1998-02-17 Minutes of February 17, 1998
THE MATTABASSETT DISTRICT
The monthly meeting of the Board of Directors of The Mattabassett District was
held Tuesday, February 17, 1998 at the Administration Building, Cromwell,
Connecticut. Present from the Town of Cromwell were Directors Mary Konopka and
Doug Sienna. Present from the Town of Berlin were Directors Livio Dottor, Ed
Gentile, and Horace B. Van Dorn. Present from the City of New Britain were
Directors Dominic Badolato, Sebastian Cannamela, James Carey, and Dennis
Taricani. Also present were William Weber - District Counsel, John Batorski -
Operations Manager, Liz Walters - Chemist, and Christian Bratina - Executive
Director.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Dominic Badolato. A roll
call was taken, a quorum was present. Absent were Walter O'Connor and Robert
Scalise.
Minutes of January 20, 1998
Mr. Gentile moved, seconded by Mr. Van Dorn, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the January 20, 1998 meeting be accepted.
Treasurer's Report
Mr. Bratina reviewed the Treasurer's Report. The Expenditures continue to be
below those of last year's, our revenue year-to-date is ahead of last year's, and we
will have a fund surplus if this continues. The Statement of Earnings shows that all
of the assessments have been received, the interest is at 49% of what we have
projected, and Sludge Management is at 82% of what was projected. Mr. Van Dorn
pointed out that on Page 15, the Septic and Sludge Management charges are
reversed. Mr. Bratina concurred and noted that it will be corrected. Mr. Van Dorn
questioned how we stand with the EPA audit. Mr. Bratina responded that we last
provided some additional information in early winter to the accountant for EPA, at
which time he said it looked good but they were working on a couple of other audits.
The EPA auditor is retired and working part time. DEP will not close out the
account until the EPA audit is accepted. Mr. Bratina will give him a call. Mrs.
Konopka stated that two million dollars is a lot of money and someone should write
a letter and see where they stand on this. The letter should come from the Chairman
to reflect that the Board has been concerned about the status of this situation.
Chairman Badolato stated that if that is the pleasure of the Board, we can put
together a letter coming from the Board and he will be happy to sign it.
Mrs. Konopka moved, seconded by Mr. Van Dorn, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
1
Minutes of February 17, 1998
RESOLVED: That the District write a letter to EPA expressing the Board's
concern with the completion of the audit.
On the Accounts Payable report Mrs. Konopka questioned the $1,208 for Stahlman
Engineering. Mr. Bratina explained that we have been using Steve Gilman of
Stahlman Engineering to assist us with the construction fund reports we are sending
to the EPA auditor. Mr. Gilman had worked for High-Point Schaer, the engineering
firm we hired to take over the construction project engineering from Metcalf &
Eddy. Mrs. Konopka asked when this expenditure was made. Mr. Bratina stated
that the cost was incurred in December. Mr. Bratina explained that the construction
grant process is very complicated, so we have used Steve Gilman of Stahlman
Engineering to help prepare the materials for the EPA auditor. Mrs. Konopka asked
if we have to pay money out. Mr. Bratina reported that we do, he met with Steve
Gilman on December 23, 1997 to prepare another letter to the auditor. We are using
Mr. Gilman to help explain to the auditor why we should get full compensation.
Mrs. Konopka stated that she thought DEP should have all the answers. Mr. Bratina
stated that DEP has been very cooperative, working with us to explain to EPA why
we should get full compensation. However the auditor continues to ask for
additional information.
Mr. Van Dorn moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Treasurer's Report dated January 1, 1998 to January 31,
1998 be accepted and placed on file for audit.
Budget Statement
Mr. Bratina reviewed the Budget Statement. Liability Insurance is at 95% of the
budget because we pay the insurance once per year, as we do also for Workers
Compensation. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel is at 87% because we filled our tank this
year. Buildings and Grounds is higher than we expected because we bought a
number of expensive items such as a hot water heater, gate and fence along the trunk
sewer, elevator repair, replacement of thermostats, emergency lighting, etc. Overall
the expenditures are at 50% which is quite good at this point in time. Mrs. Konopka
stated we should be at 58%, why do we spend less money every year? Our salaries
are higher this year than last year, and expenses increase, why would they be lower?
Mr. Bratina reported that there are a couple of reasons, there is a lot of variation
year-to-year and within the year we may make some large expenditures. In
November and December of the prior fiscal year, we had to shut down the
incinerator for repairs. This year we are planning on shutting down the incinerator
in March, at which time we will have to pay for hauling sludge offsite. Mrs.
Konopka clarified that even though we are only at 50% it is maybe not entirely
accurate because we will have bills we need to pay. The only month that we spent
more this year than last year was September. Mrs. Konopka stated that she would
spend more every year. Mr. Bratina stated that this cost containment is a tribute to
2
Minutes of February 17, 1998
our staff, they do a good job cutting costs. There is a lot of variation year-to-year,
for instance this year we have spent more on fuel for the FBI than we have in
previous years, and later in the year we may have some additional costs.
Mr. Cannamela moved, seconded by Mr. Gentile, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Budget Statement be approved.
