2015 – May 18 Minutes

N. Couture was unavailable for this evening’s meeting.  L. Woods noted that the budget is in good shape.
 
 

A motion was made by G. Keller and seconded by T. Pellegrino to approve the minutes from the April 20, 2015 Public and Non-Public sessions with the following changes:

Page 2, Public minutes, the word “minute” should be changed to “minutes”
Page 1, Non-Public minutes, the word “if” in the third paragraph should be changed to “will”

The motion passed 5-0-0.

• Alt 3B – Remote work station computer and software $10,000
• Alt 4 – Bituminous pavement $20,125

R. Miner noted that staff recommends alternative 4, but not alternative 3B.  Instead of purchasing additional software and equipment for a stationary work station it is recommended a “hotspot” is purchased which will allow the new laptop to connect to the internet anywhere. This will make the laptop a mobile work station for the treatment plant.

Alternative 4 will include a 20 foot patch to the left of the building and walkway.  This paving will make the area easier to plow, etc.  There will be 2 layers of paving.  The cost is included in the bid.  The money will be taken from the $234,000 contingency.  If the paving is approved the contingency will be reduced to $214,000.

A motion was made by T. Pellegrino and seconded by J. Comer to move that the Board of Commissioners of the Merrimack Village District deny Additional Alternative 3B for the remote work station computer and software for the new treatment plant in the amount of $10,000.  The motion passed 5-0-0.

A motion was made by T. Pellegrino and seconded by J. Balcom to move that the Board of Commissioners of the Merrimack Village District accept Additional Alternative 4 for the Bituminous paving in the amount of $20,125.  The motion passed 5-0-0.

R. Miner noted that the next meeting regarding the treatment plant will be held on May 21, 2015 at 8:30 AM in the office trailer at the plant.  There may or may not be power to the office trailer at that time, but there will plenty of light with the curtains open.

R. Miner noted that the surveying of this site has been completed.  Something should be forwarded to the District this week.  There might be a draft for the Commissioners to review at the next meeting.

G. Keller noted that the draft would then go to UEI for conceptual drawings then back to the MVD for the finalizing of the easements.

John Calvert questioned the status of the testing of the meter.  R. Miner noted that the meter in question (the original meter) has been reading consistently since it was reinstalled.  The District is looking for this consistency.  He noted that when the new meter was installed there were no problems.  When the old meter was reinstalled the readings remained consistent.

Anna Vey noted that the District knew of this problem in September 2014.  Residents have overpaid $234 over 6 quarters.  She noted that the District is responsible for the overpayment.  She noted that if there is an issue the District should take it up with the residents of the Flintlock building.

L. Woods noted that on January 26, 2015 the Board wanted to make sure that the equipment was correct and was not so interested in the internal billing.  He stated that another billing period is needed to confirm that the meter is correct.

R. Miner noted that the issues of billing is an issue of the development management company.  It is there concern to take care of the billing issues.

Anna Vey noted that this has nothing to do with the management company and billing and she would like her money refunded.

L. Woods noted that water went through the meter and someone owes for this water.

J. Calvert noted that this is a large amount of water and some overpayment has been made.  There are still owners who have paid for water that disappeared.

L. Woods noted that there was nothing apparent in the building.  R. Miner noted that the District only has the meter to go by.  The District can only assume there was a leak.

J. Calvert noted that there has been some overpayment and that these ratepayers need to be reimbursed.  He asked what the MVD can do for these residents.  He questioned the length of time needed to address the payment issue.  R. Miner noted that more time is needed to look at the meter.  If there is no change in the meter, if it continues to read correctly, it will not be removed.  The District billed the management company for the water.  J. Calvert noted that the money went to the District not to the management company.  He noted that the District can see from the records how much water was used historically.

L. Woods noted that meters, as they age, do not spin faster, but spin slower.  The MVD thinks the water was metered correctly.  The homeowners are asking for reimbursement.  It is unknown what was happening in the buildings.

J. Comer asked who keeps track of the empty apartments and whether there are any units that have been empty since 2013.  It was noted that the management company keeps track of empty apartments and there are no units that have been empty since 2013.

J. Calvert noted that tenants come and go; some of the units are sublet.  The Board of Directors will be meeting to discuss their options.  They may come back to the Board of Commissions for additional help.

L.  Woods noted this is a bit of a conundrum.  The District will continue to monitor the meter.

J. Calvert noted that the Board of Directors will discuss what the community can do to fix the problem until the Directors and the Commissioners can come to an agreement.

J. Balcom questioned whether the meter could have been installed improperly.  R. Miner noted that this is unlikely.  T. Pellegrino questioned whether there could have been a leak before the meter.  R. Miner noted that if the leak was before the meter it would not have registered on the meter.  G. Keller noted that the system is the District’s responsibility before the meter, but the residents’ responsibility after the meter.  J. Balcom questioned whether the District could reimburse the owners $2,400.  L. Woods noted this would set a precedent and he is reluctant to quickly “split the baby”.  R. Miner noted that J. Lavoie spoke to the management company.  J. Lavoie noted that the current management company is done working with this development at the end of May 2015.  R. Miner asked if the Commissioners would object to having Attorney G. Michael present at the next meeting of this issue.  The Board felt that this was a good idea.

Verizon Cell Tower – R. Miner noted that this contract has been forwarded to Attorney G. Michael, but no response has been received to date as G. Michael is out of the country.  This tower will be an 85’ tall monopine tower.  The income from this rental will go into the general fund.  The rent is locked in for 4 or 5 years.  The building will be made of concrete.  There is no completion date at this time.  It is unknown if this building needs to go to the Planning Board.

Automated Groundwater Level Monitoring Report – This report was presented to the Commissioners.  R. Miner noted that this report gives us levels to watch for in our monitoring wells to ensure our wells are not being depleted. J. Lavoie noted that Table II is the most important page in the report. It gives 4 levels, from “Alert” to “Disaster” to watch for. This is the first time actual numbers have been assigned to critical levels.  The District is in the process of getting well #7 on line to give wells #4 & 5 a break.

Summer Retreat – L. Woods asked the Commissioners and staff to think about whether to do this retreat again this summer.

Hydraulic Modeling – This model should be discussed so that the Commissioners can understand possible bottlenecks and how the water moves about the system.

Summer Schedule – The Commissioners were asked to think about the possibility of meeting in July.

Gas pipeline meeting – R. Miner noted he went to a meeting in Amherst.  An altenate route was proposed by Amherst to go along Route 101 via the railroad track then up Continental Boulevard and back to the power lines connecting to the original route. R. Miner explained the MVD would be opposed to this route because it now crosses through two Wellhead Protection areas. It was decided at that time to meet separately with Kinder-Morgan to discuss alternate routes in Merrimack.  Outside of the meeting it was decided not to propose any route but instead to provide Kinder-Morgan with a map of sensitive areas of MVD where the gas line would not be acceptable. L. Woods noted that he would like a representative of the District to accompany the Kinder-Morgan survey team.  R. Miner noted he will ask about this team and request that a member of the MVD staff accompany the team.

Sunset Shores – This project is on-going.

There were no questions from the public at this time.

There were no questions from the press at this time.