001the town of Trumbull Water Pollution Control Authority meeting of February 26, 2026. I'd ask the clerk please call um the uh a roll. >> Frank Craig Ner >> here. >> John Green >> here. >> And John Bre >> here. >> Bruce Ellstein Bruce is absent. >> Okay. Um, we're we're we're eventually going to get another member, I think. I don't know where you stand with that, Jim, but um hopefully we'll have one soon. Um the um I guess I'm going to turn this over to Bill who's going to discuss the um pump station tour. >> This meeting is being recorded. want to approve. >> So, yes, on Saturday, we did the um uh 2026 uh pump station tour. We took uh some of the newer members of the board of finance and the town council
002to uh three pump stations. Uh we went to res well four we went to we went to um Beersley Merritt 135 Merit Boulevard Reservoir and Wildwood. Um of course it's always an eye opener. Um we took a senior citizen bus around and we all stayed together in a group. We started at 9ine and ended at 11. >> Well, thank thank you for doing that. I think it's helpful. Um, did you take him did you say you took him to Beersley? >> Yeah, of course we did. Yes. >> Yeah. How's the concrete? Did they Did you go over that issue with them? >> Yeah, we showed them. We We pointed that out. >> All right. Next, uh, Bill's going to talk about the WPCA and the town of Trumbull agreement. >> So, just to put you
003guys aware of the fact that 2026, June 30th, the um, our contract runs out with Bridgeport. There is three more years to extend. Um, but it's just something to keep in the back of our minds. >> When do we have to give notice of an extension by? >> I am not sure that. We'll have to look at that. >> Mr. Nan, can you look at that? >> I think you're on mute, Jim. >> I'm saying I I think we should just give notice immediately. There's no reason to wait. >> Very good. Agreed. Yep. We're gonna >> we're gonna have to we're going to have to negotiate a new agreement or do you think they'll just roll over the agreement we have? >> I think you're going to have to negotiate a new one. >> Great.
004Okay. Um the next thing, Bill, you're going to talk about a a grant that we're >> we have an airmark grant from uh uh the office of Jim Hines for 1.1 million for the next section of Beersley uh forest man replacement. This would be the section under the Pquanic River and under um Route 25. Um, both of them have access problems that if there was a a failure there, it would be catastrophic. So, we I haven't seen any of the paperwork yet, but I've been notified that we have been awarded an earmark grant of 1.1 million. >> When When are we going to design that um section of pipe? as as soon as we got some money to to go forward with it. >> Okay. But it's in the capital plan, right? >> There is
005money in the capital plan for the forest main design. Yes. >> Okay. And we're going to go all the way from where we left off on the I guess that's the east side of the Bquanic in the park >> and go all the way up to where it connects. Well, at least under, like I said, under they got directional drill under the under the puquanic. Um, and then, um, we believe there's an extra sleeve underneath Route 25 that we can use and put another line in up there and then tie into the existing line. >> So, we don't have to drill. We can use that existing line. >> Yeah, I believe so. Is that ours or I thought it was the hydraulic companies? >> It remains to be seen. We'll we'll find we'll discover that
006as we move forward. >> Yeah, we'll ask we'll ask forgiveness, not permission. >> Um, we should probably look into that though. But >> yeah. >> Okay. So, now we're going to go on to new business and the Wildwood pump station emergency repairs. And this is the one over by Newbrook, right? >> Yes. Yes, it is. Um, this actually services um a large area large area of connections and a middle school. Um, let me show you some pictures. Can I share my screen? One second. Just for background, this is one of the three pump stations that we're currently preparing drawings for to retrofit, right? >> Yes. This is um so I did have a conversation with Arcadus. They're doing the Q&A for the uh documents now for the bid documents. Um we should have documents by
007the end of March for bid. >> Perfect. Um, so we we lost a pump. Um, it actually blew apart. I don't know if you want to see the pictures, but share a screen. a sec. >> How many pumps are in that pump station? >> Two. We lost one. We didn't have any backup and I can't seem to share the picture for some reason. >> Well, I'm sure it's adorable, but uh yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> bottom line is we lost half the capacity. We lost half the capacity and we needed to have a backup because one pump down there would be disastrous. It' all be flown into Canoe Brook. Um what we were able to do is we we had the old pumps from the old oldtown pump station that we took that we redid.
008Um, we took those pumps and re reconfigured the the um dry well to accept the the pump and then put the pump back uh the old pump the old oldtown pump in there. Um, so now we're back running for two pumps. We got a we got a price of uh redoing the that existing pump, but it would be six to eight weeks. We couldn't take it couldn't take that chance. So, >> so you have two pumps. Do you need two pumps for flow or you just need one pump for backup? >> You need you need Well, they go lead lag. So, one pump will run, the other then that stops and the next the next cycle, the next pump will run. They go back and forth like that. But technically, I could get away with
009just one pump. But to >> no backup, you'll burn it out. >> Right. >> Okay. Um there is an invoice. >> Yes, there is an invoice. Um I can share my screen if I can share. Oh, okay. Here I'm I'm shoot I'm hitting the wrong button. Hey, you know, be before we before we do that, I forgot to call for a um motion to approve the meeting meeting minutes of January 14th and a second. >> Second, >> John, did you uh >> I'll I'll move it. Sure. >> Okay. See, you have a vote. Just show of hands. Margaret, the motion passed with the unanimous consent. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, Bill. >> So, I'm just going to show you the bottom of the pump. You can see that in my screen. >> Well, >> so,
010um, we had Kovac come down. Um, they had to weld into a new base for for another pump for the one that we put in from Oldtown. Re reconfigured that, rewire it, and the invoice for that. Let me stop sharing and then share another one. So this is Kovac's invoice um for the material, the labor and the p the uh welding and the electrical reconnection. comes out to 14,24962. >> Does anybody have any questions about the bill? I think it'd be a surprise. >> I actually thought it'd be more than that. >> Yeah, >> it would have cost more to fix the other pump >> and then wait another six weeks, six to eight weeks. Think >> we're all happily satisfied seeing those numbers. >> Yeah. And with that, I'll call for a motion to
011approve the invoice and a second, please. >> So moved. I'll second. >> So hands for a vote. Margaret, the motion passed. Unanimous consent. >> Thank you. Phil, just as a as as an aside from an administrative point of view, why why does that small invoice need to be approved by the board >> because we have we have a purchasing policy that is very strict very strict. Well, I don't know. Sometimes, you know, you're allowed on an emergency basis to approve up to a certain amount. >> Well, yeah, but but it it certainly helps when I have the board that says yes, that's good. >> Okay. No, no problem. It just it's a such a reasonable bill. Okay. Bill's next going to go over the 2026 2027 operating budget which is that's a fiscal year budget,
012right? >> That's correct. That's uh July 1st through June 30th. >> And then and then the capital plan is January 1st. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Well, go ahead. Sorry to interrupt. >> All right. So this is let me get to the top here. This is our our budget salaries um up slightly because last year they only funded uh six months of the new employee which we haven't filled yet. So, but this year they they have taken into account a the new position that we added last year. Uh we carry the same number for seasonable. We usually have an intern for the summer. Our overtime we didn't change. The uniform allowance stayed the same. No change in uh clerical service professional fees. Uh we kept the 165 only because we're going to be looking at
013other options and it may may cost more for the negotiation. Um the service contract, this is where we get into the rate with Bridgeport. Um, our current rate is $6.715 per CCF. Um, we budgeted 1.1 billion CCFs. Um, last year's true up was pretty close to that number. I added 3% for a rate increase from Bridgeport and 125,000 for the potential payment for excess flow. That comes to 7 million73395 for Bridgeport and the rest are just our ongoing uh QDS does the billing for our sewer usage. Um the aquarium water readings. The mission does the monitoring of our our pump stations. Uh then we have ARGIS and AutoCAD we share with engineering and then United alarm northeast generator legal notices and OSHA training and support. And that all comes to 7,842 178. >> What? What?
