This is another tax in disguise. It begs the question as to why the Charter revision Commission did not make this an elected body. This group has spent millions of your dollars with virtually no oversight whatsoever and virtually no accountability to those they are taxing.

Does pool water go into the sewer systems? Does the water from irrigation systems go to the sewer systems? All of it? Some of it? How much?

This is what happens when you have one party government. Taxation without representation...sound familiar?

Is there documentation somewhere that validates this assumption that sewer useage is increased when one has a pool? First, homeowners with pools that have a sand filter are required to dig a dry well to accommodate backwashing. The rest of us have cartridge filters that don't require back wash. When exactly is our pool using the sewers?

What's next, slip and slides?

As someone with an irrigation system, I'm annoyed that, to avoid being overcharged, I need to pay out of my own pocket to install a second water meter. I have to pay more either way!

This is very troubling to me because I actually believe the averaging method is the best reflection of a household's wastewater volume. The quote from the W.P.C.A. posting is nonsensical suggesting that "no summer consumption was used for billings". They shouldn't be charging us for "consumption" which Aquarion already does. We should pay for our share of the load on the waste water treatment system, which the averaging system does a decent job of approximating by excluding the outdoor water uses of spring and summer: swimming pools, irrigation, car washing, kiddie pools, traditional sprinklers, etc.

We need to hear more of the rationale behind this change, and what other formulas they've considered, because on the surface this appears to simply be a way to generate revenue on the backs of people that aren't actually using more of the services that they are supposedly collecting for.

(BTW, I don't have a pool or irrigation system and in fact my spring/summer usage is typically lower because of vacations, but in principle it seems less accurate even though I'd likely benefit from the change.)

I received the letter. It appears to me that you're correct, it's a bad deal with Bridgeport. I thought that we were renegotiating the agreement with Bridgeport or trying to find some other arrangement for our wastewater treatment. Will any such new agreement have the same provision in it? Why make so many homeowners incur additional expense if the agreement expires soon? Have other solutions been explored, or is it simply being dumped on those with swimming pools and irrigation systems?

I'd like to ask Aaron what he means with his subhead, "The change means more realistic bills." Because that subhead sounds like an endorsement of the WPCA's policy. It makes it sound like they're making a sensible correction, when, in fact, it seems totally unfair to have to pay a sewer-use fee because you water your lawn.

What, exactly is more "realistic?" I get that it would be based on use, but "use" isn't the same thing as "sewer use." Tom Tesoro is right. This is a new tax from an appointed authority that shouldn't have the power to do this without legislative oversight.

Are you saying that Bridgeport charges Trumbull based on the Aquarion reported usage? Because that's what the Trumbull WPCA bases their charges on. If that's the case, why is Trumbull willing to not charge for outside water usage if a separate meter is installed? If Bridgeport charges for total water consumption, that won't pay the bill.

Thanks for all the good information everyone who has posted today. I'm still at a loss as to how my pool uses the sewers and I'm hopeful that this will be explained to me on Monday night.

Kristy, filling your pool with your hose does not impact the sewers at all! If a senior is watering his or her lawn with a hose or watering his or her garden, or someone is washing his or her car, that water does not go to the sewer treatment plant. It is unfair to be charged a sewer treatment fee for this water. The contract with Bridgeport expires in just a few months. I expect the WPCA to negotiate a contract that protects ALL Trumbull residents, and isn't patently unfair, like charging residents a fee for water that never enters the sewers. The residents of North Nichols are going to be hit with staggering sewer assessments. Then they have to go through the cost of hooking up to the sewer pipe. Next, they will have to pay an even higher sewer use bill than before. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, in my opinion. This is a matter of fairness. Don't charge residents a sewer use fee for filling up their pool. Don't charge someone for watering his or her lawn. Fees are worse than taxes....you can't deduct them on your federal income tax!

In our lawsuit against Mark IV, don't they claim that groundwater seeping into the sewers they installed is driving up our sewage treatment costs? How can that be if Mr. Solomene says Bridgeport doesn't charge for actual usage?

