Loading...
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