Forum: BOLTON LAKES SEWER PROJECT

First Selectman Robert Morra and others involved in the Bolton Lakes Sewer Project have offered to answer your questions about the project in this forum.

  PROJECT SUMMARY & FINANCIAL DETAILS
       (BLRWPCA website)

A REMINDER: This is a Q & A forum; please use it only to ask relevant questions, not to post opinions. Thank you!

Robert Vaughn - April 7, 2008

Q: IS THIS PROJECT EVER GOING TO TO TAKE PLACE? I HAVE NOT READ OR HEARD OF ANY START/FINISH TIME LINE. IS THE TOWN OF BOLTON GOING TO DRAG ITS FEET UNTIL IT LOOSES SOME OF THE FUNDING, CONSTRUCTION COST ARE RISING DAILY WITH THE HIGHER COST OF FUEL, WAGES, ETC. IT IS NOT GOING TO GET ANY BETTER. I HAVE BEEN HEARING FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS THE SEWERS ARE COMMING. I DONT THINK I WILL SEE SEWERS IN MY LIFE TIME ANYWHERE IN THE BOLTON AREA. THANKS.

Ed DelSignore - June 7, 2007

Q: Project status questions:

1) What is the staus of the project at this time?

2) What are the three next milestones? Please provide Description and Dates.

3) How much funding has been received from all sources to date?

4) How much has been spent up to this point?

Joyce Stille, administrative officer - Sept. 23, 2005

A: In response to Ms. Healy's question: Stonehedge is not part of the project. A large map is located at the Town Hall which shows the proposed sewer area.

Joyce Stille, administrative officer - Sept. 23, 2005

A: In response to Mr. Allsop's questions: An individual on the sewer system will need to pay the BLRWPCA on an annual basis the user fee (estimated at $450 per equivalent dwelling unit), a one time cost for installation and the crushing of their old septic tank (estimated between $500 and $1,500) and the sewer benefit assessment ($10,000) which can be financed over 20 years at 2% interest ($612 per year). They as well as the rest of the property owners in Bolton will still need to pay the Town of Bolton their normal property taxes. The 0.35 mils from general taxation will become part of the budget process as an obligation (expenditure) of the town to the BLRWPCA. This is what the language in the financing ordinance addresses. The language has been developed and endorsed by DEP officials, town attorneys, bond counsels, Rural Development officials, town officials and the state Treasurer's Office.

Carol Healy - Sept. 18, 2005

Q: Where can I see a list of affected streets? The online Map does not enlarge to show all of them. Is Stonehedge Drive affected?

Keith Allsop - Sept. 16, 2005

Q: The BLRWPCA is financially backed by Bolton and Vernon. It will, in part, use revenue collected from the normal property tax assessment process that funds each town. Will town residents write two checks - one for normal town operation, the other for BLRWPCA? What about residents who connect to the sewer - are the extra fees (sewer use fee, etc.) added to the single property tax bill or on a separate bill?

If it is only one bill, will the extra BLRWPCA revenue (say 0.35 mills for Bolton residents not on the sewer line) be immediately transferred to a BLRWPCA controlled account? I'd like to see that in black and white, with a binding legal statement to back it up.

Joyce Stille, administrative officer - Sept. 16, 2005

A: In response to Ed DelSignore's question: Unfortunately, it is difficult to say what funding may be available in the future. For discussion purposes, the Rural Development grant/loan program is probably the most uncertain. If the $5,922,000 is removed from the equation, the impact on the mil rate goes from the .35 or $1,606,985 to .87 or $4,844,515. This is still at the 2% rate since that is what the Clean Water Fund is. I hope this helps!

Ed DelSignore - Sept. 11, 2005

Joyce Stille, thank you for the response. My question, however, was intended to obtain an estimate of the mill rate impact and cost to the taxpayers as a whole should the referendum fail to be approved. The requested information should be made available to indicate the potential impact to the town's financial picture and to those in the Lake area who would be doubly affected.

Q: To rephrase my question: What would be the mill rate effect for the sewer project if Bolton has to Bond its share of the 17 million Dollar project without grants but still utilizing the $ 10000 per unit betterment assessments? In other words an $8,560,000 bond.

The $8,560,000 figure is derived by taking Bolton's share of the 17 million dollar project cost (0.71X $17,000,000=$12,070,000) and subtracting the assessment total ($10,000 x 351units = $3,510,000). To reiterate my question: What would be the mill rate required to satisfy that value bond for 20 years at 4% interest?

