Democrat Charlestown Town Council Vice-President James M. Mageau’s “Taxpayer Alert!” town-wide mailing is fatally flawed, inasmuch as it is based upon misinformation and false assumptions.

1. It assumes all 3,712 properties in the Critical Resource Area (CRA) designate area of town must convert to denitrification systems which is untrue.

2. System conversions are only needed on a very narrow, selective and well defined and justifiable basis over a period of time.

3. There have already been 233 property owners who have converted to better septic systems that will not have to repeat their costs – a mere $6,990,000 oversight – unless the town constructs a sewer system.

4. The projected cost per new denitrification unit of $30,000 to $35,000 is only approximately $10,000 more than the cost of reconstruction of a single system using the old method of disposal - a truly worthwhile non-public expenditure to protect the town’s environment. This measurably decreases the total cost estimate of $111,000, 000 (based on $30,000 per property) used by Councilman Mageau, even if it was true, which it is not – a mere $74,240,000 oversight.

5. The truth is, many existing septic systems in the CRA may never need upgrading, while others would only be upgraded at the same time the home is expanded or experiences difficulties with its disposal systems. To represent anything otherwise, as is the case in the before mentioned “Taxpayer Alert! of Mr. Mageau, is seriously inaccurate and falsely raises public concerns and consternations.

6. If a new home is built on a vacant lot, a septic system is normally included in the cost. An additional $10,000 to install a denitrification system would be folded into the cost of the unit and, likely, financed over a long period of time. There would be no immediately financial impact, as suggested, and certainly not aggregated to $111 million.

· The determination of whether a municipal waste water collection system is feasible or the best option for a community to pursue should be based upon many, many evaluations and considerations that are normally the product of experienced and knowledgeable engineers, financial/bonding consultants and administrators. Such inputs have not, it appears, to have been received by Charlestown officials. If so, such information has not been furnished to the citizens of the town.

· To begin with, it is normal to engage a qualified engineering firm to provide a “Feasibility Study” on what options are best for the town to pursue and, if a municipal system is deemed the best option , a preliminary engineering study is performed to provide the construction and cost information needed to make an enlightened political decision on the question, as well as the necessary information for the voting public for bonding authority. Unfortunately, none of the prerequisite studies and evaluations has been conducted to date.

· In general, some of the factors to take into account relative to a municipal waste water collection and treatment system in Charlestown includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. Will public sewers be constructed for the entire town or for just the properties in the CRA?

2. If for the entire town, engineers must design a plan and estimate the costs for doing so, with determination of financing of the costs.

3. If sewers will service only the CRA, will the properties not served be expected to pay property taxes in support of the new system?

4. If only the CRA is sewered soley by special assessments to the benefiting properties, what will the assessments be? Likely more than the extra $10,000 to upgrade to a denitrification system.

5. If all the town is not sewered, would it be legal to have the non-sewered property pay for any treatment facility constructed?

6. What would the total cost be for any municipal system constructed? Bonding needs voter approval. Would the property owners to the north vote for substantial bonding costs if not served by the system? Would they and property owners in the CRA vote for the considerable bonding needed to finance a municipal system?

7. Bonding costs must also include the interest cost of borrowing, legal costs, bond counsel costs, engineering costs to design and construct, etc. Amortization over how many years? Annual cost of borrowing – principle and interest? Impact on the tax rate? Cost per $1,000 of property valuation? Annual cost to home owner over many years?

8. How long will it take to perform a feasibility engineering study, to obtain voter approval, to obtain all the required permits, to locate a site for a treatment facility, to build the collection and treatment systems, to connect all the properties involved, to devise an operational cost billing system, to hire the necessary personnel to operate the treatment plant/maintain the collection system and to render sewer bills, etc.?

9. What method of charging sewer customers would be used? Would meters on all private wells be installed? At what cost? Who reads?

10. How will inflation impact on costs given the timetable established to accomplish all the delineated tasks associated with the establishment of the municipal sewer system?

11. The cost of construction will be materially affected by the fact that considerable “dewatering” will be encountered to install sewers at varying depths to assure maximum sewage flow is by gravity, rather than expensive pumping. Likewise, the nature of the soil will dictate installation by use of “trench boxes” that move slowly (cost increase due to slowness of the work). Costly distances between sections of town exist that require connection – maybe pumping.

12. Once a municipal system is constructed, will all properties be mandated to connect? At what cost to the property owner? Internal plumbing that currently goes out the back of the house may need to be reversed to go out the front to the street? What cost does this represent for the homeowner?

13. Many homes are located on private roads. How does the municipal system serve these properties? Will eminent domain (condemnation) be required for sewer construction and restoration of properties and roads? At what cost to acquire such easements (add this to the cost of borrowing)? Legal, court & surveying costs? To whom does the payment for easements go?

· Public sewers will assure accelerated developments in town. Houses that could not be built will become buildable. What will this do to the character of the town? Is it desirable? What costs may be associated with such intensified development?

· What damage to the environment will be experienced from construction? Wetlands, trees, etc.

· What impacts on the ground water will be experienced?

· Where would a treatment plant be located, if any is possible?

· Where would the effluent go – brooks, ponds, ocean ? What does it take to permit a treatment facility? Who issues permits and how long does it take to do so, if possible at all?

· What legal actions are likely to be instituted by property owners who oppose the site? How long would a condemnation action take to acquire a site? What appeals are possible? At what cost?

· How many pumping stations will be needed to serve a municipal system? Cost to locate, aquire, build and operate?

· Can a treatment plant be built in a flood plain? What happens when a hurricane hits? And, on and on…………………..

CONCLUSION

It appears to be abundantly clear that too many unanswered questions are associated with the proposition that a new, very expensive municipal waste water collection and treatment system for the town of Charlestown be established. Also, the prospects of obtaining the necessary positive answers to the outstanding questions in a timely and inexpensive manner is very dim indeed.

To the contrary, the Town evaluated many of the relevant considerations for managing the waste water difficulties in the early 1990’s and, based thereon, established a pioneering Waster Water Management Program that has evolved successfully and efficiently since then. There appears to be no reasonable or logical basis to alter the program at this time, nor in the future. It is the most cost-effective approach to practically improve and protect the environment of Charlestown and its sensitive and important ponds.

Simple solutions to complex problems are seldom, if ever, viable. Councilman Mageau’s proposal seems to verify this fact!

Robert Shiedler - Former Town Administrator of Charlestown and Barrington Rhode Island