Re: Joint Special Meeting of OLSBA BOG and WPCA on Wednesday, October 23, 2024 at 7 pm via Zoom Concerning Upcoming Membership Vote

[Martin Merritt]

Hello all,

Thank you again for your time and commitment to helping the OLS homeowners with this significant project.

Here are a few questions which would be super to understand.

1.  Is there ANY precedence in the State of Connecticut, where a significant sewer project of this magnitude and complexity was ever FORCED UPON a group of 193 homeowners, and not handled by a Town or City?

2.  Even though this has become uneconomical, is one of the reasons the WPCA recommends we move forward, is because they are worried about being sued by other entities?  If so, have we considered the other legal issues that we may become embroiled in by moving forward with this - as they are SIGNIFICANT.  Such as:

• Putting liens on OLS homes who choose not to connect
• Taking OLS homeowners to court who choose not to connect
• Being sued by OLS homeowners who believe this might be against the law
• Suing other beach WPCA's if they don't complete or perform on their portion of the contracts in a timely manner
• Suing other beach WPCA's if they don't agree to fund future changes, improvements and upkeep
• Being sued by other WPCA's if we are unable to perform in a timely manner
• Being sued by other WPCA's if this project continues to spiral out of control, and we can no longer afford to fund the project
• Suing contractors for not performing
• Suing contractors for going over budget
• Suing contractors for faulty work
• If other beaches try to connect in the future, there could be significant lawsuits involved with that process, their beaches, their contractors etc, etc.

3.  Has the WPCA assessed any of the potential legal issued identified above?

4.  How do we have a gun to our head, and White Sands and Hawks Nest and other bordering Long Island Sound neighborhoods, are not being required to put in sewers also?

5.  Is it correct to say that the costs are $4,131 per year for 20 years (from Page 20 of the WPCA report), or $82,620 per homeowner, plus the minimum cost to connect of $6,000, plus cost overruns?  This is the MINIMUM it will cost us.  But if overruns, are significant, it will likely cost each OLS homeowner easily $95,000 to $100,000 per home.  Is that correct?

6.  At what price point does the WPCA think that this project will be uneconomical for the OLS homeowners?  Would $200,000 per house, or $300,000 per house be considered uneconomical by the WPCA?  (Would $1 million per home be considered uneconomical by the WPCA?)

7.  Per question 6 above, if the WPCA agrees, that at some point, this would be an uneconomical venture, then would they agree that at some point, it would be the right thing to stop this process, and have further discussions with the State and the other entities?

8.  If in question 8 above, the WPCA agrees, that at some price point this venture could become uneconomical and that we should halt the process, then would they also agree that the correct question isn't IF we can halt the process, would the correct question be,  AT WHAT ECONOMIC LEVEL is it appropriate to halt the process?  Would the WPCA agree with this?

9. Is OLS equipped to manage this process for the long haul?  Do we have legal expertise, negotiation expertise, planning expertise, engineering expertise, etc.  For instance, expertise that most towns or cities have on paid staff.  Do we have any of this expertise moving forward?

10.  There has been mention that we should approve this bond in order to allow the contract to go out to bid, and that we would be allowed to have a second vote at some future date and the homeowners could vote not to move forward with the sewers.  Are we sure that we won't be in a poorer position with the State or other  WPCA's if we approve the issuance of the bond now, and back out later?

11.  Haven't we already approved approximately $9.7 million or $50,000 per household?

12.  If the homeowners believe that the $50,000 is already too expensive, why do we need to approve additional funding.

13.  If we think there is a good possiblity that the homeowners won't approve $90,000+ per home at a later date, then is there a real difference if we halt the process now or later.  At some point, because of the economics, if it is most likely that this project won't receive a yes vote, wouldn't it be better to halt the process now than later.

14.   What if there are cost overruns to the project?  Who bears the burden for those?  How specifically will those be decided and split up?  What if other beaches do not agree to pay additional costs?  Is there a written agreement on how these costs will be shared moving forward?  Has this been reviewed by our lawyer and do we have an opinion from him on these agreements?

15.  Are we 100% sure that the President would not have the authority to move forward, after approval of this bond.  Does the approval of the bond, and all of the language surrounding this, provide powers to the President to allow the President single handedly to move forward with the project if they so desired?

16.  How would we fund the cost of the homeowners who choose not to connect?   Who would pay for this?  If the current homeowners pay for the non-connecting households, how will they be reimbursed?  How will the board track this and keep control of this?