Joyce Stille, administrative officer - Sept. 8, 2005

A: In response to Ed DelSignore's question: I wish I could provide an exact dollar amount as you have requested. Mr. Joshua Hawks-Ladds responses have attempted to answer your question. Various funding sources are anticipated. Currently the Town qualifies for a grant from Rural Development for up to almost $6 million. This is the largest grant for the project. We cannot state whether or not this grant will available in the future.

Joyce Stille, administrative officer - Sept. 8, 2005

A: In response to JH: I invite JH to meet with me to discuss the project in more detail.

1. The impact on the mill rate is .35 mils. This is over the 20 year life of the loan not a yearly increase.

2. Manchester is charging us the same rate as it does its users. The rate has remained fairly stable but none of us can predict the future. Just about everything costs more down the road. Public hearings are needed if there are any proposed increases.

3. The .35 mils impact can be extrapolated to various assessments. The $10,000 per EDU is a sewer benefit assessment that only people in the service area will pay and can be financed at 2% for 20 years. In your $300,000 example, the $11,055 to $12,055 is only if someone pays off the assessment right away. In years 2 to 20, they would then pay $555/year. If financed, this same scenario financed would be $1,667 to $2,667 in the first year of the life of the loan and in years 2 to 20, $1,167/year.

4. Location is to be determined, but in general vicinity of Bolton Notch Pond and DOT garage. It is proposed to be a 16' by 20' building that will operate on electricity but will have a back-up generator (probably diesel). It may be visible from Route 44, but screened with plantings but not visible from Bolton Lakes. No noticeable noise except perhaps when standby engine-generator is operating. Odor control will be provided.

5. These properties are not part of the project. The state has restricted the project in the Towns as to what can be served with this system. Maps of the propesed project's sewer area can be viewed at the Town Hall and are part of Fuss & O'Neill Inc's report.

6. Six different alternatives were studied including the sewer line to Vernon before the more cost effective system was chosen. Fuss & O'Neill Inc, the consulting engineers prepared a detailed report entitled "Bolton Lakes Wastewater Management Study, Towns of Vernon and Bolton." The report can be viewed at the Bentley Memorial Library and Town Hall.

7. I believe the Bolton Land Trust information refers to residential development not commercial development which could be a part of this project. It is not relevant to this project which is required by the DEP due to the potential pollution concerns. The report cited in number 6 does address the cost analysis.

The primary reason for the sewer project is that on-site septic systems are inadequate as a long term solution because of the very small size of lots in the service area, shallow groundwater, poorly draining soils and proximity to both drinking water wells and the Bolton Lakes. Engineering studies have concluded off-site disposal is needed and DEP is requiring the Towns to follow these conclusions.

8. Budgets are always a concern. In this case as with some of the state education mandates, the Towns are bound by the DEP Consent Order to install sewers. At this time, it is anticipated that over 50% of the $17 million project cost will be paid by grants.

9. Citizen input was involved from the beginning of this project, as several citizens were on the Technical Advisory Committee. Furthermore, there have been numerous public meetings, hearings and other public educational efforts since the mid 1990's on the project, not just the August 16 event. The Bolton Lakes Regional Water Pollution Control Authority has 5 members and 2 alternates from Bolton and 3 members and 1 alternate from Vernon. The list of members is posted at www.blrwpca.com

10. The report cited in response to number 6 contains the background information as to the project need. Please also see the answer to number 7 as to primary reason.

Ed DelSignore - Sept. 5, 2005

Q: The cost estimates for the project assume the voters approve the referendum and Bolton receives the grants available have all been discussed elsewhere. What would be the effect on the mill rate if the referendum fails? For this question, the answer should assume the same total cost, the same proportion or assessment to the affected property owners and a 20 year bond but at 4% instead of 2%. All other variable should be held constant. Any potential fines should not be included since it is questionable whether they would or could be included in a bond.

JH has asked some interesting questions and to date we have not seen any response. The forum loses its impact if the responders are not going to be responsive.

As an afterthought, It is wondered ( naively and somewhat with tongue in cheek) if there would be enough gumption in town to take the DEP and the State to task after this project is started to reclaim our costs for the under funded mandate, vis a vis the States' suit for NCLB?