Also, as I said in an earlier post, Trumbull forbids the practice of backwashing into the streets. If you are installing a sand filter, you must dig a dry well in your backyard. We, like many others, use s cartridge filter which does not back wash.

If we're talking about consumption, then I don't understand what the WPCA has to do with this - none of the water from our pool is sent through the water treatment plant.

According to information I've receieved, apparently all water used is subject to sewer useage charges. This to me would explain the reason why the current formula makes perfect sense. IMO, changing the formula will unfairly increase sewer useage fees for some.

Irrigation systems and pools may drive up water consumption but certainly do not increase sewer useage. The result of this change in policy essentially means that people with pools and spinkler systems will pay more for sewer useage even though we don't use the sewers more that our neighbors that don't have pools or sprinkler systems. Not sure that passes the smell test for me.

Thoughts?

Kristy, remember, it's not just pools and sprinklers. Many seniors and others water gardens all throughout the summer. The bottom line here is that our sewer contract EXPIRES in just a few short months. If there is a problem with the contract, negotiate a better one! If there is a provision that is unfair, now is the opportunity to right a wrong. But this administration should NEVER support charging people for water usage that NEVER enters the sewer system. I will tell you this....if people want to look at this from a purely political perspective, there are a great many homeowners whose sewer use bills are going to go up by a LOT, and they are not just going to hold this administration accountable. And the town will be much browner and not as beautiful in the summer, as there are homes and business and condo complexes which are simply not going to water their lawns like they did in the past.

Correction in the above: Should read "they are going to hold this administration accountable."

I just sent an email opposing the change to my District 1 town council members. Recommend others do the same. I see two issues: 1) the shell game of shifting the cost of the bad deal with Bridgeport to a subset of the households, and 2) a lack of focus on the long term plan for fixing our wastewater quandary. (It isn't even clear to me that the TC can stop the fee change, but we'll see.)

So, this recommended change is a result of an unfavorable contract that exists between Trumbull and Bridgeport. Certain Trumbull residents who use more water will be charged more for sewer useage even if that water never passes through the sewers and water treatment plant. Well that is just plain wrong.

Kristy, I agree. I also am having a very hard time understanding that an appointed board has the authority to directly tax residents, seemingly without any oversight or accountability and without any responsibility to voters. To me, that is just plain wrong as well. To whom does the WPCA report? The Charter states simply that the members are appointed by the First Selectman and that the WPCA has "all powers and duties conferred or imposed by law." What does that mean? From the language in the statutes it appears that the WPCA answers to no one but the courts if a complaint is filed. Hopefully it won't come to that.

I would also agree that the proposed changes are unfair to say the least. How can one be charged for a service they don't use? I'm willing to go the sub-meter route to separate out my usage, but to date can't find out how the sub-meter will be administered and who will do the calculations and reporting. After phone calls to Aquarion and Mr. Solemene, no answers were clear. Aquarion claimed the sub-meters will not be read or administered by them and Mr. Solemene wanted to wait until after Monday's meeting to comment and claimed that Aquarion gave me mis-information. Who knows?? In my case, based on last years data my WPCA summer bill would have increased from $140 to $425.

Based on data from the Trumbull GIS, there are about 1,750 pools in town with an average surface area of 600 square feet and a total surface area over 1,000,000 square feet. I don't know how many of square feet (or vertical feet) a pool needs each season, but based on sewer rate data collected by Tighe and Bond, each vertical foot of water would cost the average pool about $25.00.
http://rates.tighebond.com/(S(yxi2uo55dleyupyubhveyr55))/index.aspx

I don't have a pool, but one question that someone should ask Aquarion is how long will it take to install 1,750 sub-meters. Do they have the resources to get these sub-meters installed before the first bill comes due?

According to my conversation with Aquarion yesterday, the sub-meters will be the homeowners responsibility.