Accounts Payable Report
Mr. Sienna questioned Fringe Benefits, employee retirement. Mr. Bratina reported
that some retirees receive medical insurance through us and pay us for it. Mr.
Taricani questioned Connecticut Testing Labs. Mr. Bratina reported that we send a
number of samples to Connecticut Testing, such as aquatic toxicity testing, some of
the metals that we cannot test in-house, etc. Mr. Taricani questioned the petty cash
check written out to Diane Leeman. Mr. Bratina reported that when our staff buys
something, such as a part, we take cash out of a petty cash box, and then at the end
of the month we write a check to the petty cash custodian, who cashes it and puts the
money in the box. Mrs. Konopka questioned the Monster Board employment ad.
Mr. Bratina responded that we placed two ads, one for the Plant Superintendent and
one for the Staff Engineer. Chairman Badolato noted that the committee had
decided to advertise for both and then a decision would be made.
Staff Reports
Mr. Bratina reported that we hosted a meeting here with NETCO, MDC, and Vernon
to review testing of outside materials. DEP's Permit section is trying to establish
standards for industrial waste which are much more stringent then for municipal
waste. From a public health standard, it shouldn't matter whether it is a municipal
or industrial waste. We also met with DEP and it will probably take us six or eight
months to work out.
Mr. Bratina reported that we had a public information meeting on the regionalization
study in Cromwell, with a number of Directors present. The meeting went very
well, there were a lot of good questions. We would rather have the public ask the
questions up front and try to deal with issues. Malcolm Pirnie and Maguire are
proceeding with the engineering study. We asked Malcolm Pirnie to take a look at
the outfall structure to see if we could modify it to reduce the occasional foam.
Malcolm Pirnie's odor expert visited the plant and will be coming back for a more
in-depth tour.
Mr. Bratina reported that the plant effluent quality was good during January. We
had to bypass 5.9 million gallons of primary effluent on January 24th due to high
flows from the heavy rain and the snow melt which exceeded our maximum
capacity. We have been discussing the peak flow problem with our towns for the
3
Minutes of February 17, 1998
last several years. We send them letters when we have these peak flows to reiterate
that we can't handle them and that we are expecting the towns to reduce the
Infiltration & Inflow (I&I). The towns are providing more realistic peak flow
numbers for the regionalization study which will be incorporated in any new plant
expansion. Mr. Van Dorn asked if DEP and EPA are as concerned as they used to be
about the flow. Mr. Bratina responded that DEP has sent letters to the towns
expressing concern about their I&I and is funding the towns' I&I studies, which New
Britain, Berlin, and Cromwell are in the midst of. New Britain's seems to be coming
along faster than Berlin's and Cromwell's. Mr. Van Dorn stated that if you have a
bad situation you can improve it a lot in a hurry. Mr. Bratina responded that New
Britain's is a difficulty system, they have had engineers working on I & I studies for
many years and have spent a lot of money. They seem to be getting better answers
now. Cromwell received a report from Fuss & O'Neil but Mr. Bratina was advised
that Cromwell is not happy with it. Mr. Bratina noted that there is not a big
difference in the peaking factor between New Britain, Berlin, and Cromwell. Mrs.
Konopka commented that she does not think Cromwell's sewers are that bad. Mr.
Bratina reiterated that if you look at the peak flow versus the average flow, there is
not a big difference between New Britain, Berlin and Cromwell. The January
monthly flows for New Britain, Berlin, Cromwell, and Middletown exceeded their
allocations. MDC's was the only one which did not. The effluent quality was within
permit even with the bypass. We do not bypass raw sewage, all the flow receives
primary treatment and most of it secondary treatment. The excess Primary effluent
is blended with the Secondary effluent, and the combination generally meets our
permit.
Mr. Bratina reported that we had no odor complaints during the month. Our
Primary/Secondary sludge is still not dewatering well, but our filter cake solids have
shown some improvement. Mr. Taricani asked what the cake solids are. Mr. Bratina
reported that for January they averaged 21%, which is low from our historical record
but better than most of the waste water treatment plants in Connecticut. Recently it
has improved to about 22%. Annual and semi-annual reports on the operation of the
Fluidized Bed Incinerator were submitted to DEP and EPA. We meet all
requirements, in fact the maximum concentrations for cadmium, chromium, lead and
nickel were less than 0.04% of limit; arsenic and beryllium were less than 0.4%; and
mercury was less than 2%. The District's safety record has continued to be
excellent. Our Injury Frequency rate for 1997 was the lowest we have ever
achieved, less than 38 injuries per million hours, and the Severity Rate continues to
be very low, about 8% of the national average. We received a Workers
Compensation rebate of $3,000 due to our excellent safety record. This is due to our
staff, training, and the cleanliness of the plant.
Mr. Bratina reported that Maintenance and the state inspector had inspected the
Administration Boiler and found that its in poor shape. We will plan to replace it
some time this summer. We had some additional problems with the Bar Racks, one
rack was bent. Maintenance was able to straighten out the bent rack to extend its
4
Minutes of February 17, 1998
useful life. The two Bar Racks were rebuilt in 1988 as part of the secondary
expansion. As we have time, we will put together a bid package to replace them and
the grinders. Both Bar Racks are operational, we normally use one. Maintenance
assigned one Mechanic to work full time on the Preventive Maintenance program
(PM) to reduce the backlog and establish a higher priority for it. The continuity will
improve our efficiency as well. Andritz delivered the new Belt Filter Press (BFP),
which was immediately installed by Spectraserv. AAA Glass is almost done with
the BFP odor enclosure. Maintenance is installing the piping and the electrical
wiring for the control panel. Andritz is scheduled to come in next week to complete
their installation work on the BFP, install the cloths, and then do the performance
testing. The FBI refractory replacement is scheduled to begin March 16th.
Montgomery Watson is completing the Thermal Oxidizer Study, we should get a
draft copy shortly. The Phase 4 Odor Control Study is continuing, we have
reviewed a number of draft reports and will have a review meeting next week.
Mr. Bratina reported that he had Malcolm Pirnie review our laboratory's historical
nitrogen data to fill in blanks in the state's more limited data. Connecticut and New
York are establishing a baseline based on the nitrogen discharged in 1990, and plan
to require a 68% reduction from that number. DEP's limited data of four samples
indicated a 1990 discharge of 2,350 pounds per day, whereas our additional data
indicates the baseline should be higher, around 3,000 pounds per day. We have
requested a revision to that baseline which DEP is looking upon favorably. As part
of the Long Island Sound Study, DEP is proceeding with the Nitrification Program
and will likely require us to reduce our total nitrogen by 68% from the 1990
baseline. To reduce the nitrogen discharged to 960 pounds per day, Malcolm Pirnie
will be designing denitrification into the regional plant expansion study.
•
Mr. Bratina reported that with our higher unit charges to Montville, they began
hauling sludge to both MDC and Cranston Rhode Island decreasing the amount we
receive by 42%. Montville has also gotten their filamentous bacteria under control,
and trained their staff to run their Rotary Screen Thickener (RST) slower which
gives them a thicker sludge. Now they are trying to add less polymer. As of yet, we
have not seen any significant change in the dewaterability of their sludge. Mr.
Taricani asked what a filamentous bacteria is. Mr. Bratina responded that
filamentous bacteria are long, hairlike organisms that keep the sludge floc from
coming together and settling well. If there are too many filaments, they can cause
floc to float over the clarifier weirs at high flows. If there are too few filaments,
you get a very turbid effluent. So we want some, but not too many. Mrs. Konopka
asked if we were going to continue to take the Montville sludge or if it was going
back to the Engineering Committee to get some proof of them improving their
sludge. Mr. Bratina responded we have advised them of our conditions and they
expect to select an engineering firm to help them improve their operation in March.
We will need to see that there is going to be an improvement to continue taking their
sludge. Mrs. Konopka questioned the function of the Bar Racks and asked if both
should be running all the time. Mr. Bratina explained that we need to have one Bar
5
Minutes of February 17, 1998
Rack running at a time and the other one available for use. If the one in use has a
broken shear pin or something fails, we can switch to the other one. The Bar Rack
looks like a bunch of fingers going down to strain the water to keep logs, cans, and
debris from damaging or plugging the pumps. A rake is drawn up the rack to pull
out the rags and debris which are collected. This material goes through a grinder to
chop it up. Mrs. Konopka asked if it is not working and catching the stuff, wouldn't
that have an adverse effect on the water going through and cause a back up in the
pipe. Mr. Bratina responded that that would cause a back up in the pipe, but
historically it hasn't happened. Mrs. Konopka asked what we ment by saying
additional problems were experienced due to a bend in the rack and maintenance was
able to straighten out the rack to extend its useful life. During those repairs only
one was being used. Mrs. Konopka stated that she had seen the bar racks and does
not think they are the best looking things she has ever seen and does not understand
why they haven't been replaced due to the fact that it could cause serious clogs
which would cause problems. Chairman Badolato asked if both are operational. Mr.
Bratina responded that they are both operational. Chairman Badolato asked how old
they are. Mr. Bratina responded that the frame and housing date back to 1968.
Metcalf & Eddy, as part of the plant expansion, refurbished them in 1988 replacing
the racks, chains, and sprockets. As part of our normal maintenance, we have
replaced the chain periodically and made other modifications and repairs. At this
point in time, the whole structure needs to be replaced. There are a number of
different types of Bar Racks. We have solicited information and received several
proposals, and now we need to find the time to review the options and determine
which type is most appropriate for our application. We want to take the rags out and
grind them, but we don't want a Bar Rack that will overload the grinder or bring up
too much grit. Excessive grit will wear out the grinder teeth rapidly. Mrs. Konopka
agreed that Mr. Bratina does not have the time and we do not know if we will find
an engineer, and asked if we can hire a consultant to come in and figure it out and
get an RFP together. Mr. Bratina concurred that we do not have time in house to
quickly make a selection, write the specifications, and bid it. It would take us
several months to do. Mrs. Konopka stated that we should have someone come in
who knows how to do the specifications and consult with our staff and do what ever
it is that we do since we do not have the time to do it. Mr. Bratina stated that if we
are not going to add an engineer to the staff soon, he would recommend this
approach. It will probably cost around $10,000 to $15,000 to hire an engineering
firm to design it. Mrs. Konopka suggested that we don't need to spend that much,
we don't need a whole firm to get this together. Mr. Van Dorn stated that we should
get a Staff Engineer. Chairman Badolato asked what the life expectancy of a bar
rack is. Mr. Bratina reported that the life expectancy is typically at least 20 years
for the major components, though the chain may last only five years. Both were
refurbished in 1988 when the racks, chains, sprockets, and bearings were replaced.
