HomeMy Public PortalAboutWater Quality Advisory Panel #12 2015-03-11 35:12-ji: 17:15
Meeting Twelve
Wednesday March 11th, 2015
1:00 PM—5:00 PM
Orleans Town Hall
19 School Road,Orleans, Massachusetts 02653
Approved Minutes
Next Meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 15th, 8:30 AM —
12:30 PM at Orleans Town Hall.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At its March 11 meeting, the Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel discussed outreach
ideas, the Draft Consensus Statement and Conceptual Map, the warrant article tasks for
Town Meeting, and the financial planning process. After discussions about outreach, Ms.
Smith reviewed revisions to the Conceptual Map and Draft Consensus Statement, and
the Panel provided input on further refining both documents. Several participants
recommended that the Conceptual Map remove precise placements of nontraditional
technologies, instead using box graphics to show potential applications of nontraditional
technologies by watershed. This approach would highlight the agreement of the Panel
to maximize the use of nontraditional technologies, based on results of demonstration
projects, without implying that locations of each technology had been agreed. The
Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel Stakeholder Representatives then reached
consensus on the Draft Consensus Statement and Conceptual Map, as revised, with one
Panelist abstaining.
Mr. Domenica reviewed the warrant article tasks, emphasizing that they reflect the
priorities for moving the plan forward in the upcoming fiscal year within a $1 Million
budget, as requested by the Board of Selectmen. The articles includes tasks to identify
and study alternative effluent disposal sites, plan and pre-design for demonstration
projects for non-traditional technologies, consolidate and supplement monitoring and
data collection programs to prepare the foundation for rerun of the MEP models, and
integrate water quality goals into the existing stormwater master plan, and coordinate
with regulatory agencies. The group reiterated the importance of ongoing public
engagement and education.
Mr. Gardner reviewed the financial planning process and examples of financial scenarios,
to illustrate the broad range of each of the financial variables, and the sensitivity and
potential impact on residential and commercial customers. The sample scenarios used
varying betterment-tax ratios, bond periods, interest rates on SRF bonds, grant or debt
forgiveness, and annual septage revenues. The Panel's discussion focused on
determination of betterment fees and connection charge rates, septage revenue
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 1
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
projections, the cost savings of the hybrid plan compared to the original CWMP, and
how to allocate costs among residents on and off the sewered system. Mr. Gardner
explained that the financial plan and resulting customer rates would be defined over the
next two years as additional studies and demonstration projects are completed and
financial-funding avenues are pursued.
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 15, 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM at Orleans
Town Hall.
AGREEMENTS REACHED
The Orleans Water Quality Advisor Panel reached consensus on the Draft Consensus
Statement and Conceptual Map, pending final wording changes, with one abstention.
ACTION ITEMS
The following action items were captured during the meeting:
CBI /Water Resources Associates/Stantec
• Work with Orleans Citizens Forum to reschedule the event on Water Quality
Planning to involve Mike Domenica, Dave Dunford, and Alan McClennen.
• Edit the OWQAP's revised consensus statement and Conceptual Map to address
Panel feedback, send for approval on final text from Stakeholder Representatives.
• Once final versions are approved by Stakeholders, distribute publishable versions
of the final OWQAP consensus statement and Map to full Panel for distribution
to constituents.
• Draft outreach articles for Cape Codder and Cape Cod Times and seek
Stakeholder and Town Counsel approval.
• Create informational flyer on the OWQAP process for the public to be reviewed
by the Panel.
• Request space in Snow Library's display case for OWQAP Plan and Conceptual
Map.
• Contact Ira Woods and Nauset High School for possible radio outreach.
• Revise Orleans Aquaculture Forum title and approach to reflect the array of
shellfish technologies under discussion and other Panel input.
• Change the interest row on the financial scenario spreadsheet to interest and
principal.
• Distribute information on septage hauling costs on the Cape to the Panel.
• Verify the annual septage revenue projections for the new wastewater
treatment facility.
• Find date and location for OWQAP evening informational forum in May.
WQAP Group
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 2
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
• Comment/approval final OWQAP consensus statement and Conceptual Map.
• Continue outreach efforts and updating constituents about the OWQAP process.