The benefit is that the sub-meter could measure the water that is not used for "household" use and therefore reflect the amount that would not flow out to the sewer connection. Of course, this means the pipes in your house that carry water to outside faucets and irrigation systems would have to be re-routed so the water used outside, for irrigation or washing cars, etc., would only flow through the sub-meter. This then would more accurately reflect the amount of water that did not go through to the sewer system. That also implies that some one would have to read that meter and subtract that amount from the "main" meter to arrive at the amount of water that was used for normal "household" use and therefore flowed through to the sewer system.

Kristy, I believe that is versus the "averaging" that is now in place for the summer/fall calculations. The sub-meter route would still reflect actual usage that passes through to the sewer system. Personally I think the present averaging system is a good way to do it.

What's to stop a homeowner from putting in a sub-meter and then using it for more than just "outside" consumption?

Beats me! The sub-meter police??? I think their the ones that carry water pistols. Seriously you're right - it does open up a whole can of worms.

I'm hoping I have a better understanding of all this after tonight's meeting. If I understand the proposed policy, all water useage will be subject to sewer useage fees whether it goes through the sewers or not. This whole "sub-meter" thing would only make sense if the amount of water used for pools and irrigation wasn't going to be subject to sewer useage fees but I don't believe that's the case given the information I've been able to get so far.

I think the WPCA needs to come clean on this tax. The usual speil that other Towns do it this way should not be the excuse. Nor should "fairness" be the mantra. We have done it the current way for years. What has changed? Why put additional burdens on Families, seniors etc for the sin of watering their lawns?

I urge all to come out tonight or write to the WPCA c/o Town Hall.

Fight Back against the tax by this unelected body.

This proposed policy is like charging me for electricity based on the number of lights I have in my house even if I never turn half of them on.

Tom T. - Hello again my friend.

Kristy in the letter that was sent by the WPCA, the third paragraph from the end states -

"Members of the WPCA have meet with an Aquarion representative and together an option of installing a second water meter used exclusively for outdoor watering has been developed. Trumbull would not include the consumption through this second meter as part of their sewage treatment contract obligation. That consumption would be billed by Aquarion but not included in the Sewage Treatment bills."

Pretty clearly stated I think. Aquarion would still supply all the total water that we use and charge us for using it, as they have always done in the past. Nothing needs to be done on their part.

One question is how to determine what happens to the water after they deliver it to us and we use it. How much we use passes through to the sewer system, and how much does not. It seems the second meter was the option chosen during the meeting of Aquarion and the WPCA as stated in the above quoted letter.

It seems the unclear questions that are left unanswered are -A.) Who reads the second meter and does the math to determine how much water exited our homes that went to the sewage system, B.) Who pays for the second meter and associated in-house plumbing changes and permits/inspection(I'd suspect that would be us the homeowner) C.) Why can't we just do it using the present averaging method(but I believe that was answered in the letter - the cost of $500,000.)

Hi Peter,

Good to hear from you again!

I think we need to understand why this is being proposed. What is really driving a change at this time. Installing new meters, etc are a nuisance and may be costly.

What is driving this? I will not be able to go in a timely fashion tonight so I hope someone can explain this to me.

Hope all is well!!!

Tom

Tom...I'll give one guess! But I'm sure you and I are well aware!
All is well, best to Vicki.

Lots of information tonight - Most interesting, if I understood correctly, was that only homes with irrigation systems will be able to install these second meters, or at least that's what I heard during the last few minutes of the meeting. I was under a different impression for most of the night until the last speaker - the last speaker of the night was a high consumption user, he said he received a letter, he knows he waters a lot but he uses hose/sprinkler and does not have an irrigation system so he does not get the option to install the second meter.

If I understood correctly, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, all water consumption will be subject to sewer useage fees,whether it goes into the sewers or not, and only homes with irrigation systems that install the second meter, will receive any sort of concession even though so many of us that may use more water that does not go into the sewers.

Again, lots of information tonight so if someone heard differently, please say so, thanks.