Several years ago we had a large root mass come through, a heavy stump, which
apparently bent the rack on one Bar Rack. Our Maintenance staff straightened it.
However we want to get that Bar Racks replaced some time this year. Chairman
Badolato asked if this was on the Five Year Plan and whether we had a price from a
6
Minutes of February 17, 1998
consultant to perform the design. Mr. Bratina reported that we have it listed on our
Five Year Plan, but that he has not asked a consultant for a price, which he estimates
will cost on the order of magnitude of $10,000 for just the engineering. Mr.
Taricani asked if we give the manufacturer the specs or they give us the specs. Mr.
Bratina responded that every manufacturer has their own specification for their piece
of equipment, but when we purchase something we want to be sure that we have a
specification which is as open as possible to let all good equipment compete while
ensuring that the specification protects us from poor quality or inappropriate
equipment. Generally, either Mattabassett would write the specification or we
would hire a consulting engineering firm to write it. If we are not going to add an
engineer to our staff any time soon, we need to develop a relationship with an
engineering firm so they are on call and we do not have to solicit proposals for
every engineering contract. Then we would have an engineering firm with one
person who would be the main contact; familiar with our facility, needs, and
procedures. Mrs. Konopka commented that we have that with Cardinal. Mr. Bratina
concurred, we use Cardinal Engineering exclusively for the trunk sewer. Their
expertise is surveying and piping but not heavy mechanical equipment, for which a
company like Maguire, Malcolm Pirnie, or Montgomery Watson is more appropriate.
Mrs. Konopka said she felt that we have people on our staff who know more than
any of them. ,Mr. Van Dorn asked how long it will take to do the refractory job.
Mr. Bratina responded that actual refractory replacement takes about two weeks, but
we will need several days to shut down and cool the reactor and then several days to
heat it back up. Mr. Van Dorn stated that at the wastewater conferences there is a
lot of information on everything but incineration. Mr. Bratina reported that EPA has
a policy of discouraging incineration and encouraging composting because they feel
recycling is more environmentally beneficial. Mr. Van Dorn asked when the
nitrogen requirements will be in effect. Mr. Bratina responded that it will likely be
required within five years. Our discharge permit is under renewal review now, and
it could be incorporated in it with a time frame for compliance. Mr. Van Dorn asked
if we have the technology. Mr. Bratina responded that we don't have the technology
in place, but it is available and applicable. We can retrofit our aeration tanks to
provide it. There is a significant capital cost, however there will not be a significant
increase in the operating cost. Mrs. Konopka asked if DEP will inspect the nitrogen
removal equipment. Mr. Bratina noted that when EPA and DEP pay for a
construction project, like our secondary facility, then DEP will have an inspector
walk through the plant at least monthly and document what is being done. They do
not have the ability to determine if it is the best equipment for the job or properly
installed. They are not there to insure you are getting a good piece of equipment,
they insure that the equipment is received and installed. For our secondary
expansion project, we hired a consulting engineer to design it, write the bid and
specs, and provide the construction inspection. We expected the consultant to look
out for our best interest, to make sure that everything worked. But that was not the
purpose of their construction inspection, which was to make sure that we accept the
equipment so that the engineering firm can be paid for the design and construction
inspection. It was up to Mr. Batorski and Mr. Bratina to follow up on their
7
Minutes of February 17, 1998
inspection and to prove to the consultant why some of equipment wouldn't work.
For example, we told them the lime slurry pumps they spec'd and procured would
not work and after we tested one, the consultant accused our staff of sabotaging it at
night so it wouldn't work. Counsel Weber noted that the consultant engineer spent
more money trying to prove a bad design would work instead of redesigning it the
way they should have in the first place. Mr. Bratina noted that this is one of the
perils of hiring a consulting engineering firm and why it is very important to have a
staff capable to review the design and the construction. Mr. Bratina reported that
Mr. Abrahamian, Mr. Batorski, and he made a lot of changes in the design of
Metcalf & Eddy while we were under construction. Ultimately it is up to the plant
to make sure that what we get works properly. Mr. Van Dorn asked if we know what
we need to do to meet those new requirements. Mr. Bratina responded that right
now we do not know, which is why we have Malcolm Pirnie, as part of the
regionalization study, determining what the nitrification design should be.
Mr. Taricani noted that since he went to the convention in Chicago, he received a
couple of magazines from WEF with articles that composting is not being used as
much because they are having problems with it and people are afraid of metals and
toxins. Mrs. Konopka stated that if DEP was doing their job and checking some of
the places that are putting stuff into the water streams, we wouldn't have as much
problems. Mr. Taricani asked if we have WEF internet and the WEF CD ROM. Mr.