17.  Do we know the costs that the Old Colony homeowners, Old Lyme homeowners (Sound View), and the Miami Beach homeowners approved per property or EDU?  If not, can we please find this out?

18.  Could you remind us of the voting procedures that were used for the original $9.7 million approval?  Was there any special quorum's used, or any special voting percentages used for that vote?

19.  Has there been a study on how much the Billow homeowners cost to connect would be, seeing that many of them will have to cut through bedrock to connect to the sewer?  Could their costs be as high as $30,000 - $40,000 per home?

20.  Why are NextGen, engineered, steel, fiberglass and other septic tank alternatives not an option for OLS?

21.  Why have the proxy forms not been sent to all homeowners yet?

22.  Does the board agree that 20 is a quorum for this vote, and hence, yes votes from 11 homeowners could potentially put ALL homeowners on liability for this project?

23.  Do we have the legal right to place liens on the properties of non connecting homeowners?  Do we have this in writing from legal counsel?

24.  If the town of Old Saybrook, the Town of Clinton and the Town of Westbrook are all handling their own sewer issues (as well as the Town of East Lyme) – why are we, 193 homeowners of the Town of Old Lyme, been burdened with handling all of these issues?  Shouldn’t this be the responsibility of the Town of Old Lyme?  Afterall, they have full time individuals on their payroll with an expertise in governance, legal issues, town planning issues.  We are a volunteer organization with none of this expertise.  Is there any other example in the State of Connecticut whereby 193 homeowners have been REQUIRED to manage a project of this magnitude, cost and complexity?  If so, could you please provide us with the other examples?

25.  Do we have guarantees in writing of all of the State funding and financing? Is there an expiration to any of these agreements?

26.  What is the interest rate on the State financing?  Is this fixed or variable?

27.  What is the separate cost for the Stormwater Improvement and the Roadway Enhancements?  Do we need to move forward with these projects now?

28.  Steve Cinami was quoted in the Examiner that the Beaches would pay $1.5 million each.  How or why is this cost so significantly different than the costs the OLS WPCA is asking us to finance?  If the WPCA doesn't know, can they please contact Mr Cinami to find out?

Thank you again for all of your work on this project

Kind regards

Martin Merritt

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:23 PM President, OLSBA <secr...@oldlymeshores.org> wrote:

View this email in your browser Subject:  Joint Special Meeting of the OLSBA Board of Governors and Water Pollution Control Authority on Wednesday, October 23, 2024 at 7 pm. via Zoom Concerning Upcoming Membership Vote The President of the OLSBA and the Chairman of the WPCA hereby provide this written notice calling for a Joint Special Meeting of the BOG and WPCA to take place at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 23, 2024, via Zoom. The Zoom meeting credentials are as follows: Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/4861019414?pwd=MVbDjm0FU2jI6PJAbdwe7M6NhOjoBT.1&omn=84458352413 Meeting ID: 486 101 9414 Passcode: 10172024 One tap mobile +13052241968,,4861019414#,,,,*10172024# US +13092053325,,4861019414#,,,,*10172024# US Agenda 1.   BOG - Establish Quorum and Call to Order 2.   WPCA - Establish Quorum and Call to Order 3.   Overview of the voting process for November 9, 2024 Special Meeting of the Association being held via Zoom only to vote on the $6.8 Supplemental Bond Resolution 4.   Discussion - WPCA Slide Presentation that was sent to the membership on October 10, 2024, including status of the questions that members sent to askth...@oldlymeshores.org 5.   Question-and-Answer Session for Members – Kurt Mailman, Fuss & O’Neill and Attorney Brendan Sharkey will be in attendance to answer questions 6.   Adjournment Click Here for WPCA Slide Presentation Copyright (C) 2024 Old Lyme Shores Beach Association. All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: Old Lyme Shores Beach Association PO Box 80 South Lyme, CT 06376-0080 USA Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe

[Martin Merritt]

Hello all,

I thought the excerpt from this summers meeting at the Old Lyme Town Hall was informative.  https://ct-oldlyme.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/2167/WPCA-Sewer-Update-Presentation-August-28-2024

I believe this shows the OLS portion of the estimated sewer project costs to be $6,023,108, or approximately $31,207 per homeowner.

Could you help us understand the differences in the OLS WPCA presentation and the estimated costs here?

Thanks again for all your help.

Kind regards

Martin Merritt

[Martin Merritt]

Hello to all,

Thanks again for all of your work and effort to the call last night.