014>> Oh, okay. That's the expense side. Okay. Got it. >> The re the reimbursement to the general fund 800. >> I want to jump in quick before you move on to the rest of it. Is that number 7842? How does that compare to to prior years last year or year before? >> Last year was It was 7 7,690 651 398. >> Oh, >> I'm sorry. Up the top. >> Y >> Okay. I'm sorry. I got it. >> Um the reimbursement. >> Yes. >> In ter in terms of uh gallonage, what year did you use to follow? 2025 or a previous year? Uh, I've been carrying 1.1 million CCFs um since 2023, if not earlier. Um, that number has been creeping up closer and closer. Um it's a budgetary number but you know we need to
015need to be somewhat realistic but like I said because of the recent development of you know more apartments and stuff that number keeps getting closer and closer to true. So we do a true up at the end of the year. Um so all our water usage our sewer usage is sewer the the the sewer bill is based on water consumption. So that is water consumption. We actually sent more in gallons to Bridgeport than that. There's 748 gallons per CCF. >> Just an aside. >> So >> CCF is what? 100 cubic feet or thousand cubic feet? >> 100 cubic feet. 748. There's 7.48 gallons to a cubic foot. And these are actual meter readings from Aquarion. >> That's correct. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> But then we get we you said additional flow. We we
016do get some additional flow inflow or whatever you guys >> you get in and I you have you have uh you know leaky manholes, leaky pipes. you have people with their some pumps that are connected to our sanitary sewers. Um, that kind of stuff and it all adds up. >> John, you said you you had a question. >> Oh, sorry, wrong one. My my question was answered with those the last few things. >> Okay. >> Then we go. We have to reimburse the town for the general fund. This year it's $820,000. This reimbures for uh the finance for the insurance and whatever however they break it out. Uh materials or program supplies. This is what we use for operating for office janitorial safety equipment, chemical solvents and such computer stuff. 18,000. We've been carrying that
017for a couple years now. Uh legal, this is for the tax collector's quarterly newspaper filings. Um estimated uh fuel costs vehicle transportation. This is for routine maintenance pretty much level maintenance service contracts. This is for annual cleaning and that kind of stuff that we we do periodically. maintenance program. This is for um check valves, electrical stuff like that. Extra items or this is for the unforeseen repairs. We always seem to use this up. Uh this is capital outlay. This is what we we budget for our capital program which is you know into our infrastructure. This is uh we use it for adjusting manholes when we road paving for raising sanitary inspections of paving roads easement maintenance and clearing townwide force main repairs. gravity lines repairs. Um that number gets rolled into the 83 account which
018is basically our operating budget, our general fund. Um I did ask for since we have a new another employee asked for another vehicle. Um and that's 15,000. And then the rest is kind of uh utility heat for what what we spent for utilities. Electric was a $245,000 and water and and the cell phones. Bottom line it comes to the interest on bonds the total comes to 11,470,281. So that includes the 7.8 million from above. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. And where were we last year? >> 11103822. Percentage wise, >> three and a half% increase. >> How much, John? >> About three and a half. >> Yeah. Yeah. I brought I brought the the pitchboard what was just 3% right there. >> And although it's a drop in the bucket, I think that 50,000 for unexpected
019repairs is probably way too low. >> Yeah, I'm with I'm with John. It's way too low. >> Yeah. >> Your fiscal year ends in four four months or whatever. Three, four months. >> Y >> um where do you stand with your expense expenditures against that this year? >> We're okay at the moment. >> I'd have to go. I don't have it in front of me, but uh we do have we do have money in the 83 account to cover our uh like repairs for Wildwood. And that's that 50,000. >> Yeah, it's the 50,000. >> It seems like this past year you re repaired force mains and everything else. >> Yeah, we have we we keep money in. So into the 83 account is like I said our our our general fund. So we can it
020doesn't go away at the end of the year. We we can actually access those funds later. So, it's quite likely we're way we're well in excess of 50,000. It's just that we have had a buildup in that account. That's what you're saying, >> right? >> Yeah. We should just keep an eye on that because that's it's only going to get worse um as the system ages. So, >> we're working on updating so that we don't have to worry so I can sleep at night. Hey, Bill. >> Yes. >> I believe the procedure is that if you have some excess funds in a different account, you can get board of finance approval to transfer from one account number to another. Right. >> That's correct. >> Yeah, >> that's correct. >> Okay. I mean, should that ADA
021account ever get low, um, we do have that option in theory? >> Yes, we do. >> Okay. >> And this has to go to the board of finance. >> Ye. Yes. So, it's >> right now it's um Vicki has it. She can yay or nay it, but I think you guys should yay or nay it. >> Does anybody have any questions before we call for a vote? >> What was Bridgeport's increase last year, Bill? >> Uh, Bridgeport increase last year, I believe, was >> uh I don't know. I think they actually stayed pretty level. Yeah, they they actually were given what the work they've been doing. I was surprised. I I don't believe it went up significantly, but I just >> don't worry it will be because >> it did go up. It It did.
