Fwd: OLS Communications with Homeowners

[Diane Duhaime]

Brendan and Danielle,

Good morning.  Please review the below email exchange with Mart Merritt and let’s discuss your preparing a written response to him for our review.   I have copied the OLSBA WPCA, officers, and BOG.   In the meantime, I will let Mary know I forwarded the email exchange per his request. 

While Mart is the only one I’ve seen requesting it - perhaps we should have an “open” forum before the 11/9 vote.  

I don’t see any alternative plan proposed by Mart, but he says “Yes I do have an idea of a different plan on how we could move forward.”

I have no problem with Mart joining the call with bond counsel.  We need the resolution to be in FINAL form and if he okays it during the call that should help ensure it is FINAL.  

Thank you. 

Diane Duhaime 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Martin Merritt <mjmerr...@gmail.com>
Date: October 28, 2024 at 7:08:58 AM EDT
To: Diane Duhaime <dianer...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: OLS Communications with Homeowners



Hi Diane,

Thanks for your note.

I will try and respond in order of your e-mail:

1.  Bond Issues - am I able to join that call?  Do you know if you are seeking to break out the bond into just the sewer piece and also add that we are not required to move forward unless all of the State financing and guarantees are in place and in writing.  Also are we adjusting the language so that the President doesn't have the sole authority to do anything.

2.  WPCA - Yes it is too bad that the previous WPCA didn't keep us informed.  But it is what it is.  However, now that we are in this position, the WPCA and the Board should be understanding with residents concerns, issues, questions and need for discussion and clarification.  It was great that the Board moved the vote back two weeks.  That helps a bit.  But for something of this magnitude with SO MANY unanswered questions, and as SUCH A VERY HIGH COST, it is definitely in the Board's best interest to be cautious on how quickly we move forward, and how we share information.   For instance, I could foresee some potential issues with:

• The summary costs to the homeowners is not clearly presented.  It is difficult to determine the total costs from the presentation, and after all, that is all the homeowners want to CLEARLY know and understand.  I'm very confused on why the WPCA chose to not summarize the costs in one area of the presentation.  However, now that we are aware of that, this is something that the Board can correct when forwarding the additional information.  I believe it is the right thing to do, and if it isn't done, then homeowners have to question why.  Again, it is the single most important thing to the homeowners (but there are other important items also).
• The Board and the WPCA should also be extremely cautious on suggesting what the total costs are.  Of course at all times, they should be conservative with their estimates.  As you know, this has been going on for years, and every time the homeowners hear from the WPCA, the "discussed costs" (I say discussed because there has never been anything in writing), so you can imagine that the homeowners are extremely apprehensive about cost estimates received from the WPCA.  So I would strongly suggest, that if there are ANY other costs that can be foreseen by Fuss and O'Neil, and the WPCA (for instance legal and administrative costs, costs to oversee the project etc), that again, it behooves the Board and the WPCA to discuss those costs now, and inform the homeowners now, as surprises in costs in the future could jeopardize the entire project.  Let the homeowners know the ENTIRE picture, and the entire potential cost structure.
• The connection cost estimates of $5,000 are ABSOLUTELY suspect as most of us know that it was approximately $4k to connect to the front of our homes for the water hookup.  So again, I am unsure why the board and the WPCA would stick their necks out there with low ball costs.  It just sets up the homeowners for further disagreements in the future and could again, jeopardize the entire project.  Could it actually be $30,000 for homeowners on Billow to connect.  If this is the case, the Board should be upfront and let homeowners know this.  If they don't know, they should have an estimate done ASAP.  Again, it could be foreseen that the Board and the WPCA could be negligent without summarizing the total potential cost of the project, and disclosing the top side estimates of these costs.
• The lack of open discussion on this.  We sat through a three hour presentation from the WPCA, and their advisors the other night, which was great. When it finally came time for conversation, the board and the WPCA were allowed to ask their questions first- (and it was a bit obvious that all of their questions were directed in one way, and the manner in which they were asked, it allowed the board to share their opinions).  When it finally came time for homeowners thoughts and questions - about 3.5 hours in,  we were told that we could only ask questions and couldn't share any opinions.  Why is this?  We should be able to have an open forum on this.  Again, all the information presented was in one direction - for the sewers, and opposite thoughts and opinions were not allowed.  I think the board should think hard about this, and if they believe that this short time frame, with no discussion is something that is fair and reasonable.  I wonder how this would be perceived by an independent third party.
• I asked a direct question about if the board and the WPCA thought the $100,000 per homeowner is a reasonable cost.  It would be great to have answers from you, the board and the WPCA.  It is important for us homeowners to understand the WPCA's and the Boards point of views on these things, as you are our representatives.
• Those are just 5 areas above where I believe the Board and the WPCA should be extremely cautious.  If they aren't crystal clear on their communications and the potential cost impact to homeowners, I believe they leave themselves open to later criticism and, who knows, potential lawsuits.