Bratina reported that he has internet access to the WEF web site and has ordered the
WEF CD ROM but we have not received it yet. Our staff, except for the Chemist,
have CD ROM drives, but we have not upgraded our computer operating system yet
so that everyone has modem access to the internet yet. Mrs. Konopka stated that she
thought we talked about that a couple of months ago. Mr. Bratina noted that we
have, but that we have not had the time to engineer it yet. Chairman Badolato asked
if the Metropolitan District gave up on their composting site. Mr. Bratina reported
that the MDC has spent approximately $26 million for their compost facility, which
has a capacity slightly larger than our $7.5 million FBI. They have been trying to
operate it since 1989; it has been shut down more often than it has been running, and
they are currently running it around 50-60% capacity to minimize the odors. There
is talk of its being shut down the end of March if it is not fully functioning at that
time. One of their problems is that the State of Connecticut has not promulgated
regulations for the use of compost, so if you generate compost the only thing you
can do with it is landfill it. The Bristol Wastewater Treatment Plant shut down their
compost site when their landfill closed and Waste Stream Environmental is now
hauling their sludge to New York State. Composting has been on the downswing in
New England. New Hampshire has a bill in the state legislature to ban all land
application of sludge, which would include compost. There are large counties in
California that have banned all land application.
Mrs. Konopka suggested hiring a consulting firm to draw up specifications for new
Bar Racks for the Spring. Mr. Bratina responded that realistically it will take six
months to get them installed, and he will solicit proposals and bring them to the
8
Minutes of February 17, 1998
Engineering Committee. We know that we need a new Bar Rack. It requires
determining the best type for this application, integrating it with a grinders, putting
together the specifications, bidding it, and supervising it. Mr. Van Dorn asked if
this was beyond Mr. Bratina's time right now. Mr. Bratina noted that this requires a
lot of engineering which he does not have the time to do right now, it may take a
few months for him to do. Mr. Taricani suggested that by the next monthly meeting
the Executive Director give us a recommendation on how to handle this situation.
Mr. Bratina responded that he can give his recommendation right now, that we
should hire a Staff Engineer, and if we are not going to within a month we should
hire a consulting engineering firm to provide the engineering effort required. Mr.
Taricani suggested hiring an engineering firm to develop specifications for the Bar
Racks. Mr. Bratina questioned whether the intent is to authorize him to hire one or
to bring back proposals to the Engineering Committee for a recommendation to the
Board.
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mrs. Konopka and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Executive Director be authorized to contract with an
engineering consulting firm to develop bid specifications for new Bar Racks
and Grinders.
Mr. Bratina reported that Maintenance was able to rebuild a backup FBI purge air
blower from salvage parts. We are reviewing the FBI purge air piping system, so
that we can repipe it and possibly revise the blower sizing. Lime Slurry Tank #1
was removed by our Maintenance staff working with Walker Crane. Our staff will
install the Sodium Chlorite tank and piping. Maintenance repaired Bar Rack #2,
repairing broken chains, straightening the screen, and reinforcing it, saving the cost
of a new screen, about $9,000. Mr. Simpson was advised that Robbins & Meyers
was giving us the demo Pipeliner sludge rag grinder which we had tested, in return
for our help in refining their design. That is a $12,000 piece of equipment.
Spectrasery completed the physical installation of Belt Filter Press #3. The old Belt
Filter Press was sold and shipped to Quebec. We have had a couple inquiries asking
if we want to sell another one. As soon as the new Belt Filter Press is running, we
can make that decision. The Preventative Maintenance backlog is down to 510
hours from 548.
Mr. Bratina reported that the Lab ran proficiencies for the State Health Department
and received a perfect score. The lab has been doing very well on this quality
control testing and we are quite proud of them. We are one of the few wastewater
treatment plants in the state which is certified by the State Health Department. DEP
does not provide lab inspection, in fact they no longer provide plant inspections.
We received 394 loads of outside sludges, every source was tested using the
Respirometer. Seven samples, 12% of the liquid waste loads, were tested on the
Microtox. None of the samples were toxic. Mrs. Konopka questioned why six
9
Minutes of February 17, 1998
things on the Maintenance report had to do with the new Belt Filter Press and a
second FBI purge air blower was assembled from salvage parts, is this another piece
of junk that they are putting together. How many things are there that don't really
work here, it makes you wonder how Maintenance has time to do what they do here.
How many men are in the Maintenance Department? Mr. Bratina responded that we
have seven members in the Maintenance Department. One of his concerns in regards
to the Preventative Maintenance program is that we do a lot of work installing
equipment, which is one of the reasons why he recommends hiring a Staff Engineer,
so we can use more full service installation contracts. When the Maintenance
Supervisor, Operations Manager, and Executive Director have to go out and inspect
the belt filter press, a bar rack, or a grinder, it takes a lot of our time. When we do
the piping or electrical work, that takes a lot of time. If you do not have someone to
do the inspection of a contractor, you get a piece of equipment installed that does
not work. Mrs. Konopka asked if Mr. Simpson knows whether or not the stuff
works. Mr. Bratina responded that you have to spend the time inspecting it, a
couple of hours a day every day during installation, to insure that you are getting a
quality product and that it is being installed the way you want. Mrs. Konopka asked
if a lot of the stuff here does not work well because it has not been inspected. Mr.