JH - Aug. 30, 2005

Q: I could not attend the hearing the other night but have the following questions that I hope can be answered on this forum.

1. What will cost of the general tax increase be to the taxpayer of this project, beyond the first year?

Information on the town web site indicates that the mill rate impact will be .035. Does this mean for every year of the bond the mill rate increase for this project will be .035 or will the mill rate impact change during the life of the bond? I know that with the school building project the mill rate increased each year over time and then decreased near the end of the bond.

2. What will be the usage fee for the sewers over time?

The town web site indicates that for the first year, the usage fee will be $450. Certainly the usage fee will not stay fixed. What are the anticipated increases in this user fee over time? If the actual figures are not known, what can be expected based on rate increases in other comparable sewer districts?

3. Isn't the true cost of this project for those who will use the sewers really as follows?

.035 mill tax increase (which may go up over the life of the bond--see question number 1 above); plus

for sewer installation at the house site, approx. $612.00 per year for 20 years which equals $12,240 (or a lump sum payment of $10,000) up front; plus

approx. $450.00 per year user fee (which may go up over time÷see answer question 2 above); plus

a $500.00 to $1500.00 hook up fee.

This totals approximately $11,055 to $12,055 per household (in the first year for a house valued at $300,000), or if a 20-year lien were placed against your home for the $10,000 installation fee, then the total would range from $1,667 to $2,667 for the first year for a house valued at $300,000.

(I think is it more accurate to reflect the tax impact based on homes valued at more than $100,000 because with the recent property reassessment, lake property values have skyrocketed.)

4. The town web site indicated that this sewer system is not a "gravity" system but instead a "low pressure fluid" system with grinding of the sewerage at each source household. It also mentions that a pumping station will be located west of the lakes to pump the sewerage.

Where specifically, will this pumping station be located? How large will it be? Will it generate noise? Will it be operated by electricity of diesel fuel? Will it produce sewage smell from venting or smell from the fuel used for the pumping device? Will the pumping station be visible from the road or the lake? Will it have a smoke stack that produces unsightly smoke and fumes?

5. What is the feasibility of using this sewer line to develop the Fish Family Farm and the Treat Tree Farm, (for either residential or commercial use) which are less than 1 mile from the sewer line's path, if a decision is made to run this sewer line up Route 85 to these properties?

By feasibility, I mean is the sewer line that is being installed for the lake properties sufficiently large enough to handle additional growth along properties adjacent to the sewer line's path? The town web site indicates that the Route 44 sewer path was selected so that development of the Route 44 corridor in Bolton could occur. How much development in the Route 44 corridor is being planned? Does the Route 44 corridor include or exclude the Fish and Treat Farms, as well as the large amount of undeveloped land next to Three J's Restaurant (the former site of the Bolton Cider Mill) and the large parcels of undeveloped land on Box Mountain off of Cider Mill Road? If any infrastructure changes to the sewer line would be necessary to allow for development at the Fish and Treat farm (or other adjacent land), what would these changes be and what would they cost the individual homeowners of Bolton in terms of tax increase to improve the sewer infrastructure? I am speaking of upfront infrastructure and construction costs only.

When answering these questions on development costs, please do not factor in currently unknown increases in the tax base from future growth as this is not yet a given and would otherwise be irrelevant to upfront cost associated with construction and installation.

6. Why can't the sewer line take a path through Vernon and connect with the Vernon sewer treatment plant?

In a previous posting, Mr. Roscoe from the BOF indicated that the answer to this question was "gravity." He also indicated that pumping stations would be needed if the sewer line went through Vernon. Since the town web site has indicated the sewer line is not a "gravity" based system, and that a pumping station in Bolton west of the lake will also be needed for the Route 44 path, these do not seem to be valid reasons to select the Bolton Route 44 route. Why can't the sewer line go through Vernon instead of through Bolton? Please answer this question from a technical perspective, not from the perspective that commercial growth along the Route 44 corridor in Bolton is a requirement for this project.

7. Has anyone done any research on the COST SAVINGS of picking a sewer path that would NOT encourage economic and residential growth in Bolton, even if choosing that path (through Vernon) would initially cost more to install? I know from reading the Bolton Land Trust information that there is actually a savings to the town for every acre of buildable land that is not developed. The cost of development (with the demand for services that that development brings) is often outweighed by the limited taxes that development brings in.

There seems to be a nondescript plan to bring more development to Bolton by selecting the Route 44 path for the sewer line. Don't forget that with added growth, also comes the need for more taxes to pay for additional fire, police, education, land use planning, environmental monitoring, and environmental clean up services. When development does occur, taxes often still go up. Just look at the tax increases in Manchester even after the substantial development of the Buckland Hills Mall area. In this poor economy, substantial economic growth in Bolton is also not at all a certainty. There are large commercial sites in Manchester that are in decline or vacant (such as the Manchester Parkade and Main Street area) making the hope of sustained and substantial commercial growth along Route 44 in Bolton questionable.

Allegedly, the reason we need the sewers is to improve the lake's water quality. However, in being asked to select the Rt. 44 path through Bolton aren't we also being asked to change the character of Bolton forever by encouraging urban sprawl in return for a quick (but perhaps short-sighted) tax buck? We allegedly have to sewer the lake, but where the sewers go is up to us. The State cannot be "blamed" for telling us where to actually place the sewers, just for insisting that we need them. Do we necessary have to spread urban sprawl to Bolton if, in the long run, this option may actually cost more and increase taxes due to the need for more services associated with added growth?

Could data on the long term and short-term costs/savings associated with the Bolton (pro-growth) and Vernon (limited growth) sewer routes be placed on the Town Sewer Web Site? Was this analysis even done?

8. Although much of the literature on the town web site claims that this sewer project is a "good financial deal," will the average homeowner really be able to afford the cost of this project in light of all the other needs in town that will undoubtedly push up taxes in the future? Has there been any long term financial planning done by town officials to account for and control overall future town service costs so that the increases in taxes for this sewer project (when added to additional increases for other services) will not create an unacceptable tax burden for homeowners in future years? The cost of this sewer project cannot be looked at in isolation from the other needs of the town and projected tax increases that will be necessary to pay for all needed town services in the future.

For example, the BOE says that the Center School is currently unable to offer a highly recommended full day kindergarten program because of a lack of teachers and classroom space. The BOE also says that Bolton High School needs to be desperately upgraded and requires more space. There are already approximately 90 new homes being planned or that have been approved in Bolton that will also substantially increase the number of school age children in town. Bolton school classes, however, are at optimum sizes. When school enrollment goes up (and it will go up based on the new housing coming into town) class size could be increased instead of hiring more teachers, but that is not the most desirable option. If new classroom teachers are added, personnel cost will increase as well as the need for a building expansion.

However, as you are aware, the people of Bolton were unable to fully fund the BOE's initial budget increase (that would have contributed to a 10% tax increase). As a result of the budget that was finally approved after repeated referendums, the BOE decided to cut classroom teachers and eliminate programs for students. The townspeople were also unable to approve the BOS's request for funding, resulting in the BOS closing Indian Notch Park, cutting senior transportation and cutting funding for fire and police services. The Town Library Commission says the library needs to be expanded, and town officials claim that the Town Hall needs to be either upgraded or replaced. The currently vacant town owned Rose Farm also needs funds for maintenance, renovations, and improvements.

Has anyone spoken to the BOE (the largest spender in town) and developed a long term financial plan to ensure that future BOE request for funds will hold spending to a minimum increase (e.g. 0%-2%) or even be reduced so that the taxpayer will be able to afford the increases associated with the sewer project? One way that the BOE could cut spending without affecting the quality of education is to ask the teachers union and administrators to give back or reduce their cost of living raises and step increases in wages. Many property owners have not received wage increases for many years yet are being asked to pay increased taxes so that teachers and administrators can receive pay increases. Now more taxes are being requested from the townspeople for this sewer project. There may be contracts in place with the teachers union, but as we all know and have experienced, contracts in both the public and private sector can be "reopened" and "renegotiated" to achieve new and necessary savings. Why isn't the BOE asking teachers and administrators to help achieve salary savings so that overall town spending can be controlled that will help the sewer project be approved.

A long-term financial plan could also encourage the BOE to make a good faith effort to keep other educational costs down. For example, the BOE could change the school day and school calendar to maximize school hours in warm weather months in exchange for shortening school days and school weeks during the peak heating winter season. This would most certainly save on oil and electric costs that are again forecast to rise astronomically this winter.

Without long term cooperative financial planning between the different boards and officials in town, all of who are competing for the same limited tax dollar, this sewer project has a high probability of being defeated. What assurances are the taxpayers in town being given that even though this project may be a "good financial deal" when looked in isolation, future overall tax rates will not spiral out of control when the cost of the sewers for the next 20 years is added to other increases for services (like education)?

What long term financial plan has been made by our elected officials to this end? If there is such a plan, can it be placed on the Town Sewer Web Site for the public to review before the sewer referendum?

9. Why was this sewer referendum scheduled in such a way so that if the referendum is defeated, the possibility of federal / state funding is unlikely?

This sewer project is a very important issue that could change the character of Bolton forever, as well as impact the tax base for at least the next 20 years. Although much planning and work appears to have gone into this proposal that is before the public for referendum, it seems unfair to pressure the public into voting "yes" under the threat of no state or federal funding and higher costs to the town if the project is approved later. Open government in a democracy should mean that the public guides the discussion and decision making from the start through completion of the plan. The only public hearing I am aware of on this project was held August 16. The late date of the public hearing gives no time for any substantial revisions of the plan based on public comment.

It would appear the public is being told to accept this project as designed-- or else. This is not good government and for many important and obvious reasons is justification in and of itself to vote "No" for the project. I realize that in voting "No" the project may or may not cost more (see discussion points listed above in question 7). The public must decide if our elected officials need to be reminded that public opinion and public input should matter. A public works project of this magnitude should have had multiple public hearings from the earliest conception of the project to the final recommendation. Public comments should have been solicited on everything from the route of the sewer path to different alternatives of sewerage disposal. A referendum should have also been held on which path the sewers should take. If the project is defeated, which in all likelihood will happen if no overall plan to control total town costs is presented (see question 8 above) we need to remind our elected officials that limited public input and funding threats are not appropriate public policy making tools.

Specifically, who are the Town of Bolton's representatives on the Sewer Authority that devised this timetable? Was he or she elected or appointed? If appointed, who appointed the person(s)? I see from a previous posting that Joshua Hawks Ladd (one of our new selectmen) is some kind of "alternate" on the sewer board. Based on his legal disclaimers, however, he doesn't want to be held accountable for his answers. Who has been making the decisions on this multi-million dollar public works project for Bolton's residents?

10. What evidence does the town or State have to substantiate the sewers are even needed at this time to ensure lake water quality?

The reason I ask this is that over the last 3 years, I have repeatedly checked with the Bolton Land Use Department and the State DEP every summer regarding the quality of the water at the Bolton Lakes. I was assured each and every time by both the town and the State that water from the lake is tested multiple times at multiple locations throughout the summer and that there have never been any pollution or water quality issues at the Bolton lakes. The town beach has never been closed due to water quality issues (although it is closed this year because of a bad economy and a tight budget year). There is no ban prohibiting fishing or the eating of the fish caught in Bolton Lake. Before we all commit to spending millions of dollars over the next 20 years, change the character of Bolton forever by encouraging economic and residential growth along the Route 44 corridor in town, and welcome urban sprawl to Bolton to make a quick (but shortsighted) tax buck, is there even a real water quality issue? If so, why is swimming and fishing still allowed at the lake, as well the use of gasoline outboard motors? Based on the nature of whatever the problem may be, could it be addressed with other less invasive solutions like community septic systems, pesticide and fertilizer bans for property near the lake, and banning gasoline outboard motors?

Again, I find it suspect that until now, all Bolton Land Use Department and State environmental officials have said that the Bolton lakes are in great shape. Now we are being told that we need to build a sewer line through Northern Bolton to encourage economic development and to clean up Bolton Lake. I understand (though don't necessarily agree) with the economic development issue but where is the hard data on the lake's environmental health? When I asked town and state officials, why wasn't I told about poor water quality at Bolton Lake (if, in fact, it really does exist) before I let my child go swimming and fishing there? Could we get these water quality facts "on the table" before we change the character of our town forever and possibly empty our wallets in the process?

Answers to these questions would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Joshua Hawks-Ladds - Aug. 25, 2005

A: Most of the last questions pertained to two issues: cost to the town if the referendum fails and accountability of the BLRWPCA.

On the second question, the BLRWPCA will be accountable to its constituent municipalities. It will receive the lion's share of the funding directly from the grantors. I do not know what its financial reporting structure will be, but as a public agency, I am sure it will be transparent and open to public scrutiny -- like any other agency. I imagine that a monthly accounting would be available to the public -- but the agency is still in its formative stage, and I am only using common sense (and state law) as a guide at this point.

