The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1978-01-16-SAC-rpt.pdf -SEWER ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN- January 16, 1978 During the past six months the temporary Sewer Advisory Committee has reviewed matters relating to the extension and maintenance of Lexington 's sanitary sewer system, as requested by the Board of Selectmen in May, 1977 We submit these findings and suggest that our report be considered the first in a continuing citizen advisory process of sewer service delivery The scope of our review has followed the five part list of topics suggested in the Selectmen's charge, which requested specific advice on 1) reasonable objectives for substantial completion of the system, 2) viable alternatives to the community collector system, 3) procedures for establishing desire/need for sewering , 4) possible betterment formula adjustments, 5) financial information on costs of conventional sewerage compared with on-lot subsurface wastewater disposal In addition , we comment on the proposal for capitalization through bonding of the remainder of the system which is presently under consideration, but was not con- templated at the time this committee was formed Lexington joined the North Metropolitan Sewerage District of the Metropolitan District Commission in 1899 when a 15" interceptor sewer with a design capacity of 2 8 million gallons per day (mgd) was extended to the Arlington/Lexington boundary to receive our municipal sewage By 1953 a 20" interceptor designed to carry 5 7 mgd was necessary, and this was supplemented by another 36" line with 27 3 mgd design capacity in 1968 These increases to our outflow capability were a result of the town's policy of providing municipal sewerage facilities to as many residents as possible with the result that now 86 4; (7,304) of our dwellings are serviced as of March, 1977 The remaining 13 6% (1 ,151) are not sewered, of which 6% (488 houses) do not have sewer available We understand that sufficient capability is available in the MDC system, which has a design capacity of 35 8 mgd,to handle Lexington's maximum flow calculated at approximately 12 5 mgd (Bedford included) A fourth collector sewer which would cross through Lexington for the exclusive use of Bedford is now under consideration by the MDC Expansion of our local system has been continuous since 1899, but has come into question primarily because of the increasing costs associated with sewerage The town's responsibility to provide a community sanitary sewer to all occupants is uncertain as the unprecedented high costs place an overwhelming tax burden on the property owners, Investigation of past projects shows that the commitment to sewer has always involved a financial liability by the town which was not recover- able, and constituted a deliberate subsidy in the public interest Betterments, i e , reimbursements to the town by private parties, have been based upon several variables These include the average per foot costs of lateral sewers over the previous five years, lot area according to the total limit of work for the project, and a setback calculation This assessment formula assumes that 50% of the cost is borne by abutters, divided between the two sides of the street, with the remaining 50?< paid by the town (4.-4-f) This subsidy plus the betterment constitute the major financial support for local sewerage projects Occasionally state and federal funds are available for portions of the municipal system (notably the Woodhaven trunk and the Hanscom Field force main) After detailed analysis of sewer assessments (Table I) we find that betterment Ar. d' -2- cost recovery percentages have dropped during the last five years Although these calculations are not as accurate as we would like because they are based on aggregated numbers which include non-betterment projects , they are useful as a comparison and show that the percent of actual sewer cost recovered is continually lessened This is due to the tripling of construction costs, the costs of trunk sewers and other capital costs, and the cost of building sewers past town-owned land The percentage recovered might increase if an adjustment factor for eventual service connection payments is included; these are backcharged to abutters at the time household connections are made However, it must be emphasized that we are unable to establish that our current betterment assessment practices have ever realized the assumed 50% cost recovery As the cost of sewering has roughly tripled per lot in the past five years (Table 2) , and approximately 448 homes are presently without access to sewer service, it is necessary to decide if an expenditure which (based on a per lot average of $6,000) could amount to at least $2,688,000 should be made in order to accommodate our entire existing population (with the exception of 67 houses which it has been determined are impractical to reach) In order to arrive at a recommendation the committee requested a comparison of the existing i--4-4 five year average method In a random sampling of final assessments from actual sewer projects the new formula showed a greater than 50% reimbursement giving the town a more equitable rate of return In each case the old method returned less than 50% These results (Table 3) point out that the three year average of previous costs and a 1/3-1/3-1/3 plan of assessment keeps the estimated cost closer to the actual cost of sewer construction The new method also shows greater tolerance for the time lag between assessment and completion of construction Of all communities investigated (Bedford, Belmont, Boston, Needham, Wakefield, Wellesley) it was clear that sewer cost recovery percentages vary according to local policy For instance, Wellesley charges a flat rate per lot which does not attempt to cover costs Boston, on the other hand, collects about 3/4 of the costs of its sewers The consensus of this committee is to suggest that if the Selectmen decide to implement the substantial completion of our sewerage as defined by the DPW/Engineering priority list dated November 21 , 1977, they consider changing the betterment formula in order to allow the town to regain a larger portion of the total financial outlay The Selectmen could achieve this goal by averaging costs over three years and reducing the town's share to 1/3 as illustrated It would also be possible to change only the three year timespan while continuing to use the {-1;-} formula In the latter case this action would not necessitate a change in the language of Chapter 