022>> It did go up. >> Yeah, >> but I don't think it was three, but um >> it was it was I think it was a little less than what I had figured, but not by much. Uh, don't we pay the same rate as the Bridgeport people do? >> We do. >> Yeah, we're at that point where our discount's gone and uh >> Right. >> I mean, but for Bridgewwater to raise us up a lot, they'd have to raise their own population up also. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. It's one one one benefit of an unfair deal. Yeah. Um, Bill, so you have an about an $11 million operating budget. How much do we bring in moneywise? Um, I don't know that off the top of my head, but it's usually we So, we bring
023in at least what we covered to Bridgeport, if not more. So, you don't bring in the whole 11 million? >> No. Well, maybe. I don't I don't know that number off the top of my head. We can get you that number. >> Bill, could could you circulate that tomorrow or Monday or something? >> Yep. Yep. Yep. For the most part, it would it would be I mean we bill for the work for the Bridgeport stuff and then we have the the quarterly charge which is what is it Bill? 35 >> $34 a quarter but that's for but that don't forget that we have industrial users that pay more too. >> Well, I was about to ask that question. We have like 9,000 users but what's the split residential versus commercial? Um, it's probably 60 40
02460% residential 40%. >> I'm surprised it's >> don't forget the when you talk about the schools count as industrial. >> Um, and they go by classrooms and then you have all the other connections. So, and the water consumption is also more than what we charge. You also have the connection fees income, right? >> You have the connection fees, but you also have um you also have uh the commercial rate which is higher by right our current rate now is $6.715. The commercial industrial rate is 7.156. Um the unit charge for >> points extra >> was that about 5% extra then. >> Right. >> Okay. Um but I mean you're looking at a million dollars or more in quarterly fees. Still wouldn't get us to that kind of number, the 11 million. Um I I don't
025like to think of the connection fees as operational. No, they they are not they're not operational. The connection fees are should go into >> they're essentially a payment for the capital investment, >> right? >> Um you know that the the town has already made. Um okay. Yeah, if you could distribute that when you can get your hands on it, it'd be good for us to know. But >> um do we do we want to vote on just approving the the budget requests? >> Yes. I was going to ask if we could have a motion to approve the budget as presented. And then a second. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Can we have a vote, please? Margaret, the budget was approved unanimously. >> We're on to old business now. Yep. And I guess you're going to
026give us an update on the capital improvement plan. >> Yeah. So the the the capital 2026 2027 capital improvement plan is uh been approved. Um the bond is issued 2,700,000. That was for and what we it's pretty much what we had asked for >> and that's for next fiscal year the >> that's for the current 2026. >> Oh 2026. Okay. Thank you. >> Those funds become available. They are available now. So, um, we're going to move on to the, um, Reservoir Avenue sanitary sewer connection request of vessel technology. And I'm going to ask, uh, Bill to bring in um, attorney Jason Klene and, uh, Luke Morrow with Soleie Engineering. There may be others, but let's get them on and then we'll see who else we need to bring in. Kevin's there is um I think
027JK is that Jason Klein Bill got it. Okay. Evening folks. Sorry, sorry about that if I'm listed as I just got a new computer. So, uh, I've got the wrong name on my Zoom. I apologize. Um, for the record, Jay Klein for Vessel uh, Technologies. I think if Kevin, if you've promoted Oh, you have promoted Kevin solely. Yes. here uh to pres present some additional materials that his colleague Luke Marorrow, you know, filed with you all and um of course here to answer questions and comments that that folks may have. So, I'll mute myself and uh turn it over to Kevin. >> So, I'm I'm going to share my screen and just run through some some highlevel uh uh calculations and and go through some of the information that we submitted um you know, since
028the last meeting. And again, I'm covering for uh Luke. Um yeah, one second. >> I'm sorry. While Kevin's queuing up his um his presentation, we do have Josh Levy, the vice president of Vessel Technologies. If you wouldn't mind promoting him as well, um that would be that would be terrific. Thank you. Before Before we >> That looks dramatically different, doesn't it? >> No. Um before we get started, are we still at the same 150 apartment units? >> Yes, that's what we're presenting. That's what's shown in the slide that uh Kevin is starting out with. And uh I do know you know there's been we can you know answer questions or comments related to other I'd say related applications certainly as we continue through the presentation. Um but the initial items that Kevin will be speaking
029to uh focus on the 150 or based on the 150 uh unit count um that that we've been discussing you know for the past several months. >> So thanks Jason. Um, so I'll just run through so so we obviously submitted a since the last meeting in January, we submitted a formal response to comments on January 20th uh to to write PICE's memo. You know, our initial sewer flow calculations were based on 150 gallons per day per bedroom, which is, you know, based on guidance through discussions with engineering department, also the health code, which is a technical design for the septic generation. Um and and and obviously in response to that, right, Pierce provided a memo indicating potential capacity issues. Um those capacity issues were located our site is down in this location here towards the
030towards the bottom of the page. And then they identified a potential segment of pipe um to our north uh that have potential capacity issues. So we wanted to go back and really focus on some of the uh guidance documents in TR16 which we understand that you guys use and rely upon heavily. And one of the big things that TR16 focuses on is you trying to use empirical data and there was also discussion about a peaking factor which which you guys and right pierce supplied to the site uh to our generation. So >> um we wanted to kind of go back and look at you know approximate existing flow in the system. So the average flow was about 105,000 gallons per day with INI. Um it's it's a you know it's 0.01 to 0.02 million gallons
031per day. Kind of negligible in relation to overall pipe capacity. And then the overall capacity the sewer pipe use was about 13.6% or so. There have been a couple projects approved recently by by by this uh um commission. Uh obviously the 20 lots on Rocky Hill Terrace. Uh those calculations were done based on 70 gallons per day per person with an average you know occupant usage based on fourbedroom homes or or residential homes and that came up with um additional flows which were included in the calculations. Also 21105 to 2125 reservoir a that was approved with an additional 9490 gallons per day. So, so that kind of came with the average approximate background flow in the system, approximately 119,000 gallons per day, about 15.5% of capacity in the pipe. When you look at the typical
032daily peak flow of about 3x multiplier, it's flowing at about 43.8% and then um if you were to use a TR16, initial comments from Wright Pierce had tried to or had suggested a 5.6 six multiplier. Through additional correspondence and communication, they actually came back and agreed that 5.2 was more of a reasonable um multiplier. So then that shows that in background capacity of the sewer pipe was approximately 74.9% even during that um major peaking event. So that's the existing and the background flow calculations. We then wanted to go through and really talk about because TR16 talked so much about empirical data, we wanted to go back and actually demonstrate and provide calculations on actually empirical usage from another project. Um, this is this is flows and this was all submitted to the to the board
033for your consideration. But we used we looked at actual flows coming from a a vessel building in New London. And when we looked at the number of units, the bedrooms, the occupants, the occupants per bedrooms, and the average flows, um this comes up with an average flow per unit of uh 32.8 gallons per day, um per unit and 29 per occupant. So a total g uh average daily flow of approximately 5,800 gallons. Um that is a very low estimate. Now, TR16 highlights and focuses on using empirical data, but they also provide um an alternate recommendation of 70 gallons per day per occupant. This is actually consistent with what um the WPCA approved for that other project that I mentioned before, which was again 70 gallons per day. So, that would actually create a recommended uh
034total average daily usage of approximately 14,000 gallons per day, which is, you know, what we believe is much more consistent with what TR16 recommends. And um it's far less than the very conservative 150 gallons per day per bedroom that is typically used for septic system design. Um so, we then wanted to go and utilize those estimates and again we have a very detailed response which has been provided. You know, if we were to use just the average rate based on the empirical data, we'd be looking at including ini about 6,200 gallons per day, um, using that 3x peak rate approximately 17,970 gallons per day, you know, over that hour. Um, using the TR16 methodology of that 70 gallons per day per occupant, um, that would be a total of 14,560 gallons per day including INI.
035And then even that 3x peak rate um using the TR16 uh would be 42,840 gallons per day over that hour. Um and then we wanted to look at, you know, what these volumes would look at or how they would be applied to that background existing and background flow in Reservoir Avenue. And based on our analysis, you know, based on using the empirical data, um it's about uh 16.2 2 capacity under average daily flow, 46.1 capacity under that peak daily flow, that 3x or 79.2% using that 5.2 peaking factor. Um, that's based on the actual empirical data from a vessel building. But if we were to revert back to even what TR16 recommends with the 70 gallons per day per occupant, um, that's this last uh set of numbers here, the average daily flow would be
036approximately 133,000 gallons. So 17.3% capacity that peak daily flow uh 3x would be about 49.4% capacity and then even if we were to apply that 5.2x peaking factor per TR16 times that 70 gallons per day per occupant we would still be at uh for that very peak moment approximately 650,000 gallons per day in that system existing background and our volume. >> Can I just interrupt? I I I know you're doing a presentation, but the um 70 gallons per day per person, what is your estimated per person? How many people is it? Is it two per bedroom? One per bedroom, one per unit. >> Sure. We looked at our occupants um we looked at our occupants vesicle vessels empirical data for uh similar unit type is approximately 1.13 occupants per bedroom. And again, >> go ahead.