The lack of clarity on the above 5 items (and there are others) would cause the homeowners to question your statement of your confidence that the board and its advisors are performing their duties to the full confidence and with the best interests of homeowners in mind.  Please be clear about the total costs and summarize these clearly for all homeowners to understand.  I have provided examples of how easily this can be done, and would be happy to clarify this further if you would like.

With regards to the WPCA and how clearly they understand this, can they answer these questions:

• Do they know the full extent of the potential costs of the project and the overruns, especially considering the digging at Billow?
• What is our organizational structure for this project.  Who is our leader and overseer of the project?
• Who will oversee the day to day aspects of this project?  Is this included in our cost estimates.
• Who will liase with the lawyers, the contractors, the engineers, the other WPCA's, New London, DEEP, the Town of Old Lyme, the State etc, etc, on a day to day basis.  Is this included in our cost estimates.
• Do we have the appropriate fiscal management in place
• Do we have appropriate fiscal books, checks and balances in place.  I believe our books and records need to be in a proper state and control in order to receive State funding.  Have we identified what all those controls, checks and balances are, and are we in a position to perform these.  Have all the costs of this been included in our cost estimates.
• Do we know the ramifications of the timing and the completion dates for all of the WPCA's and the connections and the operation of the systems.  Has this been included in our cost estimates
• Are all of the agreements with the State for financing, loan forgiveness, and financial assistance in writing and binding.  Have these been reviewed and agreed by our lawyer.  Are these agreements in place and binding for the length of the project.
• Are we completely aware of all of the requirements that we will need to meet in order to meet any and all State requirements.  Are we aware of all of the requirements that the State and DEEP will make of us in the future?
• Have all of the costs of all of the items above been included in our costs estimates. 
• What is our provision in our budgeting for cost overruns.

Again, if the WPCA were asking for homeowners for a very small amount of $5,000 or $10,000, not knowing the answers to some of these questions might be ok (but probably not).  However, in asking the homeowners for $100,000 per home, and then expecting the homeowners to also be responsible for all of the unforeseen overruns, state requirements, and other processes and procedures we need to put in place, then again, it would give the homeowner reason to question their trust in the WPCA and question the budgeting process and cost estimates being provided to them now.  Especially if the WPCA is unwilling to easily summarize these costs in a simple easy to understand format, and not requiring homeowners to sift through a complicated 30 page document to "somehow" figure out the total cost estimates to them.   So again, you may have complete confidence, but if we don't know the answers to the basic questions above, and can't summarize the costs easily for the homeowners to understand, then I'm sure you can easily see how the homeowners would not share your view in having complete confidence as we move forward.

Yes I do have an idea of a different plan on how we could move forward.  What I am thoroughly disappointed about is that our WPCA doesn't have options of plans.  They have only 1 plan.  There are no considerations for plans A, B, or C.  There is no consideration of sitting down with the State NOW, to discuss these cost issues and how we might move forward.  Yes I have an alternative plan.  Why don't we take the time as a community to sit down and discuss other options.  Remember, we JUST RECEIVED the numbers.  Now we want to talk.  Why aren't we talking.  Why are we rushing to a vote.  This is craziness.

