Loading...
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