037>> That's that's that's one building in New London with 30 units. Do you have >> any other projects up and running regardless of what state? >> No. Well, okay. Uh I mean, Mr. Levy, Mr. Levy from Vessel could certainly chime in, but but we think that's reasonable. And again, you have to remember that these units are designed to be very um efficient units. They're small units. They're not very large. there's not a tremendous amount of room in each in each one of these facilities. So, we think that um occupancy rate is appropriate. And and again, when we use that 70 gallons per day per occupant, apply it with that 5.2x peaking factor, we still believe that the system itself is only at 84.4% capacity um with the all the empir all the existing data and
038the background generation which have been approved. So, we do believe that what we're proposing um could still work within capacity of the system that's out there, >> but town town I don't I don't with residential how many people do they uh require per bedroom. I mean, >> you're you're you have one bedroom and twobedroom units. I don't I I recall it's pretty dimminimous the amount of two-bedroom, but you you know you're you're assuming 1.13 per bedroom based on New London. Um the um >> so when we do these kind if I could chime in here a little bit I think I'm I can answer your question. >> Go ahead. >> Um when we do an analysis of in a particular community we will use their per capita per household. At one point, Trumbles was 2.8.
039I think it's a little higher right now. >> Is that per bedroom or per household? >> Per household. >> It's kind of apples and oranges, right? >> Right. Right. But we we would standardize on that versus um you know there I I see what they're saying between one and two people per bedroom, but we do know of instances where three or four people could be in a bedroom. >> It's not that's not allowed under the code. Um, so for for rental apartments in the state of Connecticut, you are not allowed you're not allowed to have more than a certain number of people per unit based on bedroom size. Otherwise, you're you have a legal tendency. >> So, how how how sensitive using 1.13? How sensitive is the calculation if you use 1.5? >> Oh, goes
040up 30%. I mean, you know, you you can figure out the numbers. I mean, at 17.3 at 30% in greater would be well that that's bas that's based on the 70 per tenant, right? The the TR16, >> correct? >> Okay. So, yeah. So, that would scale directly. So that would be 30% more be another 5% capacity plus the multipliers whatever it is. Um >> so the 80 the the 650,000 gallons per day John you said would go up 30%. >> No. >> Well if you went from 1.13 per bedroom to 1.5 per bedroom I mean it's simple math. It's 37 more per bedroom which is slightly over 30% more per bedroom. So all these numbers at least under the TR16 calculation would scale. >> It's a linear linear calculation. So the 650 would go up
04130%. Correct. >> Where's the 650 number? Oh, down here at the very bottom. Yes. Well, no, because that's the aggregate capacity. >> I thought that was for everything on reservoir. >> Yeah, that's for everything on reservoir. That's that would be way overestimating. Yeah, I my the number I just did the 17.3, you wouldn't multiply that by 30%. You multiply the incremental which is the time plus times 1.3. So that number would go up to about 19,000. You're adding about 4500 gallons if you used one and a half. So that 125 would become let's say 130 and your multiplied by 5.2 times that would be 6 650 plus 27 about 675. So you're you wouldn't yeah it be looking at what's the total capacity? Um what's the number you're using? uh total capacity. Let me go
042back to that slide. Um you know, we're we're the again we're even with our with with all of our increase, we're at 84.4%. So we're talking about adding another 4,000 gallons or or even at that 5x multiplier. Ma the math math would be the math would be 04%. So you'd go up to 80 call it 85% just rounding up as to as to not >> 84.8 >> I don't I don't I don't I don't intuitively that doesn't sound correct. If I increase your flow from 1.13 per person, it's all based on one of one of the calculations is based on people per bedroom. >> And if I go from 1.13 to 1.5, I just want to get an idea of the sensitivity. What is if you go to two? I mean, I'm trying to figure
043out I mean, these are >> looking at let's say it's 675 at at one and a half. It's pretty close. I mean within the margin of error you're looking at that's 675 25 it's another three some percent above so it be it' be more somewhere around 88% I believe or through 87% somewhere in that neighborhood um it's still you know with margin for error but this question for Christine and Bill what assumptions do we make on degradation of capacity over time that's an old line Right. I mean is are can we count on the these numbers for what the capacity is? You have sediment buildup and decay within the pipes themselves. I mean whatever issues what what assumptions are built into the models for for the capacity >> capacity degradation >> I think >> if
044any. >> Yeah. Um Bill do you want me to jump in here a little? Yes, please. I'm I'm Frank, but I'm not Bill. >> Oh, I thought I thought John was asking, Bill. Um >> I was, but that's okay. Go ahead. >> If you remember the last meeting, we talked about that a little bit, fat, soil, and grease and and other reasons why the pipe actual capacity gets reduced, roots in in the pipe at the joints, etc. And that was one of our um for lack of a better word reasonings why our conservative approach traditional approach to quantifying flows when theoretically makes sense. Right? So I think what's being presented here is they're trying to be very accurate as to what they believe will happen in the in their units. this 1.13 people um per
045bedroom. Um but they're not accounting for essentially the almost the inverse of that which is the pipe condition is not the pipe is not full uh perfectly round like it was put in the ground. There is likely roots in there I although they TV it so I know they have an actual condition of what's there now but over time fat soil and grease etc will diminish the capacity of the pipe. Who? Who? Christine is Frank. Who TV it? >> I think Bill did and his group >> when >> Oh, maybe they just cleaned it or or they were going to I don't know where they are with that, but yeah. >> Is Bill still with us? How do we Did we lose him? >> No, it it it looks like he's here. You know, I
046think and this is this is Jay uh again. You know, I think Kevin, this is like slide only slide two or three. I think a lot of these questions that are coming up Kevin has set to address in some fashion down the line. I don't mean >> but I mean I think I think it's important I think it's important that as a commission we understand >> that this is based on 1.13 based on a 30 unit complex in New London which is screaming for workforce housing because of the submarine industry there versus you know Trumbull which is Fairfield County which could be a whole different animal. There's a shortage of houses around here. >> Yeah. And I guess all I'd say to that is, you know, as as Chris miss Curts mentioned, you know, we
047are what what Kevin and his team had been tasked to do is to bring as as accurate accurate uh actual information and data to this commission because that's what you all are entitled to uh in in making a decision. Not not ifs and could bees and what if, but but but what is. So Kevin has put those numbers together. So I I >> and all all I wanted to understand is if it's 1.13 that's what you're basing it on and saying it's 84.4% with a peaking factor and a peaking factor does apply. It's not like some conservative it's tradition. Okay. I mean it's it's based on you know years of sanitary engineering in this country and elsewhere in the world. So >> two3 one at a time please. the >> one the 1.13. I wanted
048to know how sensitive is that? What happens if it's 1.5? What happens if it's two? I don't think it'll be two. >> I think Kevin's been trying to answer that question. Um, >> actually, Christine was speaking at this time when she hadn't finished yet before we got off track again. So, I'd like her to finish what she was addressing. >> So, with regards though to that that number, I mean, if we this is the first we're seeing all this, right? So I we would have a different opinion about some of what you're doing, right? Um I would suggest and we looked at this. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if if you go with 70 gallons per day per person, you can have two people in those bedrooms and likely would
049be. So on the onebedroom unit, you'd have 140. You you save from the 150 there, right? In the two-bedroom units, you you go a little higher than what would be 150 per bedroom. Um, but overall net I think you were if we if we use those numbers you'd be low less than what you originally submitted on. That was the only other point I was going to make is is what our opinion would be on the 1.13. But regardless, I I know there's a lot of different versions of what's going on here. Um, I don't know if we want to cut to the chase and talk about the fact that we responded to uh when we when we revised based on everything we did originally or you did originally and then we reacted to just by