Bratina responded no, because we take the time to inspect it. If you look at other
wastewater treatment plants you would find that we have more equipment operating
than any other treatment plant in this state. Overall our equipment is well
maintained, but there is a lot of equipment that he would like to have upgraded. Mr.
Van Dorn pointed out that in any factory, equipment wears out and breaks. Mrs.
Konopka stated that we have to be on top of this and replace things when they pass
their useful life. Mr. Taricani stated that he would like to commend the
Maintenance Department and Mr. Simpson for spending the time and effort to
improve their product. Mr. Van Dorn commented that we should put something in
Ms. Walter's file for getting a perfect score on the Lab proficiencies. Mr. Van Dorn
asked if the Lime Slurry Tank which was removed was replaced with a stainless one.
Mr. Bratina responded that it was not because we want to use Sodium Chlorite in it,
which requires a plastic tank. Mrs. Konopka asked why there isn't something in the
paper on the Lab's proficiencies. Mr. Bratina commented that it is a good
suggestion.
Mr. Batorski reported that there were no accidents last month. The Sludge Disposal
Building lunch room floor was replaced. The fire extinguishers are receiving their
five year inspection. The Administration Boiler was inspected and some repairs are
required. Mr. Van Dorn commented that it is great that their have been no
accidents.
Mrs. Konopka moved, seconded by Mr. Taricani, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Staff Reports be accepted as presented.
10
Minutes of February 17, 1998
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED_ To enter into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters
with Counsel, Chemist, and Executive Director.
The Board was in Executive Session from 8:40 to 9:10 pm.
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED_ To return to Regular Session.
Finance Committee
Mr. Bratina reported that a meeting of the Special Committee was held to review the
fund transfer and of the Finance Committee to review the draft Operating Fund
budget for fiscal year 1998-99. The Special Committee reviewed the fund transfer
procedure with Vicki Bitner, our accountant from Blum Shapiro, discussing quite
extensively the proper way of transferring funds from the Operating Fund to the
Capital & Non-Recurring Fund and to the towns. Ms. Bitner's opinion was the same
opinion as last year's accountant Chris Wolf s, that the excess income from the
Operating Fund should go back to the towns on paper in proportion to their flow for
that budget year and then if we are transferring money to Capital & Non-Recurring,
it should be apportioned by the towns' allocations. The Special Committee passed a
motion that the excess revenues generated within the Operating Fund shall be
refunded to the constituent municipalities based on the flow used to develop the
budget and any transfer of these funds to the Capital & Non-Recurring Fund should
be assessed based on the constituent municipalities' allocation, in accordance with
the Charter and our accountants' recommendations.
Mr. Cannamela moved, seconded by Mrs. Konopka, the following motion:
MOTION: That excess revenues generated within the Operating Fund shall be
refunded to the constituent municipalities based on the flow used to develop
the budget and that any transfer of these funds to the Capital &
Non-Recurring Fund shall be assessed based on the constituent municipalities'
allocation, in accordance with the Charter and our accountants'
recommendations.
Mr. Van Dorn commented that Berlin's flow is midway between the flow of New
Britain and Cromwell, and asked why Berlin's return is way below them. Mr.
Bratina explained that when you return money to the towns based on the actual
flows, Berlin's return is midway between New Britain and Cromwell's, but then we
take money out of the returned amounts to transfer to Capital & Non-Recurring by
allocation. Since Berlin's flow is well below its allocation, a lower percentage is
returned than is taken out, thus the net return is less than Cromwell's. Mr. Van Dorn
11
Minutes of February 17, 1998
stated that there ought to be a penalty for being over the allocation and asked what
year the flow is based on. Mr. Bratina reported that the flow is the same as used to
develop the budget. The budget for FY 97 was based on calendar year 1995 flows,
so when we return that money we return it based on those calendar year 1995 flows.
On the report Operating Fund Excess Income Transfer to CNR, the Returned Funds
to the towns list New Britain $532,000, Berlin $112,000, and Cromwell $75,000.
Berlin is between New Britain and Cromwell, but then the Capital & Non-Recurring
assessment is taken out.
Mrs. Konopka moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was adopted
with Mr. Van Dorn opposed:
RESOLVED: To call the question.
The following was adopted with Mr. Van Dorn, Mr. Carey, and Mr. Gentile opposed:
RESOLVED: That excess revenues generated within the Operating Fund shall
be refunded to the constituent municipalities based on the flow used to develop
the budget and that any transfer of these funds to the Capital & Non-Recurring
Fund shall be assessed based on the constituent municipalities' allocation, in
accordance with the Charter and our accountants' recommendations.
Counsel Weber stated that the accountants said that the money has to be returned to
the towns in the same way that it is taken from the towns. Per the Charter "Each
constituent municipality's annual assessment shall separately reflect present capital
costs, future capital costs, and operating costs. Present capital costs consisting of
debt service on bonds . . . shall be fixed and allocated in the manner in affect on
said date." Those were the bonds that go back before 1985 and that was a different
method because it included the pipeline. "Future capital costs shall be computed
and allocated in accordance with future expected usage as determined by the District
Board." That use was based on the figures the towns gave to the Board. "Operating
costs shall be computed and allocated in accordance with actual meter flow."