• Send Ms. Smith comments and suggestions regarding the February 25th draft
meeting minutes.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION OF PANEL
The following documents were distributed to participants:
• Draft Meeting Agenda for March 11
• Draft Meeting Agenda for Orleans Aquaculture Forum
• Draft Meeting Summary from February 25
• Revised Meeting Summary from February 11
• Revised OWQAP Consensus Statement
• Draft OWQAP Outreach Activities
• PPT Presentation Slides for Warrant Article Status
• PPT Presentation Slides for Financial Planning Status
• Wastewater Rate Case Definitions handout
• FY2016 Wastewater Warrant Budget Estimates
• Wastewater Septage Planning Project—Customer Rate Scenarios
Please refer to meeting slides for details of the presentations. All meeting documents
and presentations for the Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel will be located
here:
htt p://www.town.orl ea ns.ma.us/water-quality-advisory-panel/pages/works ho p-
materials
Dave Dunford, Orleans Selectman and acting meeting chairman, called the meeting to
order. The OWQAP approved the February 11th meeting minutes, revising a reference
from "Little Namskaket" to the "Little Namskaket Watershed" and clarifying phrasing to
reflect the full cost of traditional technologies.
Ms. Stacie Smith, facilitator from the Consensus Building Institute, reviewed the ground
rules and the agenda, explaining that the meeting would focus on the revised OWQAP
consensus statement, the draft warrant articles and budget, and a financial planning
update.
Ms. Smith reviewed action items, noting the successful completion of most of the items.
She told the group that the Orleans Citizens Forum suggested a meeting on Thursday,
April 23rd from 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM. The Forum organizers suggested a small panel to
inform the audience on the work of the OWQAP. The group suggested that Selectmen
Dave Dunford and Alan McClennen, and town consultant Mike Domenica, represent the
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 3
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
Panel, which requires changing the date of the forum so that Mr. Domenica can attend.
Ms. Smith agreed to contact the Citizens Forum organizers to follow up.
Ms. Smith also offered to draft short summaries of any consensus reached to the Panel
for confirmation, and then to submit them to the Cape Codder and Cape Cod Times. The
submission deadline for next week's Cape Codder is Monday, so Ms. Smith would send
the draft to the working group for review before Monday, March 16`h. Ms. Smith would
need to send in the article to the Cape Cod Times one week before the publishing date.
Ms. Smith then updated the group on radio outreach options. WCAI could air a 400-
character announcement, which could be used to direct listeners to online information,
and WOMR could air a summary segment. An attendee suggested contacting Ira Woods,
who brings in guests on his Tuesday WOMR show between 12:30 PM and 1:00 PM. A
participant recommended that Mr. Woods interview Mr. Domenica. Another member
noted that Nauset High School runs a public access radio station that might conduct a
segment on the OWQAP process and also brought up the potential of running a half
hour program on the OWQAP process on Channel 99.
Ms. Smith then asked the Panel about hosting an additional forum at the Snow Library
in March. A panelist responded that the Orleans Citizens Forum event might be
sufficient. Another noted that he recently held a Chamber of Commerce Meeting on the
OWQAP at Snow Library that was poorly attended, thus distributing materials directly
might be more effective. The participant suggested creating informational packets
about the process produced before the next Chamber of Commerce meeting on April
14`h. Ms. Smith asked the working group about producing a flyer for Orleans residents.
The flyer would highlight topics deliberated and decided upon by the Panel and would
not cover the warrant articles. The Panel supported the proposal and recommended
keeping the flyer brief and ensuring it meets the Massachusetts Ethics Commission's
guidelines on propositions going before voters. Ms. Smith also noted that the consultant
team would prepare full size conceptual plan maps for every member of the OWQAP. A
panelist recommended placing a copy in Snow Library's display case.
Mr. Domenica noted he has developed preliminary information about septage hauling
costs on the Cape, which Ms. Smith will distribute once finalized. The team determined
that projecting Orleans' population trends and updating the adaptive management plan
(AMP) would be addressed at a future phase of the process.
Mr. Domenica also reviewed the planned Orleans Aquaculture Forum agenda being
developed by Ms. Sia Karplus, Science Wares. Mr. Domenica emphasized the complexity
of aquaculture technologies and the need for expert advice. The aquaculture forum will
complement the Town's ongoing local aquaculture projects, aiming to provide general
education about ongoing aquaculture projects on the Cape and bring together local
experts to provide input on developing demonstration aquaculture projects in Orleans.
The morning session will focus on lessons learned from projects in other parts of the
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 4
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
Cape, especially Wellfleet, while the afternoon portion will center on the specific goals,
issues and plans for the Orleans' aquaculture demonstration projects.
Many Panelists expressed support for the forum. Participants provided the following
questions and comments. Bullets represent comments and questions of individual Panel
members, not views of the group as a whole. Consultant responses are in italics.
• The Shellfish and Waterways Committee should be involved and provide input
on the forum. Contacts are Judy Scanlon and Suzanne Phillips.
• Does Orleans have money to host this event, and should the event be held later
on in the process? Funds budgeted under Task 2 of the special Aquaculture Study
recently funded will be used for this event. Since the workshop will generate
useful technical information, it should be held before the design of any
aquaculture demonstration projects.
• The meeting should be held soon to explore the details of this important
nontraditional technology (NT).
• The town should consult tide charts to ensure it runs the workshop at a time that
accommodates fishermen schedules.
• Commercial fishermen and shellfishermen might not spend an entire day at the
workshop.Thus, a subcommittee should interface with the fishermen before the
meeting, develop questions, and inquire about local growing conditions. The
Shellfish and Waterways Committee could also speak with local fisherman. In
addition, the National Shellfish Association has useful information about other
oyster restoration projects, a working group that focuses on restoration, and a
handbook on assessment and monitoring. Local experts from Orleans, including
Sandy MacFarlane and Nate Sears, should talk about local conditions during the
forum. The workshop should also bring in other Cape experts: Henry Lind and
Diane Murphy. The Shellfish and Waterways Committee should be engaged
throughout the workshop. The forum should also include regulators to ensure
projects proceed in sync with regulations.
• Should Orleans invite representatives from Chatham and Eastham to the forum?
The team has already consulted with the Eastham Harbor Master and will
continue this dialogue. However, the forum is not intended to be an
informational meeting for the public, but rather focus on key technical issues to
generate information most relevant Orleans.
• Since this workshop will cover all technologies that incorporate shellfish, not
only aquaculture, the title should be revised to reflect the broader scope. Yes.
Projects will also focus on habitat restoration in addition to nitrogen removal,
which is equally important. Different projects will also have divergent goals.
• The impact of inlet and channel management on the shellfish industry needs to
be investigated at some point in the process. And Orleans should host similar
workshops for PRBs, FCWs, and CHR. Yes, all of these pieces will be covered
eventually, but the town needs to start the process, which requires focusing on
certain priority topics first.
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 5
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
DRAFT CONSENSUS STATEMENT AND CONCEPTUAL MAP
Ms. Smith opened a discussion of revisions made to the draft Consensus Statement and
Conceptual Map based on Panel input at the last meeting. She reviewed some
suggested revisions to the map. The map's title reflects that the plan is in progress and
conceptual, the notes section emphasizes that the map delineates potential locations
and scales of technologies, which are linked to meeting TMDLs, and also delineates
disposal sites, which will be revised. Ms. Smith also asked the group for additional
feedback on the Draft Consensus Statement.
Along with suggestions for specific phrasing revisions, the OWQAP provided the
following questions and comments about the Conceptual Map and Draft Consensus
statement. Bullets represent summaries of comments and questions of individual Panel
members, not views of the group as a whole. Consultant responses are in italics.
Conceptual Map
• The notes section should be simplified for laypeople.
• The agreement should simply note that the Panel wants to maximize the use of
NTs, without identifying any locations.
• The Panel has not reviewed specific applications of technologies in enough detail
to achieve consensus on recommendations for implementation scales and
locations. The group has agreed on the goal to use new technologies. The
language should simply reflect that the Panel hopes new technologies will
succeed. People will focus on the map, so showing specific technology locations
could prove problematic, as the siting is only conceptual at this point. The
wording attempts to highlight that the map is provisional and also achieve a
middle ground between varying levels of technology siting specificity.
• The Panel has also not discussed specific applications of technologies in Town
Cove.
• The group has discussed the feasible use of technologies in Town Cove at length,
especially PRBs. The group has not reviewed the application of technologies in
Pleasant Bay to the same extent as it has for Town Cove. The results from the
pilots will inform the use of technologies in Pleasant Bay.
• The Panel has discussed the application of technologies in both Pleasant Bay and
Town Cove equally.
• The map provides a conceptual framework for the whole town, with some
components, including NTs, subject to modifications dependent on the results of
demonstration projects. The group reached consensus on focusing on applying
NTs in appropriate areas. The Panel needs to convey its consensus to gain
support for the plan. The phrasing tries to convey that the map was developed
with real data and tools at a detailed planning level, and thus, does suggest
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 6
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
potential locations and applications of NTs and also meets regulatory
requirements.
• The map should emphasize the goals on which the OWQAP reached consensus.
• Mr. Brian Dudley, DEP liaison, noted that the central question is what the Panel
is looking for consensus on: the philosophy of the approach or a detailed plan.
There is not yet enough information to develop a detailed plan, but the
conceptual plan does include a contingency plan to backup NTs. The group is
agreeing on an approach on how Orleans will move forward with an appropriate
mix of TTs and NTs at this point. If this is indeed the approach, the Panel has
reached consensus on the philosophy. Yes, the Panel has reached consensus on
the approach. How can it properly convey this approach using a map?