Yes please send this to the Board, to the WPCA along with my other questions.  There are SO MANY of my questions unanswered and absolutely no time allocated for discussion.  Remember, the WPCA has had all year to think about this and discuss it.  We have been kept in the dark, and now when we finally have some information, we are told that we CAN NOT discuss it.  Do you really think this is the best way for the Board and the WPCA to conduct the business in "representing the homeowners".  Don't you see the shortcomings in this approach.  Don't you see the potential for lawsuits to this approach (along with the other things mentioned above).

Well I see that the documents have been mailed (last night), and there is absolutely no clarification or summary of the costs.  (I started this e-mail yesterday morning but was unable to complete it til this morning).  Why does the Board and the WPCA not understand that this is the most basic of issues to the homeowners?  It would appear that you are hiding something.  If you aren't, then why not provide the homeowners with an easily understood summary of the costs.  You say you have confidence, but when homeowners see this happening, I'm sure you can understand how they may not have confidence.

Sorry for the long response.  As you can tell I think this is VERY IMPORTANT to the homeowners, and I believe the Board and the WPCA are opening themselves up to some potential unforeseen circumstances ahead.  It doesn't have to be like this, but unfortunately, it is what it is.

Mart

On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 12:43 PM Diane Duhaime <dianer...@comcast.net> wrote:

Thank you for your email.  I appreciate your concern and input, and am just getting a chance to read and reply to your email.  

The WPCA is currently working with the attorneys on the bond resolution.  Last I heard, they were having a call on Monday or Tuesday.  I asked to be included and await the scheduled time.  My understanding is the WPCA plans to send the slides, FAQS and video recording to all members as soon as possible.  

The current WPCA does not know why the former WPCAs didn’t regularly provide all members with the estimated costs per EDU, with cost updates at least once per year during the past 12 years, or much of the other information that this WPCA is now providing.  It seems that most of the questions presented should and could have been answered by past WPCAs all along and starting long ago.  It’s unfortunate that so many of our residents are only now hearing much of this information and this is why it seems that the necessary timing for this vote is rushed when it actually has been put off to a very late date.  

I am confident the OLS leadership and the attorneys and other engaged professionals are performing their duties responsibly, with integrity and in compliance with our charter, by-laws, applicable laws, regulations and contracts, all while serving the bests interests of the membership. 

If you have a plan to make the State rescind the Consent Order, obtain bids for the actual contract costs without an approval vote, avoid lawsuits, enforcement actions, penalties and other expensive and negative consequences for our Association, please be sure to provide it in an email to the WPCA now.  

Your below questions should be sent to the WPCA at askth...@oldlymeshores.org.  Would you like me to forward them for you?  

Diane 

On Oct 26, 2024, at 8:32 AM, Martin Merritt <mjmerr...@gmail.com> wrote:



Hi Diane,

I hope you are coping with everything ok.

Since October 10th, when we first received the numbers, it's clear that many people are fairly upset about the sewer proposal.  And because of the difficulty in breaking out the numbers from the materials, I'm sure most homeowners are in the dark about how much this is actually going to cost them.  So it appears that even though we have had the numbers for a very short time, even having them there is difficulty in summarizing them and understanding "what does this mean to me".

I was going to send some communications to some of the members.  But before I did, I wanted to know if there were going to be any further updates from the Board.  

For instance:

• Will there be any further discussion forums
• Will there be opportunity for discussion before the vote (back and forth where we are able to express opinions)
• Do you know if the Board and/or WPCA is planning on answering any of my additional questions
• Do you know if the Board agrees with my cost summary and if they have any response to this
• Do you know when the proxies will be mailed?  
• Will all of the same materials be mailed with the proxies, including a summary of the costs to each homeowner as outlined in my suggestion to the board
• Do you know if any work is being done on the bond approval.  Are we limiting our vote to just the sewers.
• Do you know if we are creating language that our bonding is subject to the 25% CWF financing, the 25% CWF loan forgiveness and the 50% (remainder), being funded by the State at 2% over 20 years?

Anyway.  If there are going to be no further communications and information provided to homeowners in a timely manner (like by Monday or Tuesday), although I think that would be a mistake on the Board's part, it will at least allow me and others to understand what the plan, or lack of plan will be moving forward and allow us to communicate with other homeowners with more understanding (or lack of it).

