WRAB-WWMPC
Minutes Meeting of 10/9/07
2 p.m., Earle Mountain Room
Attending were: Chair Weiss, Co-Chair Whitmore, members Nugent, Lightfoot, Olthof, Boelitz, and Bayne; Health Agent Crowley, Americorp volunteer Amber Stonik, Selectmen Martin and Schropfer, citizens Tom and Lois Johnson, Stephen Wasby, Todd Scola, John Mayer and Russ French.
The minutes of Sept. 11, 2007 were unanimously approved as written.
Whitmore announced that the Eastham Forum will be presenting a program on coastal erosion on 10/9 at 7 p.m.
Weiss reported that 1260 well testing results, a second round for central Eastham, are in. At this point, the duplicates have not yet been removed. A full report will be made later.
Whitmore asked if there is any way to determine if the wells which previously tested at 10 ppm of nitrate or above have improved in this round, reasoning that there may be significance if the 10 ppm wells in the second round are different wells. Crowley replied that she has limited ability to do that as the computer program she has is not well adapted to that kind of research.
Crowley announced that the draft Mass. Estuary Project report for Rock Harbor has been received and a staff committee will review it.
She introduced Amber Stonik, who will be asked to review the function of the many alternative septic systems in town and to consider how to manage the data gathered regarding them.
Discussion on the 10/1/07 town meeting and the failed municipal water article. (Comments have been grouped by topic.)
General attitude of attendees and structure of presentation:
Nugent commented that minds seemed made up before the presentation began. French commented that he spoke with three people who told him they’d come to vote for it and changed their minds. Wasby commented that the town boards should have known they’d draw a disproportionate number of negative votes to a special town meeting. He also felt that the Board of Selectmen (BoS) didn’t take enough ownership of the project. Too, the boards hadn’t picked up on the anger that had surfaced among voters.
Carol Martin commented that some voters left before the vote because they were so disgusted by the incivility. She explained that the plan had been for each member of the BoS to speak in favor of the article, but that the failure of the Moderator to carry out the plan curtailed that presentation. Dave Schropfer felt that the BoS had failed to think through the structure of town meeting, and to quickly assess the meaning of the failure of Johnson’s amendment to reduce the amount to 7 million. Scola commented that he was sitting with part time residents and many of them had not made up their minds how they felt about the proposal.
Fiscal:
All agreed that the on-going Eastham Elementary School budget problem had badly damaged public trust in town government.
Nugent felt that the FinCom should have been allowed to address the fiscal details.
Wasby felt that the project should have included more attention to personal economic situations.
French explained that the FinCom is just beginning to become proactive rather than reactive on fiscal issues, and that FinCom member Joe Bayne had only a week to study the fiscal issues around the article.
Johnson said that he’d spoken with about 150 people before town meeting, and they generally planned to attend T.M. to express their dismay about the proposed cost.
French felt that the fire insurance issue should have been more thoroughly dealt with, using direct quotes from insurance companies. He feels in general that presenters gain credibility by having answers to second and third levels of questions. Martin commented that Fire Chief Olsen had done extensive research on the issue, and Wasby replied that he should have presented it publicly.
Olthof felt that the question of the cost of future waste water treatment should have been addressed.
Weiss commented that although waste water had been discussed as a serious issue needing to be addressed soon, it did not appear on the slide showing projected debt service on capital expenses in 2029.
Project phasing:
Martin explained that were the BoS to propose a less extensive project at this town meeting, the ballot vote would have to be redone.
Johnson commented that his proposed amendment intended to provide funds to begin to answer the questions around the need for municipal water, waste water solutions, and environmental issues.
Municipal well protection issue:
Olthof felt that the answer to the question of how to protect the municipal wells was insufficiently answered.
Dealing with waste water problems (perceived by many at T. M. as the solution rather than municipal water):
Whitmore commented that waste water solutions and secure municipal water need joint planning. Weiss asked for opinions on how to get waste water planning to move forward. It is not yet in the capital plan. Olthof will draft a letter asking the BoS to fund the full waste water study as proposed by our consultants, Stearns and Wheler. Martin warned that the deadline for inclusion of articles for the 2008 town meeting warrant will be around 12/1. Schropfer pointed out the BoS deal with so many boards that they’d appreciate budget recommendations.
Crowley commented that rather than being proactive, we are now in the position of reacting to the waste water problem, as the MEP reports, which will detail how much nitrogen we need to remove from the aquifer and surface runoff as they enter our coastal waters, are now being received. She believes there will be a limited mandate from the state. Olthof commented that we need a comprehensive plan for the town, not just a plan for the embayments covered in the MEP reports. Whitmore asked why the MEP draft is not a public document. Weiss will ask Vanderhoef if Olthof and Whitmore can review it.
French commented that we can be proactive by supporting the ban on phosphorus in dishwasher detergent proposed in the statehouse, and by banning use of outdoor fertilizer; it was clear many town meeting goers were in favor of those partial solutions. Boelitz stated that ground water moves quickly enough to clean the aquifer of existing nitrogen deposits in about 20 years; meanwhile, we can enact a bylaw banning planting of lawns, mowing, and trimming in the 50 foot set back from water bodies.
Crowley replied that enforcement of a ban on fertilizer is unlikely, and that some people need to use pesticides for health reasons. Whitmore commented that fertilizer contributes very little to the nitrogen and phosphorus burden in the aquifer. Bayne felt that while bans were being studied, education about phosphorus in dish washer detergent and about fertilizer and pesticides could begin almost immediately.
Next steps regarding municipal water:
Martin felt we should come back with a municipal water proposal, but that the spring 2008 town meeting is too soon. There will be controversial issues on that warrant such as the ocean parking lot, the school budget, and the wind turbine bylaw.
Wasby felt that if the presenters can’t extrapolate the 1979 4.5 million budget for town water to 2007 dollars, it shouldn’t be mentioned at all.
Nugent felt that the poor turn out for town meeting indicates a need for better publicity. Scola asked if we could consider a mailed ballot, as is done in some Florida towns. He also recommended small incremental steps to involve people in the process.
Schropfer stated that had he been able to make his presentation at town meeting he would have made eight points, among them these three: Of the seven towns with municipal water surveyed, all had a budget surplus in the last fiscal year. All professional planners surveyed recommend municipal water be implemented before waste water treatments. Despite all the mistakes made by the article planners, the majority still want municipal water.
Mayer, who came late, had these comments:
1. Why did EP’s map recommend a transmission line up route 6, which would have many problems to overcome? 2. Billing needs to be heavier on the base rate than on the useage rate because of second home owners, who force the requirement for larger transmission lines, but may use water for only a couple of months per year. Shift more of the burden to them. 3. If we have a plan, our town meeting presentation didn’t exhibit it. Put it on the town website and advertise its availability. 4. Does the cost as presented include remediation to landscape, which is very expensive? Consider placing other utilities on top of water towers to reduce expenses.
5. Why not hook up to Orleans (for whom Mayer works)? 6. Why not require septic pumping every three years?
Johnson asked to be put on the agenda for the Nov. 13 board meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30.
Submitted by Sandy Bayne, clerk
| 