• Ms. Karplus suggested revising the map to remove the NT icons and simply
showing the areas that will be sewered and use NTs as a whole, while also
revising the legend to note the potential technologies that would be needed to
meet water quality goals. The map could breakdown the removal targets of the
major watersheds, instead of by subwatersheds. The map can reflect that the
Panel has agreed that PRBs, aquaculture, CHR, and FCWs are the most rational
technologies to first apply.This map can reflect this consensus.
• The box graphic could show the potential NTs that could be applied by
technology type along with the amount of nitrogen that needs to be removed.
• The graphics should be simple and not detail nitrogen removal targets at the
subwatershed level. The map needs to be simple to effectively advertise the
group's consensus.
• The red color for potential disposal areas should be changed to less jarring colors.
• The Town has spent the last twenty months developing an approach to solve its
wastewater issue. This group alone has spent over 2,500 person hours creating
this plan. The Panel needs to show the outcomes of the OWQAP process by May
11`h, including its goal to move ahead with as many NTs as possible and decisions
that the downtown and Meetinghouse Pond will both require sewer footprints.
• The map needs to be carefully titled to reflect its objective. The Panel does know
where TTs will be used and which NTs will be applied. The map needs to reflect
that the Panel has considered some specific details. The team will revise the map
and distribute a new version for the working group to comment upon.
Draft Consensus Statement
• The statement should be simplified to reduce the length and complexity of the
sentences. The flyer version will be simplified, but for the actual agreement,
there is a tradeoff between simplicity and precision of language.
• What is the intended objective of the statement document? The document
represents the culmination of the OWQAP's efforts and documentation of its
agreement. The statement will serve as a guiding document for those carrying
this process forward.
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 7
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
• Will the statement be available to the general public? Yes, though it is intended
as an internal statement rather than as a communication device.
• This document provides a robust summary statement of the OWQAP's activities
and will serve as a useful background.
• One of my colleagues does not support item number five, as he feels strongly
about septage and sewers for downtown. Yes, one Panelist is still not
comfortable with the septage treatment language and centralized downtown
treatment. His alternative is to conduct additional study, and the rest of the
group seems ready to move forward. The organization represented by this
Panelists needs to decide whether it, as an organization, wants to be party to the
consensus agreement.
• The ground rules specified standing aside for consensus. Would this Panelist step
aside? This is not the Panelist's preference, but it is up to the representative to
decide.
Mr. Dunford asked for a motion to approve the document when revised as discussed,
and Ms. Smith noted that agreement would entail support for the Document and
Conceptual Map.
The Stakeholders on the Panel then reached consensus on the Draft Consensus
Statement and Conceptual Map, with all Panelists supporting the documents, as
revised,with the Citizens Peer Review Panelist abstaining.
Ms. Smith told the group she will revise the language of the Consensus Statement, and
she and Ms. Karplus will modify the Conceptual Map., which will be sent around for final
approval. Participants expressed their appreciation for accomplishing their main
objective and noted that the vote does not need to be an official motion.
DRAFT WARRANT ARTICLE TEXT AND BUDGET
Mr. Domenica reviewed the outline of warrant articles (WAs), revised since the last
meeting. He noted that the WAs must reflect the priorities for moving the plan forward
in the upcoming fiscal year. The plan has a one million dollar budget for the 2016 fiscal
year, which forces prioritization. Mr. Domenica highlighted ten key components of the
WAs:
1.Treatment and disposal site investigations
2. Demonstration project planning and permitting
3. Facilities preliminary planning
4.Tri-Town Transition Requirements
5. Regulatory Coordination
6. Water Quality Monitoring—MEP Studies
7. Namskaket Marsh Protection
8. Cedar Pond—RHC Resolution and Implementation
9. Financial Analyses
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 8
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
10. Public Involvement
He then reviewed the details of each task and discussed additional key issues, including
adaptive management and next steps. Mr. Dunford noted that the Board of Selectmen
would discuss the WAs on the evening of March 11.
The OWQAP provided the following questions and comments about the WAs. Bullets
represent comments and questions of individual Panel members, not views of the group
as a whole. Consultant responses are in italics.
Treatment and Disposal Site Investigations
• Why do the WAs state that the Downtown treatment site will have three
disposal sites? Those are the sites to be investigated at appropriate levels of
detail to identify the best alternative to carry forward. Only one site will likely be
required for disposal for downtown. A disposal site and a treatment site for the
Meetinghouse Pond area are required and will also be investigated.