221 of the Acts of 1926 which would be needed otherwise A majority of this committee favors the final alternative Other methods of sewer cost recovery which were discussed and rejected include imposition of a cost ceiling above which the town would refuse to sewer an area, imposition of a flat rate charge to abutters for sewering lots above a certain pre-determined rate, and assessing specific projects without averaging (which would have the effect of forcing some homeowners to pay premium prices for their very expensive sewers) Procedures to be followed in establishing need and desire for sewering should include a preliminary sign-up with the Selectmen who would forward requests to DPW/Engineer- ing for cost estimates Board of Health participation as defined in Title V of the State Environmental Code would continue; it should emphasize proper maintenance 4 -3- and rehabilitation of on-site systems It could provide citizens with financial information based upon typical Lexington projects of septic systems as well as conventional sewerage A booklet could be prepared describing the petition process and the assessment formula as well as information on the care of septic tanks and other allowable methods of handling failing systems such as humus toilets (clivus multrum) In order to arrive at an estimate of the relative dollar costs of conventional sewerage versus septic tanks, the costs of staffing and operating a septic system management program with full municipal control and equipment ownership were reviewed This was based on a community with 3,000 existing septic systems (roughly twice the amount now functioning here) as reported by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council Water Quality Project (Table 4) Their total of $70,000/yr should be reduced for a smaller service load Billings to owners would vary from $20 each if 1000 systems were serviced to $50 per cleaning when annual service totals 400 jobs With federal assistance in purchasing a pumper truck, the costs decrease about 200, ranging from $16 to $41 per job Since town-owned pumpers are totally user supported they may exceed average private fees if less than 600 tanks are pumped annually Therefore, Lexington might best utilize contract services combined with municipal inspection to provide the most economical combination of private and public manage- ment The possibility of developing a septic system management program of some sort should he given consideration in order to accommodate the existing homes which will never be serviced by municipal sewerage under any plan The committee is unable to recommend this exclusively as an alternative to the substantial completion of our system as there are current regulatory obstacles to communal septic tanks in Massachusetts Although the proposal to expand and complete the sewer system by means of a bonding authorization has not been presented in detail , we feel that this may be a justifiable action to take We would suggest that more, not less, review of sewer projects should be provided and that a permanent sewer advisory committee should be appointed by the Selectmen to assist in sewerage planning The selection of sewer project priorities affects the development of the town and involves judgements of where the need is greatest These effects of sewering should be reviewed and discussed During our brief span of operation the committee has received nine unsolicited letters in addition to a number of telephone calls and conversations with citizens regarding sewer problems We believe that this indicates a real need to increase contact with townspeople as the complicated design and political aspects of sewering are addressed Another recommendation of the committee is that applications for permits for building additions or alterations should be checked by the Board of Health to determine if the existing septic system is adequate Similar information should be supplied by the Board of Appeals for variances and special permits We also feel that there should be a clear plan for the proposed sewers with precise statements, topographical maps, and estimated costs Laterals should be identified separately from trunks and interceptors Cost figures should allow for inflation In the plan the highest priority projects should be identified It was beyond the range of this investigation to consider the economic effects of the revised MDC billing system which will be based on volume rather than number of connections Sewer use charges should be considered in cost analyses of system 4 e -4- expansion, and would provide a fertile area of inquiry for additional advisory reports We wish to thank staff members of the DPW/Engineering, Board of Health, Town Manager, and Board of Selectmen offices for invaluable assistance as well as many citizens for helpful contributions In particular, Julian Bussgang has spent considerable time studying and clarifying cost figures on the Lexington sewers This opportunity to examine and discuss the variety of issues and practices relating to sanitary sewage installations and related matters has been extremely interesting We thank the Board of Selectmen for giving us the chance to prepare this report, and look forward to augmenting these comments should it be deemed necessary Joan Crothers, Chairman Gordon Barnes Katherine Fricker John Harvell George McCormack Kenneth Will Richard Rycroft * A 6 0wgl10. YEAR Sewer Assessments Betterment Cost Y Recovery Sewer Cost % Recovery (memo-11/14/77) (memo-2/9/77 1976 56,127 50 161 ,570 53 34 7 297,277 60 18 8 1975 242,601 48 636,435 28 38 1 801 ,936 69 30 2 1974 202,413 13 526,572 68 38 4 595,223 63 34 1973 107,498 43 236,929 52 45 5 399,735 66 26 9 1972 105,555 70 241 ,433 80 43 7 252,435 8o 41 8 TABLE I PERCENTAGE RECOVERY YEAR Houses Vacant Lots Total Lots Betterment Cost/Lot Cost/Lot (memo-2/9/77) (memo-2/9/77) (memo-11/14/77) (memo-2/9/77) 1976 47 2 4q 3,297 6,067 1975 190 27 217 2,933 3,695 1974 218 14 232 2,270 2,566 1973 146 28 174 1 ,361 2,297 1972 86 32 118 2,046 2,139 I TABLE 2 COST OF SEWERING PER LOT j STREET COST RETURN % RETURNED Turning Mill Rd (Old) $124,568 85 $50,325 62 40 4 (New) 124,568 85 69,050 31 55 4 Alcott Rd (old) 18,105 00 9,049 96 49 9 (New) 18,105 00 12,221 35 67 5 Summer St (Old) 64,222 16 16,572 55 25 8 (New) 64,222 16 34,696 12 54 TABLE 3 SEWER BETTERMENT ASSESSMENT SURVEY Approximate Cost Number of Systens to Owner without With Federal Serviced Annually Federal Assistance Assistance 400 $50 $41 600 $34 $27 800 $25 $21 1000 $20 $16 TABLE 4 SEPTIC TANK PUMPING COSTS