper replied that including an acoustic leak detection system in the RFP would have been tricky.
Jack Sulik emphasized the importance of meticulous adherence to the RFP process.
Eric Hooper said one purpose of the preliminary presentations would be to allow vendors to get a better understanding of Sharon’s needs and preferences in order to better tailor their proposals to Sharon’s particular situation. The written proposals will be due by April 21. Then each review committee member will be asked to fill out an evaluation form that rates each attribute as highly advantageous, advantageous, not advantageous, or not acceptable. The sheets will be pooled and scored, and the proposals ranked. The top-ranked vendors will then be asked back for a final presentation, after which the committee will choose the winner.
Jack Sulik pointed out that the RFP process calls for evaluating the merits of each proposal without the benefit of cost information.
Eric Hooper said that once a finalist had been chosen, Sharon’s Chief Procurement Officer would open all the price quotes.
Ed Connelly asked how the evaluation committee could judge the cost/benefit of each system without knowing the cost.
Fred Clay replied that the committee would make its judgment based on the features without considering the cost.
Eric Hooper explained that after the price quotes are opened, the evaluation committee would be allowed to reconsider their decision in light of the cost figures.
Ed Connelly said related costs such as the cost of collecting the data, which is different for a drive-by system than a fixed network system, would not be reflected in the price quotes, but should be weighed in the decision. He asked if any Water Department meter-reading personnel would be laid off in order to help cost-justify the capital cost of the radio meter system.
Eric Hooper replied that no personnel would be let go. Instead, the extra labor would be shifted to other maintenance functions.
Rory McGregor summarized the process as ranking the proposals, then opening the price quotes and re-evaluating them with cost in mind.
Eric Hooper said he thought visiting neighboring towns that have already implemented AMR systems such as Norwood, Walpole, Easton, and Milton would provide valuable insight for the evaluation committee. He said there is a diverse array of AMR systems in these nearby communities.
Ed Welch asked if each vendor would be bidding on the same attributes. He asked how a vendor would know which features are important to Sharon unless the evaluation committee provided some kind of indication of what Sharon wants out of an AMR system and how it intends to recover the cost.
Eric Hooper replied that he knows what he wants to buy.
Fred Clay said the RFP is already sent out and it’s too late to change it now. He added that it the results are unsatisfactory, the town is free to scrap the whole process and re-bid.
Richard Mandell asked if the evaluation committee would comment on their respective backgrounds and expertise with respect to AMR.
Fred Clay objected to this, saying the Selectmen had already chosen the members of the evaluation committee and there was no point in second-guessing them.
Rory McGregor said the members of the evaluation committee, like the WMAC, had diverse backgrounds.
Ed Connelly asked if there is a preference for billing more frequently than quarterly, or if there are other uses associated with more frequent meter readings.
Eric Hooper replied that more frequent billing is desirable. For example, more frequent meter reading facilitates leak detection.
Ed Welch said Sharon should have a clear idea of why it wants a radio meter reading system and what it expects the system to do. He said each vendor should receive the same wish list of performance criteria so the vendors could explain to the evaluation committee how their respective systems address these criteria.
Fred Clay said the RFP is soft, and allows flexibility with respect to features.
Eric Hooper said all of the products are able to read meter data frequently. Some systems store the data at the meter to be retrieved monthly while other systems transmit the data daily.
Ed Welch asked if printouts of water usage data would be made available to users.
Eric Hooper replied that consideration should be given to intrusiveness and privacy.
Paul Lauenstein commented that Sharon is now providing water audits for heavy water users in an effort to conserve water. He said providing daily water usage data would be very helpful for the auditor to assist homeowners with identifying water usage patterns and formulating a customized water conservation plan.
Eric Hooper acknowledged that there are several ways in which the data from an AMR system could be useful other than simply reading the meters for billing purposes. However, the cost of extra features should be weighed against their value.
David Crosby said balancing features against price should involve a complete assessment of all costs, including differences in installation costs and future meter reading costs that are not equal for all systems.
Eric Hooper said factors such as compatibility with acoustic leak detection systems and the speed at which readings can be taken should also be considered.
David Crosby said it would be helpful to know which features would be useful to Sharon and why.
Ed Welch said all committee members should maintain open minds.
4. New well sites
Paul Lauenstein reported that he had emailed Ben Puritz two weeks previously to inquire about the status of Town Counsel’s efforts to gain access to the Gobbi site for the purpose of drilling exploratory test wells to evaluate the site’s potential for locating a new municipal well there. Although Ben Puritz indicated that he would look into the matter, no news had been forthcoming. Paul Lauenstein recalled that the Selectmen had voted funds for the purpose of gaining access to the Gobbi site over 14 months ago on January 4, 2005. Paul Lauenstein also commented that Ben Puritz had personally assured the WMAC that Town Counsel was actively pursuing this matter over 11 months previously on April 7, 2005.
Eric Hooper replied that he had no news to report on the Gobbi site.
Paul Lauenstein asked if there were any further nitrate level test results from the NSTAR/Canton Street site or Sharon Memorial Park cemetery.