Thanks again for all of your hard work on this.

Mart

[Chris Shelton]

All, 

I think we were clear during the meeting last week that we are seeking an update to the bond resolution to remedy the scenario where the sewer expense comes in above $13.5MM, with the remaining ~$3M of capacity only available for projects outside of sewers.  I think we need to limit the scope of those changes at this stage, unless we want to consider delaying the vote.  My opinion is I don't think adding more parties to the conversation with bond counsel will be helpful.  

For what it's worth, the feedback I've gotten from many members is the presentations and FAQs have helped informed their decisions.  I would be the first to agree there are uncertainties (cost of non-CWF financing, individual connection costs, etc.) as there are with any project, but I would also highlight that cost inflation from delays over the past 13 years has been more impactful than any of these variables.  We should also be clear that we're currently working off of best estimates from our engineer, vs. actual bids from a contractor.  This is a question that could be answered by getting bids.  

Chris

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ask The WPCA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to askthewpca.g...@oldlymeshores.org.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/oldlymeshores.org/d/msgid/askthewpca.g/A31714A0-FA43-4DB2-AC8B-C6B623642533%40oldlymeshores.org.

[Diane Duhaime]

Thank you, Chris.  All good points to be included in a reply to Mart Merritt.  

All:  Here’s a copy of the latest email I received from Mart:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Martin Merritt <mjmerr...@gmail.com>
Date: October 28, 2024 at 8:21:18 AM EDT
To: Diane Duhaime <dianer...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: OLS Communications with Homeowners



Thanks.  That's a good start.  Hopefully this will open up further discussion on the matter.  

I know I may sound upset about this.  And perhaps I am a bit.  

Trust me - I understand all of the work you have put into the Board this year and all the work you have done.  And I definitely appreciate it.  And I'm not mad at the Board or the WPCA.  Again, I know they have sacrificed their personal time to consider all of this.  So I am thankful and appreciative for everyone's work to date.

What I'm really disappointed about is that we could have known this and discussed this all year long.  And now we are being asked to rush to a vote, without complete information and without complete discussion.  It's a shame that we are in this position.  But the Board and the WPCA can choose to change this.  And trust me, I'm definitely not the only one who is disappointed by this.  I understand, that there have been other e-mail exchanges and conversations among other OLS homeowners.

Anyway, hopefully we can all take a deep breath, slow this down a bit, and have some further discussions about alternative approaches and how we can work more closely with the State and the Town on breaking this down into reasonable costs.

Thanks

Mart

On Oct 28, 2024, at 9:39 AM, Chris Shelton <chris....@oldlymeshores.org> wrote:



[diane....@oldlymeshores.org]

TO:  OLSBA BOG, Officers and WPCA

 

Good afternoon.   Brendan Sharkey and I spoke with bond counsel today.  Bond counsel is preparing an update to the $6.8M Supplemental Bond Resolution.  I will plan on forwarding a copy to the OLSBA BOG, Officers and WPCA after Attorney Sharkey and I have reviewed and approved it.  

 

I am planning to prepare an initial draft reply email to Mart Merritt’s email of this morning, and obtain Attorney Sharkey’s input and approval before sending it.  I welcome your sending to me your exact suggested language for any replies that you would like included in the email to Mart.  Please send to me  by noon tomorrow. 

 

Thank you.

 

Diane Duhaime

President, OLSBA

[Bob Palazzo]

Hi Diane,

Just a thought but 3 million  barely covers the drainage…so I don’t feel that is acceptable all the cost of the plans being put out to bid need to de covered by the proposed  resolution.

Bob 

Sent from my 

On Oct 28, 2024, at 10:39 AM, Diane Duhaime <diane....@oldlymeshores.org> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/oldlymeshores.org/d/msgid/askthewpca.g/014C673D-CA54-4ACF-A0D7-D1F61F0474B7%40oldlymeshores.org.

[diane....@oldlymeshores.org]

What if it just states $6.8M as the limit for all of the Project – no separate $13.5 limit for the sewer?  Same way that the $9.7M bond resolution has just a single limit. 

[Jack Reynolds]

Disne, clearly we are dealing with very mixed messages and agendas. I agree with Mart Merritt 100% - greater clarity, open and welcomed opinion, and a shared understanding of the overall affects of our approaching decisions are desperately needed. Does the State really understand what adding $100000 debt to struggling homeowners will do to them?
I also believe Bob is right - we on the WPCA we're led to believe 16.1 million dollars, through Chris's presentation at the WPCA meeting 3 days after our Association meeting, relying on numbers from F&O, with $400000 added by Tim, for 16.5 million dollars, was the total for all projects.  Now it's just sewer and more to add later. The messages are contradictory, and misleading. And while some residents are positive about sewers, many that I hear constantly from are very opposed but scared by the threats. The litigations and p r coming are enormous and extremely destructive to OLS. Do we really want to proceed on a path to place liens and foreclosures on longstanding friends and neighbors, with project costs two and three times the original cost of their houses? Does inflation over 12 years really account for an increase cost per house from $25000 to $100000  with water and hook-up included originally (400+%!) Do you think income has gone up that much?

Diane, I strongly believe this beach needs much more conversation about this, and open conversation with contrary opinions welcomed, all before any vote. We are tearing this community apart, pushing one agenda, and not welcoming and respecting other's possibly desperate needs. While each decision may seem to make sense, the totality facing us ahead is totally unconscionable. 

Respectfully requested,

Jack Reynolds

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 28, 2024, at 1:16 PM, diane....@oldlymeshores.org wrote:



[Jay Moynihan]



10/28/24

Hello to All:

I am sorry to respond to this email trail, but honestly, solely on a personal basis, I believe we, as the beach’s two leadership organizations (BOG & WPCA), are not prepared, at this time, to responsibly & adequately advise our members about any potential increase of debt indebtedness for either our members or the Association. 

Consider we are less than two weeks from a prospective vote at a meeting, whose date was not voted on by the BOG, on a Bond resolution which we now, based on comments listed below, consideration is being given by some to revise from the most recent private draft…(what is role, if any, of the boards in any change(s) to the draft Bond resolution previously conveyed?)

Consider further that at the joint meeting of the BOG/WPCA it was declared that no opinions from residents, or board members would be permitted (although I would point out our legal & engineering representatives were allowed to provide their opinions.

Consider that prior to the 10/23/24 meeting the WPCA & BOG had not met since circa 9/24/24, but despite the boards not meeting, a special meeting of the Association was established (ok, two different dates, at different times, were stated), a power point presentation which was presented to the members as being from the WPCA (which was in draft form as of 10/3/24), responses to member questions (yet, the WPCA had never met to review & discuss..).

Consider that, although we have been knowledgeable at least in the past couple of months, about potential obligations involving interim financing, Stormwater financing, and the need for potential future engineering contracts with F&O involving project mgt, local sewer activities & Stormwater activities & ultimately the need to be prepared to have an audit of our fiscal records (as well Old Colony’s who is the focal point for the finances involving the shared project) we have seemingly made little of any progress. 

Consider that we were told the shared project could only be bid if all 4 local parties signed the CSA, yet at the 10/23/24 meeting I understood the F&O rep to state the bidding could commence even if the Town had not yet signed the Agreement - True?  

Consider that the state is seemingly requiring us to increase our bonding obligation, but has yet to sign the “Forgiveable Loan” documentation - the state stated almost 18 months ago that the $15 million was available…how about the state sign the documentation before we are asked to vote?…then we won’t have concerns about being left vulnerable if we increase our indebtednesses.

Consider expressions of concerns about the potential total cost of the entire project were expressed by individuals including board members, yet we say nothing about F&O project costs/assumptions which might have served for the two boards to reassess the total amount to be included in the debt resolution. (Administrative & Contingency Reserve immediately leap to my mind).

People’s homes & fiscal resources are affected by this decision to conduct a special mtg in November….I appreciate the ultimate need for a vote, but I do believe, frankly, more work, and the greater involvement of board members in the process would have ultimately enhanced the information which has been, to date, to our Association members.

Thanks 

Jay

[Chris Shelton]

My thoughts here.  It's somewhat ironic we're doing this during the runup to an election...

I would recommend any response be balanced and measured so a reasonable person can assess.  In spite of what this member might think, the goal of the WPCA presentation was to detail costs, and make reasonable estimates where required (and identify those as estimates).  

Here would be my comments by line item,:

The total cost to each homeowner is likely to be in the range of $133,000 to $153,000 per homeowner (see breakout below).  These figures can be extracted directly from the presentation provided to us by the WPCA.  So they are REAL numbers (and most likely to increase even further).  And this is the cost AFTER the state reimbursements and contributions to the project.  (if you don't have a copy of the presentation, please let me know, I will be happy to send it to you)

There is no evidence available that makes these estimates "likely".  While encouraging that OLS members are utilizing the numbers included in the WPCA's presentation, the headline numbers from this email include many different types of costs (1x and annual), and additionally a number of scenarios which should be broken out and identified for transparency, instead of rolled up into a headline.  

Here are some comments attempting to explain the wide variation in costs between this email and the WPCA presentation:

1. Homeowner cost per sewer - $37,634 (Page 8 of presentation)
2. Homeowner cost for roadways - $13,161 (Page 8 of the presentation)
   
3. Homeowner financing costs of sewers - $8,246 (Page 12 of presentation - $2,294 x 20 years = $45,880, less the $37,634 in 1. above = $8,246) 
4. Homeowner financing costs of roadways - $6,894 (Page 18 of the presentation.  $1,337 x 15 years = $20,055 less the $13,161 in 2. above = $6,894)

The advantage of borrowing funds and paying interest is members can pay back costs over 20 years.  An alternative would be for homeowners to pay all costs from #1 and #2 up front, when the project is constructed.  In this alternative scenario, homeowners would avoid paying the $8,246 of financing costs over 20 years, but also be required to pay #1 and #2 up front.

1. Homeowner cost of operating fees for 20 years - $10,000 (Page 12 of the presentation $500 x 20 years)
   

This operating cost was an estimate in the WPCA presentation, but it is identified as an operating expense.  Most people don't think of their utility bills in total over 20 year periods, but instead in monthly, or annual costs.  For this reason, adding the 20-year sum to the headline costs could be misleading to many members and should be broken out.    

1. Homeowner cost of connection - $10,000 - 30,000 (Page 13 of the presentation.  I and many others believe the $6,000 from the presentation is not at all reasonable, seeing that it cost us approximately $4,500 to connect just to the front of our homes for water.  For instance, at our home, may need to tear up our patio and our driveway to accommodate the piping.  For homeowners on Billow, because of the ledge, these costs could easily be $20,000 to $30,000 to connect to the sewers)
   

Connection costs will vary by residence.  There is no detail on the scenario of $10,000-$30,000 connection costs above, but there could be alternative scenarios to tearing up a patio that could be investigated (potentially replumbing?).  

1. Costs to homeowners, for those homeowners who do not connect - $31,468 - (if 50 homeowners choose not to connect (Point O Woods had 25 not connect at a much lower price), then this would amount to an approximate extra $4.5 million dollars (50 homes x $91,065 per home (items 1-5, plus item 9)) thrust upon the 143 connecting homes - or an additional $31,468 per home)

A scenario where 25% of OLS residences would not connect to the sewers is strictly a hypothesis, and should be broken out and explained this way.  Instead, this $31,468 is lumped on top of much more identifiable estimates from #1-#3.  Apples and oranges.

1. Total cost to homeowners - $117,403 - 137,403

Please refer to all previous comments.

1. Cost of Overruns at 15% - $16,110
   

Cost overruns are generally applied to the costs of a project (#1-#3).  This $16,110 is adding 15% on all of the assumptions above, including the financing costs (most of which have a 2% fixed rate), the homeowner connection cost, the 20-years of operating costs, the hypothetical scenario of 25% of OLS homeowners not connecting. 

1. Total Costs to Homeowners at 15% overrun - $133,513- $153,513
   
2. Without the State financing and reimbursements, these costs would approximate $183,000 to $203,000 per home - and I don't believe those contracts/agreements are signed, guaranteed and in place at this time.
3. The above costs are not fixed yet.  Every time we revisit this project, the costs continue to increase.  So most likely, the costs will escalate even higher.

To reiterate, receiving actual bids from contractors is the only way to verify the cost of these projects, and the supplemental bond authorization details that OLS cannot proceed if bids exceed $13.5 million for sewers, and $3 million for stormwater & roadway improvements.  For consideration, here are a few comments on the assumptions herein:

[Jay Moynihan]

10/30/24

Good Morning:

I would recommend that any response, not just a response to this email, from a WPCA web site, be first reviewed & vetted and approved by all members of the WPCA.  If we are saying “ask the WPCA”, then the response should be “from” the WPCA, at a public meeting. 

In making any response, at this point, consideration might be given to whether our Association members consider the WPCA, BOG and Officers as being “honest brokers” of Information about this project or “proponents” of increasing the cost on our homeowners to pay for sewers?  

Consider if a homeowner sends an email to residents favoring the sewer project but cites information that some on the WPCA, BOG & Officers believe is “incorrect” then will there be a response by the “WPCA, etc…”?

I have, and had, concerns about the timing & process involved with this decision to seek a vote a week from now - but, that can perhaps discussed at a later time….

I have included members of the WPCA in my response. 

Thanks 

Jay

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2024, at 12:17 AM, Chris Shelton <chris....@oldlymeshores.org> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/oldlymeshores.org/d/msgid/askthewpca.g/CAOPC%3DkcWwE9%2BwML55x1ih-VdOKhGnjaSsgfJa5%3Df7HZ3yrDY%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Diane Duhaime]

Good morning.  I agree with Jay that the BOG, officers and WPCA should weigh in on any response to the membership.  

After Attorney Sharkey approves an initial draft, Tim or I will forward it to the BOG, officers and WPCA and ask that they review and comment within 24 hours. The vote is 11/9 and our membership deserves as prompt a reply as possible.  

If the majority of the members of each board state in a reply email to me today that they want another Joint Special Meeting of both boards with the Marty Merritt email and response thereto on the agenda, I will prepare and send a draft notice and agenda to both boards and the OLS officers  for review and comment.  

Thank you all for your continued work in serving the best interests of our membership.  Accusations that any of us are dishonest brokers, pushing our own private agendas, or committed to sewers no matter what the cost, etc. are 100 percent unfounded and without merit.  

Hang in there.  Our members will vote on 11/9 and we will proceed accordingly from there.  

Thanks again.  

Diane Duhaime

President, OLSBA 

On Oct 30, 2024, at 10:18 AM, Jay Moynihan <jay.mo...@oldlymeshores.org> wrote:

10/30/24

[Jay Moynihan]

10/30/24

Hi. I have & do think potential responses should be discussed & developed at a public mtg.  Also, I think such a discussion should address concerns, questions…etc other than those from a single individual.   

Thanks 

Jay

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2024, at 11:08 AM, Diane Duhaime <diane....@oldlymeshores.org> wrote:



[diane....@oldlymeshores.org]

Good morning.  I’m writing to give everyone the current status from my perspective.  Very late last night I completed an initial draft for Attorney Sharkey’s review.  In addition, I have recommended revisions to the supplemental bond resolution based on input received (please see track changes in Section 1 of the attachment), and have asked Attorney Sharkey to contact the State to obtain certain information for OLS, including whether or not the Cost-Sharing Agreement must be fully executed by all 4 parties before the State will allow the project to go out to bid.   Thank you.

 

Diane Duhaime

President, OLSBA

 

From: Diane Duhaime <diane....@oldlymeshores.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 11:08 AM
To: Jay Moynihan <jay.mo...@oldlymeshores.org>
Cc: Chris Shelton <chris....@oldlymeshores.org>; askth...@oldlymeshores.org; Rottinghaus Scott <scottrot...@hotmail.com>; Cappellucci Rob <rob.cap...@oldlymeshores.org>; Reynolds MaryKate <marykate...@oldlymeshores.org>; Symon Greg <greg....@oldlymeshores.org>; YELLEN PAUL J <pjyellen...@gmail.com>; Sharkey Brendan <j...@sharkey-law.com>; Braun Danielle <DBr...@goodwin.com>; Jack Reynolds <jack.r...@oldlymeshores.org>; Bob Palazzo <bob.p...@oldlymeshores.org>; Dennis Colombie <dennis....@oldlymeshores.org>; John Mandracchia <john.man...@oldlymeshores.org>; Tim Larson <tim.l...@oldlymeshores.org>
Subject: Re: [ask wpca] Fwd: OLS Communications with Homeowners

 

Good morning.  I agree with Jay that the BOG, officers and WPCA should weigh in on any response to the membership.  

10/30/24



1.     Homeowner cost per sewer - $37,634 (Page 8 of presentation)

2.     Homeowner cost for roadways - $13,161 (Page 8 of the presentation)

3.     Homeowner financing costs of sewers - $8,246 (Page 12 of presentation - $2,294 x 20 years = $45,880, less the $37,634 in 1. above = $8,246) 

4.     Homeowner financing costs of roadways - $6,894 (Page 18 of the presentation.  $1,337 x 15 years = $20,055 less the $13,161 in 2. above = $6,894)

The advantage of borrowing funds and paying interest is members can pay back costs over 20 years.  An alternative would be for homeowners to pay all costs from #1 and #2 up front, when the project is constructed.  In this alternative scenario, homeowners would avoid paying the $8,246 of financing costs over 20 years, but also be required to pay #1 and #2 up front.

1.     Homeowner cost of operating fees for 20 years - $10,000 (Page 12 of the presentation $500 x 20 years)

This operating cost was an estimate in the WPCA presentation, but it is identified as an operating expense.  Most people don't think of their utility bills in total over 20 year periods, but instead in monthly, or annual costs.  For this reason, adding the 20-year sum to the headline costs could be misleading to many members and should be broken out.    

1.     Homeowner cost of connection - $10,000 - 30,000 (Page 13 of the presentation.  I and many others believe the $6,000 from the presentation is not at all reasonable, seeing that it cost us approximately $4,500 to connect just to the front of our homes for water.  For instance, at our home, may need to tear up our patio and our driveway to accommodate the piping.  For homeowners on Billow, because of the ledge, these costs could easily be $20,000 to $30,000 to connect to the sewers)

Connection costs will vary by residence.  There is no detail on the scenario of $10,000-$30,000 connection costs above, but there could be alternative scenarios to tearing up a patio that could be investigated (potentially replumbing?).  

1.     Costs to homeowners, for those homeowners who do not connect - $31,468 - (if 50 homeowners choose not to connect (Point O Woods had 25 not connect at a much lower price), then this would amount to an approximate extra $4.5 million dollars (50 homes x $91,065 per home (items 1-5, plus item 9)) thrust upon the 143 connecting homes - or an additional $31,468 per home)

A scenario where 25% of OLS residences would not connect to the sewers is strictly a hypothesis, and should be broken out and explained this way.  Instead, this $31,468 is lumped on top of much more identifiable estimates from #1-#3.  Apples and oranges.

1.     Total cost to homeowners - $117,403 - 137,403

Please refer to all previous comments.

1.     Cost of Overruns at 15% - $16,110

Cost overruns are generally applied to the costs of a project (#1-#3).  This $16,110 is adding 15% on all of the assumptions above, including the financing costs (most of which have a 2% fixed rate), the homeowner connection cost, the 20-years of operating costs, the hypothetical scenario of 25% of OLS homeowners not connecting. 

1.     Total Costs to Homeowners at 15% overrun - $133,513- $153,513

2.     Without the State financing and reimbursements, these costs would approximate $183,000 to $203,000 per home - and I don't believe those contracts/agreements are signed, guaranteed and in place at this time.

3.     The above costs are not fixed yet.  Every time we revisit this project, the costs continue to increase.  So most likely, the costs will escalate even higher.