I had some additional items for thoughts/discussion:

I THINK THIS IS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE - I wondered that when we send the information to the homeowners, if we can be more specific about the costs that they are voting for.  It is very difficult to pull all of the costs out of the information that is attached.  And after all, this is the main item that the homeowners are concerned about.

For instance, I think it would be good to let the homeowners know that if they vote yes, that the costs per homeowner that they are voting for could range between.    $95,000 and $115,000 as outlined below:

• Homeowner cost per sewer - $37,634 (Page 8 of presentation)
• Homeowner cost for roadways - $13,161 (Page 8 of the presentation)
• Homeowner financing costs of sewers - $8,246 (Page 12 of presentation)
• Homeowner financing costs of roadways - $6,895 (Page 18 of the presentation)
• Homeowner cost of operating fees for 20 years - $10,000 (Page 12 of the presentation)
• 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, will need to tear up our patio and our driveway to accommodate the piping.  I think it would behoove the board to not downplay this potential significant cost to each homeowner (especially if the board has not done the research on the $5,000 they are suggesting).  And this could be extremely significant to those homeowners on Billow)
• Total cost to homeowners - $85,936 - $105,936
• Cost of Overruns at 15% - $9,890
• Total Costs to Homeowners at 15% overrun - $95,826 - $115,826

Could you tell us if the costs per the presentation included all other potential costs that could occur with this

• Are any Fuss and O'Neil fees for assisting in managing the project in here
• Are all Legal fees in here?
• Was the estimate discussed last night for the administrative fees of .5% reasonable?  Could it be much higher?  What is Ken's best estimate for a project of this magnitude, complexity with so many other entities involved?

Also from last night.  It was great that we could ask questions.

• Will there be any additional opportunities for questions?
• Although we could ask questions, we never had an opportunity to discuss, thoughts, opinions and other items (since we could only ask questions).  Will there be an opportunity for the homeowners to have discussions, opinions and additional thoughts?

I asked a question last night regarding the Board members and the WPCA members opinion if they believe that $100,000 per homeowner is a reasonable cost per homeowner, and I don't believe that was answered.  Could you provide us with your thoughts and answers?

Also, a question for Ken - does he have any previous examples where a group of 193 homeowners have been forced by the State to pay $100,000 each for a project like this.  If so, could Ken provide us with the other examples.  Also, based on Ken's experience, it would also be good to know if he believes the $100,000 cost per homeowner is a reasonable cost.

Are we working on the Bond language to only have the sewer costs approved.  Personally I believe it is important to ensure that the other WPCA's, and the State are aware of just the costs that we are agreeing to dedicate to the sewers.  If we want to have a separate vote on the costs of the roadways, then I suppose that could be an option also, and/or voted on at another meeting.

Are we placing language in the Bond that the homeowners are only agreeing to issue the bond if the State has:

• Provided the 25% CWF Grant
• Provided the 25% CWF Loan Forgiveness
• Provided the 50% financing at 2% over 20 years.

If we don't have those agreements from the State, the project is unaffordable, and we should protect ourselves from moving forward without such written guarantees in place.  (although I am of the opinion that even with the above guarantees the project is still unaffordable)

I believe I may have a few unanswered questions from my previous list, which I can address in another e-mail.

Thank you again for all of your work on this.

Kind regards

Martin Merritt

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 5:33 PM Martin Merritt <mjmerr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Martin Merritt]

Hello to all again,

I apologize as I believe I referred to Kurt as Ken in my previous e-mail.  Please insert Kurt's name, where I have written Ken.

Kind regards

Martin

[Martin Merritt]

Hello all,

In reviewing my previous questions, it would appear that the following questions are still unanswered.

Also, could you let us know when the meeting materials from the other night will be available on the website.

Thank you again for all of your work on this.

Kind regards

Martin Merritt

1.  Is there ANY precedence in the State of Connecticut, where a significant sewer project of this magnitude and complexity was ever FORCED UPON a group of 193 homeowners, and not handled by a Town or City?

2.  Even though this has become uneconomical, is one of the reasons the WPCA recommends we move forward, is because they are worried about being sued by other entities?  If so, have we considered the other legal issues that we may become embroiled in by moving forward with this - as they are SIGNIFICANT.  Such as:

• Putting liens on OLS homes who choose not to connect
• Taking OLS homeowners to court who choose not to connect
• Being sued by OLS homeowners who believe this might be against the law
• Suing other beach WPCA's if they don't complete or perform on their portion of the contracts in a timely manner
• Suing other beach WPCA's if they don't agree to fund future changes, improvements and upkeep
• Being sued by other WPCA's if we are unable to perform in a timely manner
• Being sued by other WPCA's if this project continues to spiral out of control, and we can no longer afford to fund the project
• Suing contractors for not performing
• Suing contractors for going over budget
• Suing contractors for faulty work
• If other beaches try to connect in the future, there could be significant lawsuits involved with that process, their beaches, their contractors etc, etc.