Chairman Badolato noted that a memo on the District Charter change, dated
February 6th, explains the Charter change. The only way to change the procedure is
to change the Charter. Mr. Van Dorn stated that our Charter is silent on the matter
of money being returned to the community. Chairman Badolato stated that we have
two accountants who have advised that this is the proper way to return funds per the
Charter.
Mr. Bratina reported that the Finance Committee also reviewed the Five Year Plan
and discussed the fund transfer. The Finance Committee recommended transferring
$720,000 from the Operating Fund as follows: $600,000 to the Capital &
Non-Recurring Fund, $109,712 to the City of New Britain Board of Water
Commission Sewer Use Fund, $2,117 to the Town of Berlin and $8,171 to the Town
of Cromwell Water Pollution Control Authority. Mr. Van Dorn commented that he
does not like what the accountants are suggesting we do. Mrs. Konopka suggested
12
Minutes of February 17, 1998
that we should give more back to the towns and less to the Capital & Non-Recurring
Fund. Chairman Badolato stated that we have a Five Year Program and we need to
have the money to be able to carry it out and we do not have sufficient funds in
there now to do so. If we do not keep putting money into that fund we will not be
able to carry out our Five Year Program. To transfer any less than proposed to the
Capital & Non-Recurring Fund would impact the five year program.
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was adopted
with Mr. Van Dorn and Mrs. Konopka opposed:
RESOLVED: That the Executive Director be hereby authorized to transfer
excess income totaling $720,000 from the Operating Fund as follows:
$600,000 to the Capital Non-Recurring Fund, $109,712 to the City of New
Britain Board of Water Commissioners Sewer Use Fund, $2,117 to the Town
of Berlin, and $8,171 to the Town of Cromwell Water Pollution Control
Authority.
Mr. Bratina reported that the Finance Committee also reviewed the draft Operating
Fund budget for Fiscal Year 99 and voted to present that budget to the Board
without a recommendation. Chairman Badolato clarified that we will not be voting
on the budget`at this meeting, it is being presented to you without recommendation
for your review and we will be voting on it at the next meeting.
Mrs. Konopka moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED: To have a five minute recess.
The Board recessed from 9:32 to 9:41 pm.
Mr. Bratina reported that at that Finance Committee meeting, Mrs. Konopka had
asked why Engineering Fees in the Operating Fund for capital projects are not
charged to Capital & Non-Recurring. Our accountant subsequently advised that they
should be and in general, but not consistently, they have been. The engineering cost
of Montgomery Watson for the Odor Control Project, which will result in a Capital
& Non-Recurring Fund project, is being charged to Capital & Non-Recurring.
However, the engineering cost of Montgomery Watson for the Thermal Oxidizer
study is not associated with any construction project so it should be charged to the
Operating Fund. Mrs. Konopka had also asked if Capital Outlays should be in the
Operating Fund or should they all come out of Capital & Non-Recurring. Our
accountant advised that there should be Capital Outlays in the Operating Fund
because we should always be replacing things on an annual basis. Typically we
should take small items out of that Capital Outlays and large items out of Capital &
Non-Recurring. Our accountant advised that large items could be on the order of
$10,000. Mr. Bratina reviewed DEP's recommendations, which is to set aside 5 to
10% of the Operating Fund budget for a sinking fund, to take money out of the
13
Minutes of February 17, 1998
Operating Fund and put it into a Capital & Non-Recurring Fund. DEP also advises
that 5 to 10% is just a rough estimation, that we should base the actual amount on a
five year plan because it could be a lot more than 5 to 10%. Mr. Bratina also
discussed this with Chris Wolf, who clarified that we have been using the term
Capital Non-Recurring as though it is both a capital and a nonrecurring cost. He
advised that the term should be Capital and Non-Recurring, that something like the
$60,000 stack test done every five years is a non-recurring but not a capital cost and
it should be charged to the Capital & Non-Recurring Fund. To budget our money
for this type of expenditure, we should plan to transfer 20% of the cost each year
from the Operating Fund to the Capital & Non-Recurring Fund so we have enough
money in it to do it. Mr. Bratina reported that after these discussions with our
current and past accountants, the consensus was that we should increase the Capital
Outlay subsidiary of the Operating Fund to 5% of the Operating Fund budget, that
we should use all the money in the Capital Outlays subsidiary first for any capital
expenditure, and once it is depleted all subsequent capital costs should be charged to
the Capital & Non-Recurring Fund. This way we are always spending the minimum,
at least 5%, of the Operating Fund on capital projects. We will still need additional
monies for the Capital & Non-Recurring Fund for major projects, which have been
coming out of our excess income. Mr. Bratina reported that he revised the
Operating Fupd budget to accomplish this. This method actually reduces the
constituents' assessments slightly because contractual members will be paying
slightly more for the capital projects up front. Mr. Bratina also noted that based on
our discussions on lab staffing, that we have to increase the Operating Fund
approximately $44,000. Mr. Bratina asked for input on the proposed method of
charging capital items. Mrs. Konopka asked if the revision is what we project the
assessments will be. Mr. Bratina suggested that what he and Ms. Bitner worked out
is a better long term strategy, and if we proceed.with regionalization we will have to
review contractual members funding the Capital & Non-Recurring Fund. At this
time the Capital & Non-Recurring Fund is solely the constituents' money. If the
constituent members' allocations change, they may have to put some additional
monies in this account. Mrs. Konopka asked where we are going to spend the
$160,000 in the Capital Outlays of the Operating Fund. Mr. Bratina reported that
we will spend all of that, the Odor Control project will cost roughly $1,000,000, the
Bar Racks roughly $300,000, the stack test $60,000, etc. Mr. Bratina explained that
the recommendation presented is to take all of those capital costs out of the Capital
Outlay section of the Operating Fund until it is depleted and then to draw from the
Capital & Non-Recurring Fund. Mrs. Konopka asked if we would have a surplus in
the Capital Outlays this year. Mr. Bratina reported that it would be depleted with
our planned incinerator work. Mrs. Konopka agreed that it makes sense to budget it
and use it, but there should be no surplus. Mr. Bratina concurred. Mr. Taricani
asked if New Britain paid $1.2 million in assessments and next year will pay $2.4
million. Mr. Bratina clarified that last year New Britain's assessment was $1.2
million, but the $2.4 million is before the Sludge Management credit. Thus New
Britain's new assessment would be slightly less than last year's $1.2 million.