050changing 5.6 to 5.2 in the peaking factor the the ability for the pipe to handle the flow has changed. So, >> do we want to just start with that? I don't know how much how much longer. >> I I mean I think I think um Jason indicated that they're not done with their presentation. So, we'll let them finish. I mean, I think this is a lot of information for us to absorb in a commission meeting. So, but let's keep going with the presentation. >> So, we're actually I think we're actually at the discussion point, which which is good. So I'm I'm glad that we're we're leaning into this. So So yes. So So I mean obviously listen, we know that you guys rely on TR16 and TR16 does extensively talk about using empirical data. Um
051we we've obviously gone through and talked about this reduction from the peaking factor from 5.6 down to 5.2. We believe that's much more appropriate. Um and again based on the empirical data it's it's it's below 85% capacity for this for this pipe network. Um even if you were to increase the 1.13 to 1.5 which again you can certainly add conservative things to it but usually PR16 does talk about using empirical data or having reasons to support a higher occupancy. Um, and I think when you look at the the the proposed project and what these units look like, 1.13 per bedroom is a very reasonable when you're looking at very efficient units with very small square footages and very small foot floor plates from these from these unit standpoints. um it is designed to be a
052very efficient um and and lower occupancy uh operation you know and obviously when you do look at peaking factors and what's consistent and and we understand that in the past the trouble WPCA's use this higher number the 5.6 we recognize and we appreciate that there was some concession to bring it down to 5.2 a lot of the surrounding WPCA's use much much lower peaking factors when they're evaluating and and uh looking at potential sewer assessments the town of Fairfield uses a 4.0 peaking factor. The Tommy Glastenberg uses a 2.7 peaking factor. Um, we want to make sure we're being conservative. We want to make sure we're looking at this the right lens. We certainly don't want to overt tax or um impact our system in any negative way, but there's also some reasonleness when we're
053looking at what this flow could be. And the thought that um the entirety of the network could be experiencing this peaking factor at this moment and then adding additional conservative layers on top of it. um you know we think that you know and we provided evidence to show that we don't believe that these that the system would have the capacity even during that um larger 5.2 fing uh condition. >> Well I just did the math on the um TR16 calculations. If it went to 1.5, the capacity we'd be at 1377 a daily flow. The um at 5.2% a 5.2 multiplier, we'd be at 93% capacity. >> I I I don't I don't I don't Could you share how you came up with that math because that that doesn't match my math. I took your 14560
054and multiplied it by 1.5 and divided by 1.13 comes out to about 193 something. I I could go back and look at the numbers, but it's roughly that which means there's another 4700 gallons per day. I added that to your 133. I got and then multiplied that by 5.2 two gives you um roughly seven I think it was 717 and the capacity number I took 650 and divided by 0844 and came out with 770 >> so 717 over 770 is 93% roughly um so I may have made a mistake it's you know it's been years since I was in engineering school but that's the calculation I did Um, now I get I understand these are all conservative numbers in terms of or liberal depending on how you choose to look at it uh in terms
055of flows and worst cases and things like that. But I'll be honest, 93% scares the crap out of me. >> Um, when I consider that it's highly unlikely that full capacity is actually there. Um, so that that's the part that concerns me. Well, in in in an attempt to address those concerns, um, one of the things that we have proposed that that the that can be considered is the installation of of a holding tank. And >> and how how much h how much how much would that how much have you budgeted? You think just ballpark number to put that in? >> Um, well, I mean, we can we we've kind of looked at, you know, we could put a holding tank. It's it's somewhat dependent upon the flows that we can agree upon which would
056be um utilized for as part of this this particular project because the the the way that these tanks work is it all lots for you know a normal average daily flow. It can hold it back and it can discharge that effluent at off peak times using a pump. Um, so we're we're, you know, willing to propose that it's something that's kind of somewhat standard use in the industry to when you have a system that could potentially be uh experienced very high peaks, this is a way to attenuate those flows and discharge them during off- peak times. Um, but in order for us to to come come up with an and establish an exact size of that, we need uh concurrence and agreement on on the the flow estimates for the for the proposed facility, which
057I think we're >> Kev, let's Kevin, let's just answer the question though. I agreed on all your points, but let's try to be direct because I think, you know, they're trying to go somewhere, you know, with this, which is right now we would think that that the total cost of the holding tank, the pump and the installation of that system is somewhere in the range of $200,000, maybe maybe slightly more. >> Mr. Mr. Lady, can I just ask you in that in that respect? Is that labor and material to install only? >> Yes. Labor labor, material to install that portion of our system, right? The holding tank and the pump together with the labor uh to install it. >> I mean, these tanks need to be maintained and operated, right? And >> well, of course.
058Yeah. No, absolutely. There's ongoing costs associated with anything you do in a system, just like there is for storm water management. you have to be, you know, um you have to always maintain whatever you put on your site. Um so there's a there's some cost associated with that obviously. >> Yeah. >> I mean I I I think I think that that that by itself comes with risk. This is a residential >> um devel you know apartment development. It's not like a process plant where you have you know trained maintenance people and engineers working in a plant. You can have things like holding tanks. >> That's that holding tanks as well as stormwater management systems are always maintained by third party uh providers. They're not maintained by uh staff on site. They're maintained under contracts with
059thirdparty providers. >> But the bill um >> you the only >> Sorry, John. Go ahead. Uh why why don't you finish this conversation because I I I have a sort of higher level question for Bill and Jim that we need to sort of understand. So go ahead. >> My my question is is the holding tanks capacity would be based on one day's flow. >> No, this would it would actually uh expected to be at least a two or three day flow. >> Okay. >> All right. Go ahead, John. Um, Bill and Jim. Um, a lot of this is coming from the fact that that whole end of town is changing dramatically. Um, you know, most of these properties were either uh commercial properties, office buildings and things that, you know, had limited limited uh placed
060limited demands on our system. Uh, or single family homes that placed limited demands on our system. Um, we've had several of these come through and we've accepted them because we had the capacity. Um, is there any you guys are more in tune with what's going on in PNZ and in the the planning department and what is the expectation for this end of town? Because on the one hand, I think that we are going to have to do something. I'm a little concerned that we're getting close to the edge on this. On the other hand, I don't want to dump it all on one guy who happened to come be the last one to come in. Um, uh, you know, if there's a bunch of other plans that may be coming down the pike that, you
061know, would share this if we added capacity, they would share the added capacity or would have to do something similar to to what Mr. Levy was just talking about. What what's what's the expectation for what's going on on that end of town? Do we have any feel for it at all? >> I do not. I mean, You don't with >> with affordable housing, John, you you you you you you just don't know now. But it looks like that end of town is going to be just observation. No, no, it's going to end up with more apartments. I mean, as as you said, this system was originally designed for limited amount of residential housing on that road. Um, so so now you know it if if it it would make sense to fix that 8 in