• Will the alternative treatment site for Meetinghouse Pond require percolation
testing and negotiations with the property owner during the next fiscal year? It
is unclear at this point. There will not be a need for acquisition negotiations or a
percolation test until other feasibility studies are done. Has the team planned
negotiations with DOT for the Route 12 Site? Yes.
Demonstration Project Planning and Permitting
• In addition to the PRB demonstration project, what technologies will be piloted
in the other two demonstration projects? This is yet to be determined and will
depend on site screening. Other demonstration projects could potentially test
CHR or FCW. If there is a preference for an aquaculture project, that could be run
along with a FCW project. It is easier to site PRBs than CHR or FCW, and thus
easier to start a PRB project.
• Will surveying data be used from the surveying firm that is already conducting
tests? Yes, it should finish its study by March 23rd after it completes the wetlands
portion of the analysis.
• Why do the WAs first mention the design of the collection system in 2018? The
collection system is in the preliminary design phase now. This involves acquiring
additional, more detailed information on downtown systems and sewering
options in order to begin design in two to three years, pending results of other
tasks.
• Are sufficient funds appropriated to maintain Tri-Town until the new facility is
constructed? The three towns have approved money to maintain Tri-Town
through the 2016 fiscal year and could extend this next year. Fiscal years 2017
and 2018 are not included yet.
Adaptive Management Plan Implementation
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 9
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
• The notes state that the MEP remodeling will occur in 2019 using three years of
data. Do MEP5 require five years of data? Mr. Dudley responded that this type of
baseline monitoring requires three years of data, though some systems have
been able to collect more years of data. Mr. Domenica stated that Orleans does
have monitoring data collected over the last five years. A working group will be
formed to determine how to conduct the MEP remodeling. The models will
probably be run after 2019 or 2020.
• It could be useful to meet with Paul Niedzwiecki, Cape Cod Commission (CCC), to
solidify the monitoring plan for the Cape, especially for freshwater bodies.
Orleans has collected water quality monitoring data on ponds, and the CCC
noted it has put aside money for monitoring. Yes, the working group will work
with the CCC on monitoring, which will have a role in funding. Ms. Patty Daley,
CCC liaison, responded that the Environmental Bond bill identifies funds for
potential monitoring programs on the Cape. The CCC is approaching the new
state administration about releasing these funds, and it is uncertain how these
funds would be allocated, though Orleans'consensus would likely help to receive
funds.
• Mr. Domenica asked if the state and the CCC would financially support future
MEP reruns and calibrations given that the state originally paid for these studies.
Mr. Dudley responded that this funding is uncertain, since DEP allocated a set
budget for the 85 MEP5 with the project contract for the initial runs ending in
2015. Thus, DEP could not guarantee funds for re-assessments. Ms. Daley noted
that the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative has provided limited financial
assistance for Cape MEPs in the past.
• The Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative is coordinating a monitoring
program for the South Side of the Cape.
• The group should consider having a separate monitoring task for leveraging
existing data, especially for freshwater ponds. Given local and town expertise,
Orleans could start a freshwater pond monitoring process. Yes, there is lots of
existing data. Orleans has had a freshwater pond monitoring program since 2000,
for a limited number of ponds, which expanded to more ponds in 2001 through
the PALS Program.
• The Pleasant Bay Alliance is contracted with Cadmus to conduct a second study
of Pleasant Bay. Are results of the ongoing monitoring program sent to SMAST?
Yes. Consolidating the work already being done will be a high priority of the
monitoring working group.
• Two years ago, Dr. Brian Howes recommended adding additional water quality
testing stations to better calibrate the MEP models. This could be done this
summer but planning would need to begin now.
• Has Brewster been approached about sharing costs for Namskaket projects? Yes,
the team has discussed areas of overlap with Brewster. Ms. Sue Leven, Brewster
liaison, added that Brewster could not add a related WA to its May Town
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 10
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
meeting at this point, but Brewster may have available funds that were allocated
to its water planning committee. Brewster also does have a fall Town meeting.
• Orleans Board of Selectmen has tentative plans to meet with the Boards of
Selectmen from Brewster and Eastham in mid-April and could discuss cost
sharing during that meeting. Yes, the upcoming year should also be a focus, since
there are several projects that will need to be completed.
Adaptive Management Plan: Stormwater
• MassDOT needs to be engaged on the stormwater issue. Yes.
• Orleans discussed the upcoming 6A resurfacing with MassDOT.
• Ms. Daley noted that MassDOT runs an impaired waters program that manages a
separate pool of funding for water quality issues related to roadways.