On the issue of how much the project will cost Bolton if the referendum does not pass: it really is just impossible to predict now and we simply do not know what funding would then be available at all and what the civil fines would be. I am not one to guess or speculate (and frankly hope that we won't have to ever do the math), but if you want to be conservative, use the $17,000,000 cost (which of course includes inflation and contingencies and is spread out over the entire financial period and split between the two towns proportionately). Assume that we will not have the state and federal dollars to reduce the cost and will be fined by the DEP. So add another $100,000 or so (that's a guess too). Then use 20 year bonding costs (but not at the 2% rate we could get through the government-approved special rate we would get for an approved project). The picture ain't pretty. Ask Coventry.

And no, I do not think Blumenthal will sue the DEP -- keep in mind that this is a polution abatement issue that the DEP had what is referred to as "substantial evidence" to support its conclusions (which is all it needed). Not too many lawyers would take that case on with that type of legal threshold to overcome.

Jackson Dellabotte - Aug. 24, 2005

Q: As Keith suggested, can some kind of #'s be run as an example to the town of what real impact this could have long run if the referendum would fail. Of course it would be hypothetical but currently it is $5 a year for non sewer affected families. I'm sure that number would rise a whole lot.

Could an informative mailing be sent out that is short and to the point with that example of what it will cost everyone if we let the 5 million slip away? Also it should be very clear that the entire town will then bear the brunt versus people saying just the affected homes would have to make up that difference. To still see those comments being made shows me that some of the public just doesn't get it or is actually simply unaware.

Thank you for the forum!

Dick Tuthill - Aug. 23, 2005

Q: How responsive will the BLRWPCA be to citizens of Bolton and Vernon who demand monthly detailed reports in a lot of detail? Will they simply blow us off since they are a separate non-elected entity? That is a concern.

Keith Allsop - Aug. 23, 2005

Thanks for the replies.

Q: My primary concern is how the BLRWPCA will receive funding from the towns. Ideally, we should receive separate tax assessments for this project and the revenue kept totally away from the town budget. Otherwise, I believe the town yearly budget referendum pressures will result in comingling of revenue and hidden spending increases that will become apparent when the grants stop arriving. Laundering $12M through the Bolton bank account is unwise, if that is how this is going to operate, but I'm not clear on that.

If the referendum fails in one or both towns, there is potentially a huge mill rate consequence for the taxpayers. As it stands now, the general burden to Bolton is expected to be about a 0.35 mill rate increase, with those connecting to the sewer paying for additional installation and operating costs. However, if we lose say $5M in grants, the total rate increase will be more like 1.5mill? (just a guess). That's a lot of cups of coffee per day. Dick is right about the cost consequences of not passing this, but I'm not sure that those living well away from the lake understand the potentially huge cost impact of voting No. Can someone run the numbers?

Hey, can't we get State AG R. Blumenthal to sue the DEP for us? He never saw a lawsuit he didn't like.

Joshua Hawks-Ladds - Aug. 23, 2005

A: I am a member of the Board of Selectmen and an alt. member of the Bolton Regional Lakes Water Pollution Control Authority (BLRWPCA), unofficially, I will attempt to answer a few of the questions posted here. I cannot promise that I will view this forum on a daily basis and respond immediately. But I will pitch in and hopefully, other officials will help me out.

The BLRWPCA meets every 4th Wednesday of the month (some meetings in Vernon, some in Bolton). The public is welcome to attend.

The Selectmen have tentatively planned three informational meetings between now and the referendum of September 27 - one morning, one evening and one Saturday (dates TBD). I will participate at the meeting tentatively scheduled for Friday Sept. 9 at 7:45 AM at town hall.

Most of the questions posted on this forum were addressed at the public hearing on the financing ordinance, but for those people who could not be there here are my (unofficial) responses:

Q: "If the referendum fails, and grant monies (some or all) are lost, who picks up the slack? Obviously the taxpayers, but spread equally or assessed only to those getting hooked to the sewer? I am only asking about the differential cost assuming the referendum fails. The town web site has explained the costs assuming the referendum passes. I assume we have some ideas already in the event of a No outcome on September 27th?"