062pipe in the ground, right, Christine? That's the size that's in question. 8 inch, right? Where it's flat. >> Right. I think it was to go up to a 10. >> Yeah. I I'm I'm I'm uncomfortable approving this, you know, based on um the fact that the system is extremely old. We have failures everywhere. Um and I think we need to um you know fix the 8 in line. I mean this is this is a point load of tremendous flow you know factors higher than what it was designed for and I think we need to uh you know be heading that way. you're you're looking at, you know, if you go with a holding tank of perhaps a quarter million dollar investment. Um, and I'm sure you can get instrumentation to protect the environment, but it's
063still a risk. The the the safest thing is gravity, and you know, waste flows downhill. So, you know, you know, to put a pump and a lift station in between is just asking for more trouble. But anyway, I think we should be, you know, that's just my feelings. I think we're we're at capacity. Um, we definitely, if we were to approve this, would shut off any future development. And I know that's not your issue on that end of town, but um, you know, Trumbull has a sewer system and we're going to get more of these affordable housing. Um, because that's that's the that's the that's the where where the the emphasis is. uh especially with a large city next door. Um anyway, that's that's my thought. I think we're pushing the envelope here. Um I
064I'm uncomfortable uh with with it. Um we're really pushing the limit. If it was a brand new system, I don't think we would design it for 8 in. I doubt we would design it for 10 inch. So, and you know, the fact that it's based on empirical data, I mean, that's what engineering is about. I mean, I spent the early part of my career designing things and you know, the the wind loads and and and live loads and dead loads and all those kinds of things on the things I designed, they were all based on empirical data, but sometimes bridges fall down and sometimes buildings fall down. So, they're, you know, they they're based on >> on failures to be honest with you. But anyway, >> go ahead, John. beyond the 8 in line and
065that bottleneck if we fix that problem or we work with these gentlemen to try to reduce the what's the next bottleneck that uh in that section of town the pump station was just redone I presume it has it's sufficient capacity for >> whatever whatever we do down there >> right there was um there was a pipe replacement um right upstream of the pump station for this very same reason from another related development went from an 8 to a 10. So this eliminates the bottleneck to the pump station. Bill, what's your plans for Reservoir Avenue paving wise? >> So it's uh it's on our capital plan for updating um in the next year or two. We're waiting for funding to come through. >> So within a year or two, you're going to cut curb to curb,
066right? You're going to re you're going to mill it or you're going to remove it? >> We're going to we're going to reclaim some of it and mill some of it. >> The entire length of Reservoir Avenue >> so we could put in pipes upgrade the pipe at that time. >> We could we should do it before we do those improvements. >> Right. I got I got that part. >> So, is there uh I have a question. All along with your formula, you keep saying 84% of capacity. Nowhere did say what was total capacity and how you got to that number. >> To total capacity is 770,000 gallons per day >> and that was provided >> it was provided by this through through this >> provided by right peers. >> Correct. >> It's based on
067the slope of the pipe, the size of the pipe and the and the material of the pipe. Is that based on a calculation or out of a design handbook? >> Calculation. >> Does that take into account uh capacity degradation or are you still are you just measuring the full size of the pipes with those figures? >> Does use a coefficient and based on the coefficient you use like a brand new pipe has one coefficient and an old pipe has a different coefficient. We work with the old >> coefficient. So it does take that into consideration. measured in one point I want to make is that there's been talk about I and I it's really been like going on the sidelines I I don't know if people realized the amount of extra flow from water in
068the town of Trumbull in the year 2023 2024 was a high rain year 80 in we pumped 1 bill563 million gallons the next Year 24 25 was a lighter rain only 48 in and the amount of gallantage we pumped was over 400 million less that that's an incredible amount and it just I think that's something that should be taken into account for this >> I think I think John the peaking factor is supposedly takes into the fact that the pipe is aged >> but >> um >> and there is an infiltration number as well. I think 420 or 500. So that >> that was one of our comments originally. >> Okay. >> So is there uh >> good observation >> you know uh hearing the the comments from the commission members I guess I is
069there something that would uh make the commission uh you know more comfortable? Obviously, we've, you know, we've previously, and I think, you know, Kevin uh was speaking about it this evening as well, have proposed the idea of holding tanks along with um low testing over a a multi-month period of time. Um it sounds like, you know, perhaps there's other ideas from the commission that might be um more acceptable or or make people more comfortable. Um, you know, is there uh is there something that would, you know, that would specifically make the commission more comfortable than that? >> I think I think speaking for myself, I think a sizable contribution to replacing the pipe, the fact that the the the road is u I I drove down the road a couple days ago and it's clearly
070going to need paving in in the near future, year or two. Um, I think a sizable contribution just for the replacement of the pipe um would be would be I think better for everybody. >> Okay, >> Bill, do we even know what this looks like in terms of the work? I mean, it's not in our capital plan right now. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And do we have a rough estimate of what this is going to cost us? Um um and like I said, I mean I I recognize that this has been built up over multiple developments, not just these gentlemen. So I but on the other hand, we're now at the point where it's starting to look more critical. So we have to figure out how to deal with this. Um >> and I
071expect there'll be more projects coming down the pike, too, that'll further exacerbate the problem or at least be proposed. Um, do do we have a ballpark number on what it would cost? >> So, based on uh previous projects, we have 720 ft. It would be roughly $720,000. >> I'm in the wrong business, man. Um, >> actually, actually, John, the margin on construction is about 3%. So, you know, you're not in the wrong business. >> No. So if if we change that pipe that stretch of pipe to a 10% what would that result in for a total capacity from 770,000 >> 10 inch pipe John not 10% >> no I meant from I said 8 in to 10 inches. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. was it? >> I'm not sure. Christine, do you have the you would
072would you know what that number is? >> Um, plenty. >> I remember the number was plenty. Yes. I don't have it in front of me, but >> it was it was the capacity was significantly improved. >> Right. >> So So if we had that extra 10-in pipe put in, I think we'd all feel pretty comfortable that this project can be handled. >> Yes. Yeah, I I wanted to ask Bill some questions about this. Um, Bill, as from the engineering standpoint for the town, I think you said this is about a 50 year old pipe that's there. >> That's correct. It was put in in the 70s. >> Okay. So, um, and in terms of the engineering department's preference, the holding tank versus replacement of the pipe, what what is your preference? >> Oh, replacing the
073pipe. the holding tank is is trouble coming down the road >> for one or more reasons, I assume. >> Yeah. So, it's going to have a tendency to go septic. It's going to be an odor control problem. Um, your residents are not going to like it. >> Well, they could they could put in odor odor scrubbers, but that's a more cost, >> right? I And then and then you have maintenance of that. You have um potential overflows. the pumps fails. Uh, it's it's a problem. >> We need to we need to stick with gravity, I think. Um, I I got 13 pump stations. I wish they were all gravity. >> Right. So the question is what would we have in mind would be a substantial um contribution not the whole price but I I'm I'm
074not I'm not comfortable negotiating um without going into an executive session or perhaps authorizing Bill and Jim if the other commissioners agree to authorize a um induct come up with a number unless you guys want to offer us a number. >> Well, I we're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit here because like I said, we don't even have a budgeted plan to do this job. Uh it's not on our capital plan. Um I I think we'd have to figure out how we we'd make it even happen. Um and and like I said, I mean, I think get a better sense of what the costs are. I I asked I did ask Bill for an off-the cuff estimate and he gave us one. Um but that is what it is. It was an off-the cuff