• Will there be additional WA items regarding stormwater? New stormwater
programs should be integrated into the town's existing programs. There was a
$500,000 master plan WA to study the town's storm water assessment and needs.
• Does the existing stormwater program include nitrogen reduction? It addresses
the removal of nutrients existing in the water and prioritizes the outfalls with the
most severe issues. The program is examining various nitrogen removal
technologies.
Adaptive Management Plan: Rock Harbor
• The plan will not immediately target the UAA analysis for Rock Harbor. Yes, as
the Plan is further developed, this need,feasibility and approach to the UAA issue
will be better defined. It will be at least three years until the UAA is formally
broached with DEP and EPA.
• It might be appropriate to formally address the UAA analysis early on in the
process and manage the specifics later. Funds are allocated in the 2017 fiscal
year budget for studying this issue.
Public Involvement: Engagement Plan
• Future groups may face problems or barriers that become roadblocks in
continuing the implementation process. Losing the facilitation budget could
create issues in overcoming these problems.The Board of Selectmen will discuss
a budget for retaining a facilitator if/when necessary.A plan needs to be outlined
in advance to handle issues that could arise during the course of the process. The
plan will also be adaptive by nature, so there will be revisions to the plan as the
process progresses.
• Public engagement includes educating the public about the plan. The town
needs to incorporate public education into the process and focus on public
relations to support the plan.
• There should be a budget for public engagement. [NOTE: A modest contingency
budget of$8,000 has been allocated for public engagement over the next year.]
Program Regulatory Coordination
• Orleans is required to report to the CCC under DRI every two years. The town
needs to update the CCC this year, 2015.
Other Comments and Questions regarding the WAs
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 11
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
• At the One Cape Summit, Chris Killian - VP and Director, CLF Vermont, Clean
Water and Healthy Forests - noted that CLF wants to see action by September
2015. Will the substantial progress made by Orleans provide a compelling case to
DEP, EPA, and CLF?
• Since Orleans is ahead of other towns and has conducted a substantial amount
of preliminary work, regulators and the CLF should be encouraged by the town's
progress. The Town simply needs to identify a WMA by June. The Board of
Selectmen will likely nominate the town as the WMA before the deadline and
then restructure this approach as necessary after the deadline.
• Will the Town's current efforts be sufficient? The CLF also expressed concern
about non-regional solutions, so would the town acting as the WMA address
shared watershed concerns? Mr. Dudley responded that the CLF does not set
policy for the Cape. As the lawsuit was between the CLF and the EPA, the
resolution is also between them. If Orleans continues to make progress and
address the water quality issue in good faith, it should not need to concern itself
with CLF or regulatory action.
• The CLF modified its positions on WMAs at the end of the One Cape Summit,
noting that the model of towns acting as WMA5 with multiple shared
intermunicipal agreements (IMAs) among them could be promising.
• The CLF will examine the fifteen Cape towns on a relative basis, and Orleans'
progress is comparatively robust. The town is accomplishing what it reasonably
can manage within the set timeframe. Ms. Daley noted that the CCC is holding
meetings in April, May, and June to focus on the issue of WMA designation and
IMAs. Orleans'process is consistent with the CCC's planned approach.
• Could this Orleans' plan be compressed to begin improving water quality more
quickly?
• Given affordability issues and Town Meeting logistics, the set schedule seems
reasonable. It is also important for the Town to manage a realistic set of tasks
each year over the next three to ensure the process is conducted correctly.
• How many WAs will the plan be contained in? This has not yet been decided.
• The WAs will be published on April 10th, with the Board of Selectmen discussing
them in depth this evening, March 11`h. As the OWQAP observes the
development of the WAs, it should send the Board of Selectmen comments to
ensure the WAs reflect the group's consensus agreement.
• At the end of this initial three-year phase, what other tasks will remain before
projects can be constructed? One or two demonstration projects could be
constructed in 2017. The new wastewater plant will be designed in 2018/2019,
with construction beginning in 2020 and lasting one and half years.
FINANCIAL PLANNING
Mr. Doug Gardener, Pioneer Consulting Group, reviewed the financial planning process
and potential financial scenarios. He emphasized that, while the financial model draws
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 12
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
on actual financial numbers, he is still refining the outcomes. Mr. Gardner began by
explaining the status of the financial plan and the plan's underlying methodology before
highlighting key variables and decision metrics. Mr. Gardener presented seven rate
scenarios with varying betterments, bond periods, interest rates on SRF bonds, grant or
debt forgiveness, and annual septage revenues. He clarified that the purpose of the
sample financial cases is not to define specific options or recommendations for revenue
generation, but rather to illustrate the broad range of each of the financial variables,
and the sensitivity and potential impact on residential and commercial customers of
various combinations of the financial variables. Mr. Gardner explained that the financial
plan and resulting customer rates would be defined over the next two years as
additional studies and demonstration projects are completed and financial-funding
avenues are pursued. He commented that the current scenarios fund O&M costs
through user fees, resulting in high amounts that need to be lowered, possibly through
the tax rate. Mr. Domenica noted that this was a work in progress, with more evaluation
of options to come.