14
Minutes of February 17, 1998
Engineering Committee
No Report
Personnel Committee
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED_ To enter into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters
with Counsel and the Executive Director.
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED_ To return to Regular Session.
The Board was in Executive Session from 8:40 to 9:10 pm.
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mr. Carey, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: To take lab staffing off the table.
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mr. Sienna, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: To reject the Personnel Committee recommendation to reduce
the lab staffing.
Mr. Gentile moved, seconded by Mr. Taricani, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: To enter into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters
with Counsel and the Executive Director.
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED: To return to Regular Session.
The Board was in Executive Session from 9:55 to 10:25 pm.
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED: That the salaries and salary ranges of the Secretary,
Bookkeeper, Laboratory Technicians, and Staff Engineer be increased by 1.5%
effective January 1, 1998.
15
Minutes of February 17, 1998
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED: To send a letter of commendation to Gary Simpson for his work
on the Sludge Rag Grinders and to Liz Walters for the Lab's outstanding
performance with the State Health Department.
Property Management
No Report
Sludge Study
Mr. Sienna moved, seconded by Mr. Taricani, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED_ To enter into an Executive Session to discuss potential litigation
with Counsel Weber and the Executive Director Bratina.
Mr. Carey moved, seconded by Mr. Gentile, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: To return to Regular Session.
The Board was in Executive Session from 10:26 to 10:46 pm.
Chairman Badolato noted that the Board members have before them the Sludge
Study Committee dated January 30, 1998.
Mr. Sienna moved, seconded by Mr. Cannamela, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Board accept the Sludge Study Committee report with
thanks to Mr. Bratina for his input in relationship with the information
provided to the committee.
Counsel's Report
Counsel Weber reported that he reviewed copies of the sludge removal Request for
Proposal from various communities. He reviewed the Charter and Special Acts to
determine the validity of accepting Pratt & Whitney sludge. He reviewed his
original draft of the regulations governing the acceptance of sludge. He also
attended the meeting of the Sludge Study Committee. Mr. Weber reviewed the
Charter Bylaws, case law, and the 1997 opinion rendered by Chris Wolf, our then
auditor, pertaining to the procedure governing the return of unanticipated sludge
revenues, and reviewed the Charter regarding the appropriate role of the Finance
Committee in regard to the return of unanticipated sludge revenues. He reviewed
16
Minutes of February 17, 1998
his March 20, 1990 opinion regarding public deposits and updated it and furnished a
written update to the Executive Director. Mr. Weber also reviewed some general
issues that were discussed here.
Mr. Gentile moved, seconded by Mrs. Konopka, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: To accept the Counsel's Report.
New Business
Mr. Taricani reported that several Directors attended the Cromwell meeting and he
took a few notes of some of the concerns expressed. The First Selectman of
Cromwell expressed concern for the safety, health and welfare of the citizens of
Cromwell; concern on how far the outflow pipe extends into the river; foam on the
river; odors; testing; erosion on the river bank below the outfall structure; etc. We
should look at them and prepare our response to them. Mr. Taricani reported that he
looked at the erosion concern and did not concur with them. Mrs. Konopka stated
that she appreciated that so many Directors took the time to attend the meeting and
that she thought the meeting went well. Mr. Taricani stated that Mr. Bratina should
be complimented, the meeting went well and he handled tough questions.
Adjournment
Mr. Cannamela moved, seconded by Mr. Gentile, and the following was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED: That the meeting adjourn.
•
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m..
The next meeting of the Board of Directors will be Monday, March 16, 1997 at 7:30
p.m. at the Administration Building, Cromwell, Connecticut.
17