075estimate. >> That's right. >> Um >> well, I would I wouldn't I wouldn't say that $1,000 a foot is based on his experience and other projects. >> Yeah, true. True enough. And I hopefully we wouldn't have to bury it any deeper. So we wouldn't have to deal with, you know, a ledge and other stuff that we could essentially use the existing. >> It's gravity. It's going to go where it needs right where it is now. >> Yeah, that's what I was saying. It's I mean we we wouldn't have to um you know dig deeper or do anything like that. Yeah. So um so it's probably a good estimate, but um I I don't know. Bill, are you ready to you know put that number on paper? And >> I think that number is a a
076fairly good estimate for given the you know >> all right but again it's not in our >> it was based on >> it's not in our approved capital plan either. So >> yeah. Yeah. >> So we would have to I mean what projects would we not do if we did this one because the the pump stations we got to do those that that Wildwood pump station scared the crap out of me too. I mean, pardon my language, but that that thing has to be has to be redone and some of the other stuff has to be redone. There's So, where would where would we get the funds to do this? >> So, I I we do have money in a capital fund for um for force mains and for gravity lines. >> We put it
077in as a general as a general project. >> Um but you know how you know how that goes. mains that are all over and we have gravity lines that need to be fixed. So >> yeah, I mean we have a 50-y old >> Sorry. Go ahead, Jim. >> Yeah, the other option though is to go to the board of finance to seek bonding approval, >> right? >> That we would propose to bond a new project at at a sum to be negotiated. So I I just want to size this up for the commission so they know you guys know where you can go tonight. Um the applicant has an application before the commission that would require a vote unless they agree to extend to another uh meeting session. Uh if you are pushed to vote,
078you either vote yes as no asis or yes with conditions. Conditions could be the holding tank. The com the conditions would be a uh contribution um by the applicant toward the replacement of the pipe estimated by bill at $720,000. I my recommendation is that if you're going to approve it and it's with with conditions this is an old pipe. We know from all of our experiences on this commission that we've had ongoing problems with pipe ruptures because of the age of our system. And uh I'm I'm not sure and I digress a little bit. I'm not sure that the applicants assumptions here took into account all the approved projects in this area. I know we just had one 48 unit and there was the one in the parking lot of the other building. I think
079that was over a hundred units. I know. At any rate, the point is that uh uh there's there's a lot of development in this area and there likely will be more and replacing the pipe is the best solution um according to the engineering uh department. So those are your options and the amount is to be negotiated. I suppose we can come up with a number tonight if we are required to vote by the applicant. Uh I think it should be over 50%. That's my uh suggestion to the to the uh to the committee. >> So So we talking 500,000 400,000? >> I would say at least 400. >> Okay. Vessel, how do you feel about that? >> So uh to to respond to uh to both uh the commissioners and to attorney Nan, um we
080certainly are not in any way forcing a vote. We do not want to in any way make you feel like we're we're rushing you. We of course would love your approval and um uh and would be happy to have a positive vote tonight, but if there's anything outstanding that you feel that we need to come back to next month, we we will certainly do that. Um, and if the commission were to say that, you know, there was an approval and it was contingent upon a $400,000 contribution, um, given the cost of installing the tanks and the maintenance on it, I I think that's a number that, uh, that we could live with. It would be it would be somewhat painful, but I think I could live with it. >> Well, it would be painful for
081us, too, but it'd be shared pain. Um, >> yes, I understand. That's the best kind of deals are when there's a little bit of sharing. I know. >> Yeah. >> But at least with that pipe in, we could uh sleep at night believing that the system is has enough capacity. >> Bill Phil, are you comfortable with that? >> I am. >> Mr. Nan, are you comfortable with that? >> Yeah, I I think that's a fair resolution. The the town has a some risk there because we don't know what the estimates might come in at. vessel is capped at 400 which is is I think fair number for them. If the estimates come in higher that's going to be on the town. >> Okay. But so so if we did this Jim um >> it would
082be approved contingent upon let's say it's 400,000 and approval of the board of finance to bond the project. Is that is that what we because I I mean we can't commit them either. I mean, >> right. >> Um, >> John, my answer to your question is yes, unless a bill thinks that there's some amount of the town's portion of that cost that can be uh assigned to some budget item. I think we need to look at that closer. We don't have to decide that immediately, but we we we do need uh funding uh for the balance of the price though. Definitely true. But I don't think the I don't think the applicant should be the one to have to measure or worry about how we get the money. >> No, no, no. I >> But
083but until we get the money, we can't. But I I don't want to commit something to them. I I'm trying to be fair to everybody here. We we know we have a problem. Uh we they're offering to to help us with this problem. Um that's that's um which I think is a positive step for everybody. Um, but I also don't want to commit to them and then, you know, turns around the board of finance says, you know, the heck with you guys and and then we can't deliver on what we promised. So, I I would want to make it contingent up on some >> some method where we get back to them with a valid with a guarantee that, hey, now we've got it approved. Yes, we're going to we're going to deliver. um you
084know that's their a reasonable expectation from their side is that you know we're we're we're committing with uh you know integrity. >> So we could we could we could we could approve it okay as originally submitted >> with the um the qualification that they contribute $400,000 to upgrade the 8 in pipe to 10 in. And it's also contingent on us either finding the money within our current capital plan or seeking approval from the board of finance. So my question would be Bill, how long does that take? >> Uh usually it will take at least a couple months because you have to go to board of finance and then you have to go to uh town council for approval if once finance. >> That's assuming we don't have the funds available already, >> right? But we
085I believe >> let me ask ahead. Sorry. >> I believe there's there's funds in reserve that we could use to towards this. >> Now there's also connection fees. >> That's that's different. That's a different animal, John. >> It's not relevant. >> Uh well, no, it's all part of the approval, though. When we approve these projects, it's approved with >> you know, whatever the connection fees are and whatever else we're, you know, >> whatever other additional fees there would be. >> That That's true. >> So, >> um, but you mentioned one other item, too. >> What's that, Jim? At our last project, we imposed a 24month time limit for the applicant to obtain its building permit because we got this whole capacity problem going on. So, uh we didn't want the previous applicant to sit on
086the approval and thereby effectively consume the capacity and not ever proceed and when somebody else might have a pending application. So, we put a 24-month time limit on the expiration of the approval for them to pull a building permit. That was a condition. >> Yeah, I remember that. >> So, you may want to consider doing it again. I don't I don't I don't I don't think that we have the same problem with this developer, but yeah, I will we'll go ahead and put that on there. >> Well, >> just for just for everybody's uh information, because somebody mentioned connection fees, I think this is projected to produce about 1 million $50,000 in connection fees. >> That is correct. That's correct. Okay, >> John, what is it? It's just double check the math. 150. What is
087it? 150 * 750. >> Yep. That's 1,ion50. >> Oh, it's 150 time 750 would be 1125. >> Yeah, it's sorry I I I was doing it at 7,000. It's 1,125,000. >> Okay. So the the the the conditions of the approval would be four contingencies. Paying of a connection fee of $1,125,000 contributing $400,000. And I I you know I I would I don't know how we want to handle that, Jim. That's legal. But um the the vessel technology would contribute $400,000 for the replacement of the 8 in line. um I don't know when you want that paid at the time of the building permit or whatever. And then um that a building that the the applicant's permit would be approved but would expire after 24 months if they don't secure a building permit. And and the