The OWQAP offered the following questions and comments about the financial planning
process and financial scenarios. Bullets represent comments and questions of individual
Panel members, not views of the group as a whole. Consultant responses are in italics.
• Most of the cases have a 20% betterment rate. How was this level chosen? The
betterment rate could be set at a variety of levels. 20% was chosen as a baseline.
The original CWMP assumed a 20%rate. The rate used by Orleans will be defined
as various alternatives are investigated.
• Does the 20% betterment rate seem realistic to the Board of Selectmen?
It has not discussed this issue yet. Assuming a certain betterment rate at this
state of the process would be premature.
• How was the 2% affordability rate selected?. Under the Clean Water Act, 2% of
Median Household income, along with other affordability indicators, is a general
benchmark for the point at which household expenditures become a "high
burden".
• Since the Panel agreed on septage revenue, it should be included in every
financial scenario. It will be included. These scenarios were developed before this
agreement. The Board of Selectmen still has not officially agreed on the Plan.
• What are the criteria for establishing connection charge rates? The numbers in
these scenarios are placeholders, but the real rate will need to be determined,
likely based on engineering studies of actual costs to connect system customers.
• Is the connection fee the actual cost of connecting a house to the sewer system?
Yes.
• There could be criteria to defray the costs of connection charges. Possibly. Town
financing of connection costs will be considered, although this approach has
been applied historically more often to betterment fees.
• Is the connection charge paid once or is it a spread out payment? Connection
charges are generally paid once, but if the connection and betterment charges
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 13
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
will be high, other options should be discussed as well. Some communities
finance the connection and/or betterment charges and collect the money back
over time. The town will need to decide on the preferred approach.
• Barnstable County has funds for Title V upgrades that could be used to finance
sewer connections. Yes, there are multiple financing options to consider.
• What is the current annual septage revenue from Tri-Town? The revenue totals
around$1 million, with Orleans generating 25%of the revenue.
• Given the current septage revenue, the new treatment plant may be unable to
generate the projected $880,000 annual revenue. This figure is based on an 11-
12 cent cost per gallon and assumes the continued service of the existing
customer base- the team will test a range of fees that fit with market conditions
and maximize revenue to the Town..
• Can this revenue be generated at a 22,000-gpd level? It likely can be generated.
• Septage volume is driven by the season, peaking in the summer and decreasing
during the winter. Thus, a conservative septage projection should be used. The
projected revenue is averaged across the year. The number also accounts for
drop in septage due to increased sewering.
• While the projections assume the new plant will be open all year, Tri-Town only
accepts septage on weekdays.
• The septage revenue projections seem accurate. Other towns could also pay a
nitrogen premium for their septage, which will generate additional revenue while
representing the true value of the service to the others towns.
• The line reading "interest rates on SRF bonds" should read "interest rates and
principal on SRF bonds." This will be revised.
• Why are the capital costs reduced in scenario four? Case four assumes a 30-year
bond but only reflects 20 years of payment. The total cost of the 30-year bond is
greater due to the additional ten years of principal.
• Why are cases five and six the same if case six includes a 25%grant? Both cases
have grants, but the grants are reflected in different time periods.
• The original CWMP entailed approximately $152 million in capital costs and cost
around $240-250 million in total. This plan only costs $143 million. The public
should be informed of this plan's significant cost benefit.
• The cost between the two plans is not equivalent, since that scenario would still
owe a third of the bond. Correct. For this preliminary assessment the intent was
to develop only general ranges of rates for the first 20-years. Exact equivalence in
amortization periods will be made as the analyses evolve.
• This plan still achieves significant savings. Given inflation, the $150 million
capital cost of the original CWMP would be around $185 million today. Thus, this
hybrid plans costs 40% less than the original CWMP.
• Since the change in environmental regulations allows for 25% principal
forgiveness, the town would not need to find a 25%grant, as detailed in case six.
Yes, grants and debt forgiveness provide essentially the same benefit, although
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 14
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
the actual timing of notification of the grant would be an advantage over debt-
forgiveness.
• Could the costs be broken down to a cost per customer or house? Yes.The
Downtown and Meetinghouse Pond service areas will be divided into commercial
and residential areas.