Eric Hooper replied that the most recent water samples from the upper cemetery well had not been tested for nitrates. He said the presumption was that nitrate levels at the upper cemetery well would be the same as those at the NSTAR/Canton Street site since they tap the same aquifer. He added that there would be more reason to test the lower cemetery well site because it is more distant from the NSTAR site, but permission must first be obtained from the cemetery to test water from that well.
David Grasfield said that the town has a good relationship with Sharon Memorial Park, and that he was confident that the cemetery would accommodate any request from the Water Department to obtain samples from its wells for testing.
Mike Sherman asked if the cemetery is pumping without a permit.
Eric Hooper said he plans to present all the various potential well sites to the Conservation Commission and find out what objections, if any, they may have to any of them.
Rory McGregor asked if exploratory test wells would be drilled near the lower cemetery well site along Edge Hill Road within three months.
Eric Hooper replied that he intends to drill and pump exploratory test wells along Edge Hill Road, as well as conduct a pump test at the Islamic Center, within three months.
Richard Mandell asked if the existing wells at the Islamic Center would be used for the pump test.
Eric Hooper replied that the old wells would be used. He explained that there is a layer of relatively impermeable peat between the wetlands near the Islamic Center site and the underlying sand and gravel aquifer, so it is possible that pumping the aquifer would not have a significant effect upon the wetlands.
Eric Hooper concluded by saying that the preliminary pump test had already been conducted at the NSTAR site. The Maskwonicut Street site is on the back burner because of doubts about the potential productivity there. Access is still unavailable at the Gobbi site.
5. ASR and February
reports
Paul Lauenstein asked when the Annual Statistical Report (ASR) for 2005 would be available.
Eric Hooper replied that the report is due by March 24. He said it is somewhat more involved this year. Breakouts are required for different categories of water use such as residential, commercial, multi-family, apartment, and single family homes.
Eric Hooper handed out a sheet with summary ASR statistics for pumping in 2005. It showed an overall total of 586,286,000 gallons pumped, down from 615,431,000 gallons reported on the monthly pumping reports, a difference of about 29 million gallons. Eric Hooper explained that most of the difference is attributable to adjustments following meter calibration.
Eric Hooper said a significant adjustment had to be made to the pumping totals reported on the monthly reports for Well #5 due to a major calibration discrepancy at the end of the year. He said that in view of the fact that this repeats the experience of 2004, he intends to replace the Venturi meter at Well #5 with a mag meter, which should be more reliable.
Paul Lauenstein asked if Venturi meters on the other wells should be replaced also.
Eric Hooper replied that the meters on the other wells were not off by enough to warrant replacement. He said the meter at Well #2 was not that far off at the end of the year when it was checked for calibration, and the meter at Well #7 was struck by lightning.
Mike Sherman commented that with skyrocketing electric rates, the possibility of replacing the electric motors that power the well pumps with more efficient motors should be investigated. He mentioned his contact, Jim Armstrong, at NSTAR, who makes rebates available to communities seeking more efficient motors. Mike Sherman added that NSTAR also offers very good technical assistance for evaluating whether replacing electric motors would be cost-effective.
Paul Lauenstein commented that he had not received the February pumping report.
Eric Hooper apologized for not distributing it, and promised to do so soon. He added that the pump failed at Well #5 in January.
Jack Sulik asked if the failure was caused by sand. Eric Hooper replied that D.L Maher, the company that repaired the pump, indicated that sand was not the cause, adding that it had to do with a failed seal.
Eric Hooper also reported a problem with Well #2 in late January relating to a broken shaft.
Eric Hooper also commented that the AWWA web site has extensive information about measures that can be taken to minimize water used by lawn irrigation systems. He said retrofitting and redirecting sprinkler heads, as well as sophisticated controller systems, can minimize the amount of water needed to keep lawns green in summer. He said such measures offer the greatest bang for the buck in terms of water conservation.
Eric Hooper reported an unusual case where a Sharon homeowner had a consistently under-reading remote pulse-type water meter reader on the outside of his home. The homeowner regularly used a large volume of water for lawn watering over a period of about 10 years. When the situation was discovered, the result was a “catch up” water bill totally about $14,000.
6. Approval of the
minutes of January 19, 2006
The minutes of 1/19/06 were approved unanimously with one minor change.
7. Water Conservation
Paul
Lauenstein reported on an anecdote presented by the water superintendent of a
neighboring community. He said the nearby town hired Energy New England to
conduct a water audit of a nursing home. The outcome was that the nursing home
cut their water usage in half, mostly as a result of replacing toilets.
Eric
Hooper reported that only one person has called to inquire about the $100 High
Efficiency Toilet (HET) rebate, and so far no one has actually applied for a
rebate.
Paul
Lauenstein said that Lowe’s is now stocking Mansfield HETs that only use 1.0
gallons per flush. He said Lowe’s provides, and toilet and the installation,
and also removes the old toilet. Paul Lauenstein said he is negotiating with
Lowe’s for a price that anyone in Sharon could obtain, and once that is
achieved he will install one in his own home.
Rory
McGregor announced that Ian Cooke of NepRWA would be making a presentation
about environmental considerations regarding Sharon’s water supply at the
McGregor home on Tuesday, March 21.
8. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 6, 2006 at 7:30 PM