088fourth is that we obtain approval for bonding from the board of finance and or find the money in our existing budget. >> Okay. >> For the balance. >> Um well hopefully we can find the money in the existing budget, but you're right. So those are the four contingencies. Do you have that Margaret? >> I do. >> Okay. Is there is >> my my only question to you um is the connection fee. You had said 7500. >> It's 7,000. >> Oh, I >> So now we're back to the So now we're back to the million50. Okay. So >> Okay. >> 1 million $50,000. >> Yes. >> We're saving We're saving We just saved them some money. They do 75,000. >> I'm sure they're thankful. Um, okay. I'm willing to move that. >> I'm sorry. Before you
089before you vote, I'm could I ask a question on behalf of my client? It might be for Mr. Mau and Mr. Nan if that's okay. >> Sure. >> I think on the on the question of, you know, the the delta between the 400k that vessel would has has said they'd be comfortable contributing and the total cost. Um, would would it make sense, Bill, if you're I don't know if it's something if if we take a a a break for a moment this evening or if it's something worth continuing, maybe not all the way to the next meeting in March, but you know, reconvene at an earlier point in time for you to check to see if it's in your budget already rather than having the the question of, you know, having a board of finance,
090a contingency involving a board of finance vote. um you know, maybe that it seems like everyone's feeling good about the direction we're going in, but if there's a way to have that last question addressed before a final action is taken, perhaps that's that's uh that's helpful if it can be done. You know, >> I think we can do that. I'd just like to give Bill a little time to go through the budget and take into account maybe any other >> concerns or contingencies that are out there before we commit on the number. But I think we can make that determination, you know, before uh certainly before four weeks from now and I can let you know. >> Yeah. I think that's a cleaner way to do things. >> Okay. Then >> but I like just
091to give the sense of the board, I'm like I said, I'm I'm willing to vote for it under those terms assuming that Bill can come up with the money. Um I I think the the uh applicant deserves to understand are we going to approve this if that happens? I I think the answer is yes, but I I would like to at least give them a sense of the board. No, non non-committed, but John Frank, >> yes, Frank, I would I would approve it with those conditions. >> John, I approve. I think it's a fair resolution. >> Okay. I feel pretty good about it actually. >> Yeah, I think it's a good resolution. >> Yeah. Uh the um the question is is when when when um when Bill finds out if he communicates that to you
092um you requested a another meeting. I don't know if that's we could do that or >> Well, I mean I Yeah. No, I don't mean to be presumptuous. I I just figure, you know, if Bill, you know, finds the answer, you know, not saying >> the answer, if he gives you the answer, yes, you're going to be good to go. >> Right. Right. My thought was that if he uh you know if we get the answer tomorrow or Monday if we can get the it doesn't have to be at you know if there's a time this isn't a public hearing so it's not like we have to set a date certain or anything if if we can find a any time of day you know uh to get together via Zoom to take that vote
093so it's you know off your off your to-do list you know that that >> I think I think I think it has to be a public hearing but Margaret you can chime in on that >> it has to be a public meeting right to be noticed >> right um a minimum of 48 hours in advance. >> Okay. >> But I we're going to vote tonight. We we don't need another session to vote. >> Yeah, we're voting now. >> Yeah, you're going to vote now. >> It's just a matter of coming up with the number. >> So, we're Is that in fact the case? Because like I said, we do not have >> I mean I was Mr. Coin I think was asking >> John. We're going to qualify approval pending that Bill Mau can confirm
094that he has the money available for the town's contribution for the pipe replacement. >> So the only the my thought and again I'm not trying to take um say no to a yes vote. That's for darn sure, right? I want to make that clear. I would just hate for and I don't think this would be the case. you know, if if for some reason in Bill's research that there's not, you know, the answer is there's not the money, you know, then then, you know, it it may be better for us to keep it open so that we can if there is another solution that needs to be, you know, thought through that that that can be accounted for. But, uh, >> you have to put it on the next monthly meeting, Jay. But but if
095if Bill determines that he doesn't have 100% of the money or even 25% of the money in his budget, then the other option is to put this on the board of finance agenda to seek a a bonding uh resolution for the money that we need. >> Would it be and again I don't mean to take folks time here. Would it be would you be okay if if I I muted my my mic here, Jo, my client mutters mic and he and I just have a brief conversation before you take action. Would that be an imposition? >> Okay, sure. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you very much. But uh frankly to go to the board of finance and the town council might take three months. I don't know if we get on the agenda
096that fast, >> right? >> Um I think >> March. >> Remember too we're going into budget season. >> Yeah. >> So it's going to be hard to schedule all those meetings. So I'm pretty confident I mean that >> talking about maybe 320 to you know 400,000. >> Yeah. Yeah. My only concern is that we do have the uh pump station for W for um Wildwood and that bid may be more than what we budgeted and you know I I got to have a little wiggle room. Yeah. Yeah. Um, is it possible we could amend your your plan? >> Plans approved. >> I know. We'd have to reopen the approval. >> I think and Wildwood, I don't think we can even wait a whole long time. >> No, no, we're not waiting. We're We're going full
097steam ahead on that one. >> Yeah. I don't that that one really did bother me when we were looking at it going, "Oh my god, I'm I'm amazed this thing's still operating." >> It's It's And it's our third largest station. >> Really? Yeah. >> Yeah. It's pretty It pumps more than Whitney does. >> Really? >> Jay, are you back in uh on the scene here? >> Yes, but I don't Whenever you all are ready, I'll I'll pipe in. I don't want >> We were We were just killing time. Go ahead. Well, and again, thank thank you for allowing us that uh that brief sidebar. Um, you know, I would say that if the if the uh uh authority wants to vote this evening and you know, with that add that language added to the condition
098that you know, also Mr. Mau needs to come up with the or you know, look through the capital budget and for the funds. Uh, we'd be comfortable with that. I suppose you know in in uh I if if a determination were to be made that you know the funds were not available we would just you know ask that you recognize you know that we we could come back to you at you know next month's meeting if if we think of an alternative another solution uh uh or something like that we just don't want to be in a situation where you know it's uh uh left left unressed. So, as long as everyone's comfortable, I think with that unders I think I see Jim nodding as well, I won't Yeah, I think I see Jim nodding
099to that. Um, you know, if if we need to rethink it, we could come back next month, but it sounds like, uh, that hopefully will not be the case if if the money is not available. >> Okay. I think under that circumstance the >> the motion that has been made someone wants to >> move it and second it you can go to go to a vote >> John second it >> let's have a vote >> can we go back I didn't see who mo moved >> John Green moved >> okay >> sub subject to the four conditions that were itemized earlier yes >> yes and John break >> seconded Thank you. That's where the confusion is. I got John and John. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Can we have a vote, please? Just >>
100Margaret, the motion passed unanimously. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you all. I just want to express my appreciation for how collaborative the commission has been and you know, I'm very appreciative. >> Thank you. and and to your staff your staff and your lawyer who you know took way too many calls from Jay Klein. So >> we're appreciative of that as well. >> I I've got a tally going Jay. So >> that that bill might be as high as the connection fees. >> I I'll be out there digging with Bill. No. All right. Thanks so much everybody. >> Thank you very Thank you. >> Bye. >> Okay. Any other business? >> I have no other business. Thanks for taking the time, guys. I think it was well worth it. Um, can I have a
101motion to adjourn? >> So moved. Okay. I'll second it. >> Okay. >> Have a vote. >> Yep. >> All right. We'll see you guys next month. >> All right. Thank you. >> Christine, thank you for your hard work. >> Yes. >> You're welcome. Have a good night.