HomeMy WebLinkAbout01272026_Water&Waste_Water_Meeting_Minutes_DRAFT
Water & Waste Water Treatment Working Group
DRAFT
PRESENT (ZOOM):
Mark Pruce (Chair & Town Board Member)
Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor)
Zach Larkins (Town Board Member)
Greg Hutnik (Town Planner)
PRESENT (IN PERSON):
Cindy Katz (Recording Secretary)
Jacob Colbert (Public, first meeting, not yet eligible to vote)
Planner Hutnik stated that he would have to leave the meeting early, and that Tim
Steed, the engineer from Hunt, was unable to join. Town Board members as well as
Planner Hutnik were in a meeting with the DEC directly prior to the start of this
meeting.
They discussed the “take-aways” from the prior DEC meeting.
• Supervisor Gagnon state d that an absorption field might be an option but there
are a number of questions that still need to be answered, as it was not the
technology included in the original proposal. It isn’t known if the grant money
can be used towards an absorption field; the application may need to be re -
scored with the change to an absorption field ; there may be additional use
constraints, especially as related to discharges from some bu sinesses, that may
require pre-treatment. A sewer use ordinance specifying any potential use
limitations will be needed regardless of whatever type of technology is used.
• ACTION ITEM: Planner Hutnik to send an email seeking clarification if an
alternative can be used and still funded under the original grant. He can work
with Tim on it. He suggested we request something in writing.
Mark stated while there appears to be a route in West Danby, h e has yet to see what
combination of conveyances and treatment technologies would render the project
affordable (and thus feasible) in Danby .
They discussed possible options:
• Consider a leach field for one or both systems
• Expand the district area, although even this step it seems would not lower the
cost enough to be below the threshold . This is consistent with the original design
limitation to just the hamlet, as running laterals up the side streets was not
considered due to the cost and also wasn’t especially popular among houses .
They weighed the positives and negatives of a le ach field vs the membrane bioreactor
(“MBR”) technology. A leach field is less expensive; the membrane bioreactor is more
scalable and more efficient. Supervisor Gagnon considered costs of operation and
maintenance vs capital costs of installing different use units.
Larkins commented that there is not a known location for either technology. He thinks a
le ach field will limit growth. He thinks the MBR makes more sense in central Danby
than in West Danby. The plan doesn’t seem to make sense unless there are more EDUs,
and it isn’t clear how to get those numbers.
Larkins wondered if landowners can be “locked-into” paying into the system even
before it is complete by purchasing land in the planned district? Pruce said he thought
they could charge a “hook -up” fee. Supervisor Gagnon checking in with the lawyer
about that, and compared the sewer system to the water system. In the water system,
funding can come from property taxes or from service charges (how much water you
use.) Over the years, more of the system was covered by taxation (80%) and less from
usage. They clarified that taxes can only be charged to those who are within the district.
Jacob Colbert asked how payment amounts would be determined. In water districts,
it’s based on percentages of what is being used. Pruce added that the number of EDUs
are assigned to each property, and that is the basis for the billing .
Pruce stated his preference to consider only the number of existing EDUs in this project
design rather than projecting future EDUs that may be built. He wondered if a leach
field could be a sort of “phase 1” to start with, and the project could be revisited in the
future when the only additional project costs would be additional laterals and an
upgrade to an MBR . Maybe at that time there will be an increased tax base or different
technology that’ll lower the costs.
Supervisor Gagnon wondered why Newfield hasn’t done something like? Why ha ven’t
they upgraded to an MBR to increase their capacity? Planner Hutnik suggested asking
them how it has worked for them in terms of their goals and environmental planning,
and then how they see the future of the project? ACTION ITEM: Supervisor Gagnon to
check in with Newfield supervisor on the goals and future plans for their wasterwater
project.
Planner Hutnik went off the call. Pruce added that Tim replied that he was unable to
join the meeting today.
They discussed the affordability of the plan if a leach field is used, and if that was
included in the proposal. They discussed the rational for having one large leach field vs
smaller ones, and how a large one would enable an easier upgrade to an MBR in the
future. Supervisor Gagnon agreed that a large leach field is the most sensible approach
for central Danby.
Pruce touched on the final recommendations from the engineering report . In central
Danby, they recommend ed a gravity system plus MB R with a mostly cost of over $1000
per EDU, but the summary for West Danby was $632 /month for a grinder system with
an MBR. They discussed if those numbers were below the threshold and established
that the threshold number given was $650 per year ($55/month). In that case, both of
those costs are too high to be considered affordable.
Pruce wondered why these engineers even proposed a project like this that is so
unaffordable and may not even be approved by the comptroller. They weren’t sure if it
was legal to build a system that charges above the affordability threshold or just “not
recommended” by the comptroller. Regardless, they agreed they would not be able to
get anyone to sign-on with numbers like these.
They wondered what a reasonable amount for residents to pay would be but did not
have one in mind. All that is known is that people would be willing to join if it was
free.
Colbert asked about maintenance if the system breaks, and stressed how expensive
working with contractors can be. Pruce stated that he figured the Hunt report did tie in
maintenance costs, but are there other costs here that are not included – things like
billings systems, Town Hall support? Do new positions need to be added, or does it fit
under someone ’s purview, like the water district staff, already? Supervisor Gagnon
added that Newfield is considering creating a “DPW” (Department of Public Works )
and commented that the law does allow the board to add more “to the plate” of the
Highway Superintendent. This may eventually become a DPW, and training will still
be required . He added some historical background to when previous Highway and
Water District work was intermingled , adding that the cost of hiring a trained person to
work with an MBR would be very high.
They reviewed Tim’s timeline to see what had been done and what needed to happen
still.
✓ Met with DEC
✓ Secure Municipal solutions to provide input – contract signed.
X Public coordination regarded potential well testing. Has an y leeching or
contamination issues been identified? Has not happened and may be getting ahead
of ourselves to ask people to test their wells .
X Town Board to complete “pro -housing” resolution/become a pro-housing
community. The board has already declared their intent, but now they are waiting
on Planner Hutnik to fill in the application. Supervisor Gagnon offered some details
on an initiative for pro -housing communities where if ten houses can be built, grant
money is available for infrastructure to support them.
Any other step will require a decision on what technology (leach field vs MBR) could be
used.
Supervisor Gagnon speculated ab out how development could occur if this project did
not pan out given the on-going question of waste - water. Other routes:
• It’s possible if a develope r owns all the lots (like at Boiceville ), but how does this
happen if these are individually owned lots? Guy Krough did not have much
response; there are not easy ways to pursue joint ownership in NYS.
• The AOT (“Association of Towns”) provided a few ideas based on some other
projects in the state. They will get back to him.
• Perhaps the lawyer who helped White Hawk set up their coop owned system
could help with how a municipality can do something similar.
• Enabling legislation that could allow a floating district?
Most of the talk about development is focused on adding to existing infrastructure. But
Danby doesn’t have any currently existing infrastructure. Supervisor Gagnon
expressed curiosity on a local multi -unit building that seems to be treating their
wastewater under the building.
Pruce expressed his desire for the working group to remain focused on the feasibility of
the project they have received funding for rather than trying to solve the problem of
development and waste water in Danby in general.
Committee members decided to wait to schedule the next meeting based on the
response that Greg gets, and to try to ensure that Tim can join the meeting.
Colbert and Larkins expressed skepticism about the feasibility of the project due to
expense.
Meeting adjourned: 1 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Recording Secretary, Cindy Katz