A: If the referendum fails, and grant monies (some or all) are lost, ALL of the taxpayers of Vernon and Bolton (proportionately) will pick up the tab -- not only those getting hooked to the sewer. If the referendum fails, we cannot yet make any assumptions as to what the tab will be because, in all likelihood, we will have another referendum. Additonally, we cannot predict what the fines will be if the DEP goes to court and seeks civil penalties against the towns (like it did to Coventry in the 1980s) for refusing to abide by the Consent Decree. Suffice it to say that if the referendum does not pass a second time, the towns will pay, but we cannot, at this time, predict how much.

Q: "There will be expeditures above and beyond the expected grant monies. Also, it's possible that the grants themselves will materialize after the corresponding expenditures. How will the sewer project monies be accounted for? At the federal level there is the concept of a general fund where money goes in from wherever (e.g. Social Security surplus) and gets spent on whatever (e.g. massive increase in federal Education Department spending). Robbing Peter to pay Paul is alive and well at the federal level. Old Peter will be broke."

A: The BLRWPCA will be responsible for implementing the project -- not the individual towns. The towns, however, are acting as guarantors of the BLRWPCA's debt (becasue as a new entity, the BLRWPCA does not have anything to secure its indebtedness for the sewer project). The BLRWPCA will be responsible for all accountings and all disclosures relating to the expenditures. The BLRWPCA is made up of appointed individuals from both towns -- See wwww.BLRWPCA.com. It is a separate entity from the two towns. Its funds (i.e. the sewer project funds) will be separate and distinct from the towns' coffers.

Q: "Here in Bolton, how will monies intended for the sewer project be kept separate from general expenditures? The total project cost is estimated at $17M, with Bolton responsible for 71%? That's approx. $12M that will be passing through the towns bank account. How can the town residents be guaranteed that all of these monies are out of bounds for any other purpose? What financial controls are there? We all know what pressures there are every year come budget referendum time, and $12M is out there somewhere.

"I see a risk here that we will end up with a sewer and other spurious spending that gets piggybacked. Then when the grants wind down, our taxes wind up."

A: See response above. The BLRWPCA will be responsible for all aspects of the project -- it is a separate authority created by state statute and town ordinances.

Hope that helped.

Dick Tuthill - Aug. 21, 2005

Q: Keith, I think that your concerns fall into the general area of Project Management. And those are legitimate concerns.

I think that at the very least we need to see the detailed project plans. The Gantt charts done by Primavera or MS Project and the funds flow analysis. Down to the most detailed subtasks. And I think that there should be a monthly review by the Vernon and Bolton townspeople which goes over progress to date, the critical path, what's behind or ahead of schedule, what is under or over budget, as well as a review of why contracts were awarded to whom. A formal monthly PowerPoint presentation with public Q&A by the Project Manager.

We ought to INSIST on this level of public oversight and transparency, because if we don't, there WILL be problems. The prime example of that is the last time we built a school in Bolton.

In the final analysis, however, we really don't have a choice about the bond issue itself. We've gotta do it and we can't mess around with multiple referendums.

Keith Allsop - Aug. 16, 2005

Q: I'll start the ball rolling then.

I wasn't able to attend the public meeting but here are some of the questions that come to my mind.

If the referendum fails, and grant monies (some or all) are lost, who picks up the slack? Obviously the taxpayers, but spread equally or assessed only to those getting hooked to the sewer? I am only asking about the differential cost assuming the referendum fails. The town web site has explained the costs assuming the referendum passes. I assume we have some ideas already in the event of a No outcome on September 27th?

There will be expeditures above and beyond the expected grant monies. Also, it's possible that the grants themselves will materialize after the corresponding expenditures. How will the sewer project monies be accounted for? At the federal level there is the concept of a general fund where money goes in from wherever (e.g. Social Security surplus) and gets spent on whatever (e.g. massive increase in federal Education Department spending). Robbing Peter to pay Paul is alive and well at the federal level. Old Peter will be broke.

Here in Bolton, how will monies intended for the sewer project be kept separate from general expenditures? The total project cost is estimated at $17M, with Bolton responsible for 71%? That's approx. $12M that will be passing through the towns bank account. How can the town residents be guaranteed that all of these monies are out of bounds for any other purpose? What financial controls are there? We all know what pressures there are every year come budget referendum time, and $12M is out there somewhere.

I see a risk here that we will end up with a sewer and other spurious spending that gets piggybacked. Then when the grants wind down, our taxes wind up.

Return to Community Forum