• There are less sewered properties in the hybrid plan than in the original CWMP,
which will affect the cost structure. Yes. A special assessment charged to certain
commercial customers to account for the benefit of the sewer system will reduce
the costs for other customers.
• Some residents will only be subject to fees applied to NTs, while others will be
subject to all of the fees, so there will be wide range of costs. Yes, this will all
need to be examined. For now, the team is analyzing costs at a macro-level.
• The Panel previously discussed charging properties that are not located within
NT or sewered areas. Yes, this financial planning factors in an assessment for
customers not serviced by the Downtown WWTF. This fee is reflected in the
$1625 placeholder "benefit fee"paid by unconnected customers.
• How will the plan account for citizens whose properties are not located within
either NT or Downtown areas?All residents will benefit from NTs. There might be
sewered and un-sewered resident charges. Un-sewered would pay the benefit fee.
• Flow also factors into this issue of what to charge to whom. Some municipalities
use equivalent residential units for flow. This factors into the betterment fee.
• Orleans should use consultants to determine rate structures. Yes, these cases
highlight the sensitivity of costs. The town will need to use all of the presented
financial programs to create an affordable system. The fees will also be adjusted
as the plan is further developed.
• Is the net property tax an average rate? It is based on the number of customers,
and is therefore a tax on the average house value. The actual tax would depend
on the actual value of a property.
• The new wastewater treatment plant should not be referred to as "Tri-Town," in
order to prevent confusion. It could potentially be called the "Downtown" plant.
• Does the cost per customer include annualization of the one-time charges? No.
• Did the CWMP's costs include annualization of the one-time charges? No.
WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS
Ms. Smith told the Panel she would draft a shorter summary of the Consensus
Statement for publication in the Cape Codder and Cape Cod Times and develop a flyer
version. She will also revise the language within the Conceptual Map. She will
distributed these documents to the Stakeholders and will need them to quickly provide
input to meet publication deadlines. A participant noted that the Cape Codder and Cape
Cod Times have different rules for article word limits. Another member recommended
that the OWQAP hold an informational session during an evening in May in addition to
the Orleans Citizens Forum to further share the results of the process. A Panelist
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 15
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
commented that an evening meeting could also attract younger residents. The group
mentioned Snow Library and Episcopal Church as potential venues for the session. In
addition, the Panel discussed that members should not release the financial information
at this point in the process but can provide their perspectives on the range of key
financial issues to their constituents. Others added that the total financial cost would
likely be misinterpreted as it represents a 20-year payment period and is also still under
development.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The public provided the following comments Bullets represent comments and questions
of audience members. They do not reflect the view of the group as a whole. Consultant
responses are in italics.
• The middle school auditorium could provide a good venue for the OWQAP's
informational forum.
• The OWQAP has accomplished a great deal and developed a complicated
vocabulary. The group needs to translate the complexity of the plan and the
vocabulary into several main points to make it accessible to voters.
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 16
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
Appendix A
Attendance
Stakeholder Representatives and Alternates:
Category Name
Selectman Sims McGrath
Selectman Alan McClennen
Selectman David Dunford
Former CWMP Committee Judith Bruce
Citizen Peer Review Committee Mark Fiegler
Orleans Chamber of Commerce Sid Snow
Orleans Ponds Coalition Jim McCauley
Orleans Taxpayer Association Dale Fuller
Orleans Water Alliance Jeff Eagles
Orleans CAN Doug Fromm
Liaisons and Alternates:
Category Name
Cape Cod Commission Patty Daley
DEP Brian Dudley
Orleans Finance Committee Joshua Larson
Orleans Shellfish and Waterways Suzanne Phillips
Orleans Water Quality Task Force Carolyn Kennedy
Tri-Town Board of Managers John Kelly
Orleans Conservation Trust Kris Ramsay
Orleans Water and Sewer Board John Meyer
Orleans Community Partnership Peter Haig
Town of Brewster Representative Sue Leven
Brewster Conservation Commission Virginia (Ginny) lannini
Orleans Conservation Commission Steve Phillips
Town of Eastham Representative Sandy Bayne
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 17
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes
Eastham Health Jane Crowley
Alternates and Public:
Lynn Bruneau
Tom Bryan
Jane Corlette
Ed Eichner
Kevin Galligan
Charles Harris
Laura Kelley
Fran McClennen
Larry Minear
Robert Moore
Mark Owen
Ginia Pati
Thomas Porece
Michal Russo
Len Short
Bruce Taub
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 18
Meeting twelve(3/11/15):Approved Minutes