An underlying problem in this whole question is a sewer system being forced upon people who do not need and did not want sewers.

Anyone not connected to the sewage system has no problem regarding irrigation systems or swimming pools. But if sewers pipes are in front of their house they must pay, through the assessment, for that pipe. And, if exempt from connecting, they still pay over $100 per year for sewer maintainance charge.

The whole sewer system stinks.

I would like to thank Councilwoman Waizenegger for attending this evening's meeting and asking questions. There was about 65 people in attendance, a pretty big turnout for this type of meeting. WPCA Chairwoman Jeanine Lynch began her remarks by admitting that the proposed system will be "unfair" to sewer users because they are being charged based on water consumption, rather than based on how much is put into the sewer. Yes, she said it was unfair, but this is the way we are charged by Bridgeport. What the WPCA hopes is that high water users will have their irrigation system's consumption read by a submeter. The Aquarion Water Company will charge the homeowner $140 per year to have an additional meter. The homeowner will also be responsible to pay the plumber to configure the pipes to install the submeter. The water company representative was unable to provide an estimate as to how much the plumbing charge would be. The WPCA estimates that there are between 900-1000 high water consumers per year. The current means of billing using average consumption leaves a balance of about $500K per year that has to be paid for by all sewer users.

Many people got up to ask questions. I found the answers to be often times vague and non-committal. For example, I asked it the WPCA knows that the billing change will go into effect this summer, when will they commit to lower the rate for all customers? The WPCA was not able to answer this question.

More to come...

Several people asked why the WPCA would implement such a change now when the contract with Bridgeport is expiring in less than 5 months. The general thinking was that if the current contract language is unfair to Trumbull residents, fix it in the new contract. But the WPCA could not estimate how long it would take to finish negotiating and Ms. Lynch pointed out that the last contract took 7 years to negotiate. One thing that really bothered many in the audience was the response to the question as to what happens if a homeowner goes through the trouble and expense of installing the submeters, and Bridgeport does not agree to subtract that usage from our bills? The WPCA could not guarantee that Bridgeport would agree to subtract the usage on the submeters. That was discouraging to many. I asked the question as to why Bridgeport would agree to process the exact same amount of sewage as they do now for $500,000 less once the submeter usage was subtracted? It would seem they can't take a $500,000 reduction in what we currently pay, and will raise our rates to compensate. That would seemingly defeat the whole purpose of this change. I reminded the WPCA of all the residents in North Nichols who will incur significant costs in the next few months: They will receive their sewer assessments, pay thousands to connect to the sewer pipe, begin paying sewer use fees, and now they are hit with this, all at the same time and in this difficult economy.

More to come....

All five members of the WPCA were nominated by Mr. Herbst, so the WPCA has completely turned over since the Herbst administration took office. Trumbull pays one of the highest sewer use rates in the state of Connecticut. The WPCA could not estimate how many residents will get a higher bill.

There is a public hearing on this proposed change next Wednesday February 22 before the WPCA meeting at 7 pm in the Town Council Chambers. There are 900-1000 high volume summer water users. Those residents could see their bills go up by $400-500 on average if they do not install the submeters.

I left the meeting discouraged. These commissioners are appointed, and not elected but have the power to levy sewer assessments, determine rates, negotiate contracts, etc. Discussion ensued about the formation of a Trumbull Sewer Users Association to represent the interests of homeowners on all issues regarding our sewers. Additionally, the possibility of forming a Political Action Committee (PAC) to advocate for sewer users was raised.

As one of the irrigation types and as long as I have a choice, I refuse to pay for a service I'm not using, the "water tax". My lawn will go brown this summer. That should save me $500 for the water and $500 for NOT running it through the sewer system. I will try rain barrels to collect water for my garden.

How frustrating!! I like a nice green lawn!

So, did the WPCA make any promises to at least get some answers before the next meeting? I can't believe WPCA doesn't talk to Bridgeport.

Did/does our First Selectman have any comments/input?