3.  Has the WPCA assessed any of the potential legal issued identified above?

6.  At what price point does the WPCA think that this project will be uneconomical for the OLS homeowners?  Would $200,000 per house, or $300,000 per house be considered uneconomical by the WPCA?  (Would $1 million per home be considered uneconomical by the WPCA?)

7.  Per question 6 above, if the WPCA agrees, that at some point, this would be an uneconomical venture, then would they agree that at some point, it would be the right thing to stop this process, and have further discussions with the State and the other entities?

8.  If in question 8 above, the WPCA agrees, that at some price point this venture could become uneconomical and that we should halt the process, then would they also agree that the correct question isn't IF we can halt the process, would the correct question be,  AT WHAT ECONOMIC LEVEL is it appropriate to halt the process?  Would the WPCA agree with this?

9. Is OLS equipped to manage this process for the long haul?  Do we have legal expertise, negotiation expertise, planning expertise, engineering expertise, etc.  For instance, expertise that most towns or cities have on paid staff.  Do we have any of this expertise moving forward?

10.  There has been mention that we should approve this bond in order to allow the contract to go out to bid, and that we would be allowed to have a second vote at some future date and the homeowners could vote not to move forward with the sewers.  Are we sure that we won't be in a poorer position with the State or other  WPCA's if we approve the issuance of the bond now, and back out later?

13.  If we think there is a good possiblity that the homeowners won't approve $90,000+ per home at a later date, then is there a real difference if we halt the process now or later.  At some point, because of the economics, if it is most likely that this project won't receive a yes vote, wouldn't it be better to halt the process now than later.

14.   What if there are cost overruns to the project?  Who bears the burden for those?  How specifically will those be decided and split up?  What if other beaches do not agree to pay additional costs?  Is there a written agreement on how these costs will be shared moving forward?  Has this been reviewed by our lawyer and do we have an opinion from him on these agreements?

15.  Are we 100% sure that the President would not have the authority to move forward, after approval of this bond.  Does the approval of the bond, and all of the language surrounding this, provide powers to the President to allow the President single handedly to move forward with the project if they so desired?

16.  How would we fund the cost of the homeowners who choose not to connect?   Who would pay for this?  If the current homeowners pay for the non-connecting households, how will they be reimbursed?  How will the board track this and keep control of this?

17.  Do we know the costs that the Old Colony homeowners, Old Lyme homeowners (Sound View), and the Miami Beach homeowners approved per property or EDU?  If not, can we please find this out?

18.  Could you remind us of the voting procedures that were used for the original $9.7 million approval?  Was there any special quorum's used, or any special voting percentages used for that vote?

19.  Has there been a study on how much the Billow homeowners cost to connect would be, seeing that many of them will have to cut through bedrock to connect to the sewer?  Could their costs be as high as $30,000 - $40,000 per home?

20.  Why are NextGen, engineered, steel, fiberglass and other septic tank alternatives not an option for OLS?

21.  Why have the proxy forms not been sent to all homeowners yet?

23.  Do we have the legal right to place liens on the properties of non connecting homeowners?  Do we have this in writing from legal counsel?

24.  If the town of Old Saybrook, the Town of Clinton and the Town of Westbrook are all handling their own sewer issues (as well as the Town of East Lyme) – why are we, 193 homeowners of the Town of Old Lyme, been burdened with handling all of these issues?  Shouldn’t this be the responsibility of the Town of Old Lyme?  Afterall, they have full time individuals on their payroll with an expertise in governance, legal issues, town planning issues.  We are a volunteer organization with none of this expertise.  Is there any other example in the State of Connecticut whereby 193 homeowners have been REQUIRED to manage a project of this magnitude, cost and complexity?  If so, could you please provide us with the other examples?

25.  Do we have guarantees in writing of all of the State funding and financing? Is there an expiration to any of these agreements?

26.  What is the interest rate on the State financing?  Is this fixed or variable?

27.  What is the separate cost for the Stormwater Improvement and the Roadway Enhancements?  Do we need to move forward with these projects now?

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 5:33 PM Martin Merritt <mjmerr...@gmail.com> wrote: