Chatham Concerned Taxpayers

MORE FACTS ABOUT THE CHATHAM SEWER YOU WEREN'T TOLD THAT ELAINE GIBBS HAS DUG OUT

2010-01-31T20:09:46Z

Citizen taxpayer Elaine Gibbs has followed up her electrifying memo to the selectmen with a equally startling memo to the Finance Committee. The more she digs, the more incredible information she is finding, stuff nobody knew except those on the inside. As she says, town officials should have been getting this kind of information out. Busy taxpayers with other things to do shouldn't have to make a career of finding out what their public officials are up to but don't want to say.

It's absolutely remarkable how little has been said in public about the centralized sewer by town officials since early last year. Silence has largely reigned. Is that because town officials just wanted sleeping dogs to keep sleeping? Just asking. When CCT proposed that vastly less costly alternatives be evaluated, town officials did leap to the ramparts, not to agree, but to kill the idea.

Here's Elaine Gibbs' Memo to the Finance Committee.

Gibbs Finance Jan 28 2010-Final.pdf

Here's her earlier Memo to the Board of Selectmen in case you missed it.

WastewaterEG.pdf

There will finally be a hearing on the sewer plan on Tuesday, February 23rd. We have to make sure the public has an extensive opportunity to comment and ask questions and it isn't just another effort to squelch debate.

This sewer plan, which will cost a half billion dollars, more or less, is staggering in its implications for Chatham's way of life for the next 20 years.

Every citizen who can find the time should read through the plan. Dr. Duncanson has stated that Stearns & Wheler is obliged to provide every citizen of Chatham who requests it a free copy. Call Stearns & Wheler to have your copy sent to you. The Hyannis office is 508-790-1707.

What's fascinating about this document is that it is supposedly Chatham's official Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, but it's got Stearns & Wheler's copyright notice on the cover and every page has Stearns & Wheler's name at the bottom.

Did town officials just rubberstamp what Stearns & Wheler drafted? Stearns & Wheler does big city sewers. That's their businesss, good luck to them.

But Chatham should always be looking for the most cost-effective solution to a problem, but why do we wonder if that was done in this case?

Every other town that's actively working on the problem of excess nitrogen in coastal pwaters -- Falmouth, Mashpee and Orleans -- is looking for a cost effective way to deal with the problem, rejecting the centralized sewer solution as way too expensive for homeowners. Who thinks Chatham is so rich it needn't do what they are doing? It isn't the Chatham taxpayers who pay the bills.

COME TO CCT'S TAXPAYER EMERGENCY PLANNING MEETING, FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010, 8:30 A.M., CHATHAM COMMUNITY CENTER

2010-01-21T04:47:27Z

COME TO OUR EMERGENCY TAXPAYER PLANNING MEETING FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010 AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER STARTING AT 8:30 A.M. TO LEARN FACTS ABOUT THE SEWER YOU HAVEN’T BEEN TOLD AND WHAT THE ACTION PLAN WILL BE TO STOP THIS DENIAL OF YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE ON THIS MONUMENTAL PROJECT.

ELAINE GIBBS WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD.

WastewaterEG.pdf

THIS IS YOUR MONEY. YOU CAN DO THE JOB FOR FAR LESS.

DO THE JOB FOR FAR LESS.pdf

TAXPAYERS OF CHATHAM!!
Your town officials are buying for you the most expensive big city centralized sewer system (like Boston’s) that taxpayers of other Cape towns don’t want because it costs too much.

There is a catch: You are the ones who have to pay for their “Grand Plan” with your property taxes. The Grand Plan will cost half a billion dollars ($500,000,000) at least, but since it will be payable over 50 years your kids and grandkids will have to kick in, too. This is the most expensive project in the history of the town.

You deserve to know the facts and to have the chance to vote on the plan. But you may not know the facts till it’s too late and you may never get the chance to vote on it.

Chatham Concerned Taxpayers (CCT) has repeatedly urged town officials to evaluate alternatives that can clean the nitrogen from our coastal waters for 25% to 50% less cost, but their attitude was, “No, thanks. We aren’t interested in checking out savings for taxpayers. We deserve the best, we can afford it. It’s the Chatham way. Go away.” No to savings of $100-$250 million?

Town officials apparently have decided not to put their Grand Plan to a town meeting vote or to let taxpayers know about the availability of less expensive alternatives or even how much they will have to pay for their Grand Plan. Therefore, as a start, CCT has done the calculations presented in the table below (numbers rounded to zero) so you can determine what your costs will be if town officials go forward with their Grand Plan. (Supporting data is elswhere on this website.)

Just find your assessment value in the left column and read across. Why 20 years? Optimists that we are, we all think we’ll live that long. We once again ask town officials to publish their detailed taxpayer cost estimates since the only information about the cost of the Grand Plan the public has seen is Dr. Robert Duncanson’s assertion printed in the Cape Cod Times of December 7, 2009 that the average property owner would only pay $3,500 over 20 years for the sewer at an average yearly cost of $175. That isn’t possible. The town’s estimate of the average charge for a property owner to connect to the sewer system is $6,500, so Dr. Duncanson’s $3,500 doesn’t even pay for that, let alone cover even a nickel of the property tax bill for the half billion dollar sewer. CCT believes the estimates set forth below are, if anything, understated.

Click on the table to enlarge.

WE MUST ACT NOW BECAUSE TOWN OFFICIALS ARE PLANNING TO EXECUTE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS AND START DIGGING ANY DAY NOW BEFORE YOU KNOW WHAT’S HAPPENING. ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON UNDER THE RADAR.

If you want town officials to seriously evaluate far less expensive ways to clean Chatham’s waters, WE MUST ACT NOW. Mashpee is currently evaluating a low cost alternative that it hopes will save it $300 million over the $550 million cost estimate for a Chatham-type centralized sewer. Falmouth is checking out less expensive alternatives, so is Orleans and Dennis plans to, also.

Chatham is the only Cape town not bothering to look at saving huge taxpayer dollars with alternative strategies but is rushing ahead with a hugely expensive conventional centralized sewer that is likely to be obsolete before it is finished, taking into account the explosion of “green” technology that is taking place.

There is no need for rushing ahead. There are no timetables, there are no deadlines. We should solve the excess nitrogen problem the most cost effective way possible.

Environmental organizations and EPA support and prefer alternatives such as decentralized low cost sewer systems because they are environmentally friendly as well as less expensive.

We should demand that town officials stop now and not proceed with implementation of their Grand Plan. They should carefully evaluate less costly options for integration into the final plan and you have learned what all your costs for your property will be for the different options. You should demand a town meeting vote on the plan, alternatives and taxpayer costs.

THERE IS NO TIME TO LOSE. WE MUST ACT NOW.
COME TO OUR EMERGENCY TAXPAYER PLANNING MEETING FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010 AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER STARTING AT 8:30 A.M. TO LEARN FACTS ABOUT THE SEWER YOU HAVEN’T BEEN TOLD AND WHAT THE ACTION PLAN WILL BE TO STOP THIS DENIAL OF YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE ON THIS MONUMENTAL PROJECT.

BRING YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS. GET OUR SEWER NEWS IN THIS WEEK’S CHRONICLE.

ELAINE GIBBS: LET ME TELL YOU THE SEWER HORROR FACTS

2010-01-21T03:58:01Z

Elaine Gibbs, homeowner and registered voter became incensed at the rude behavior of Chatham town officials towards CCT challenging them to tell taxpayers the truth about their HALF BILLION DOLLAR sewer plans. She devoted a week around the clock to finding out what is really about to happen if town officials succeed in starting construction of their huge, expensive sewer plan in the next few days. They will be in effect committing taxpayers to HALF A BILLION DOLLARS AND MORE in property taxes for which taxpayers have not voted.

Download a copy of Elaine's extraordinary memo to the selectmen demanding answers.

It is MUST READING. TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO GET THEIR COPY HERE. READ IT ONLIINE BY CLICKING THE LINK BELOW TO OPEN OR RIGHT CLICK ON "SAVE TARGET AS" AND DOWNLOAD YOUR OWN COPY TO THE FOLDER YOU SELECT.

Elaine will be telling the story at our Friday emergency taxpayer planning meeting at the Community Centee at 8:30 a.m..

WastewaterEG.pdf

We can't let them keep this story under the radar any longer. We'll be the losers if we do.

Why does Chatham always seem to find the most expensive way to do things? In this case, it's HALF A BILLION DOLLARS OR MORE, not just an overbuilt $10 million community center or a $17 million town hall annex for a handful of police and planning and permitting people. This is HUGE money. The job can be done for less, but town officials aren't interested. But taxpayers are very interested.

We'll discuss how we can slow things down and get cheaper solutions looked at.

It'll probably take a special town meeting to do it.

WHAT WILL THE TOWN OFFICIALS' CENTRALIZED SEWER COST PROPERTY TAXPAYERS? TOWN OFFICIALS WON'T SAY, SO CCT ESTIMATES

2010-01-20T16:28:21Z

Chatham Concerned Taxpayers since last spring has been asking town officials to provide taxpayers with some real estimates of their costs for so-called Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP). Town officials have decided upon a big city centralized sewer system, which will extend to about two-thirds of Chatham's properties. The quoted cost estimate (now three years old) has been $240 million, which is a staggering sum. But the real amount is going to be a lot more because the construction period will be 20 years, costs will rise and interest will have to be paid on the money borrowed.

Taxpayer Cost of the Centralized Sewer System Proposed by Town Officials. Despite CCTs requests, the only estimate given out by any town official for Phase 1 was by Dr. Robert Duncanson. As reported in the Cape Cod Times of December 7, 2009, in an interview with a reporter Duncanson claimed that the average homeowner would only pay $3,500 over 20 years, or an average of $175 per year. Since the average cost for an individual property owner's connection to the sewer is estimated by town officials as $6,500, Dr. Duncanson's $3,500 does not even cover that cost let alone pay any part of the property tax cost of the centralized sewer system itself..

Therefore, CCT decided to do its best to inform taxpayers what kind of costs they might face. Working with na Excel spreadsheet program, using publicly available information and normal engineering estimating practices, the table which appears below was developed to show approximate costs for properties of different valuation, depending on whether they would be sewered in Phase 1 or not.

As we see it, the total cost of the town officials' plan could be in the range of $490 million up to $750 million. The table below uses $500 billion to calculate taxpayer costs, which almost certainly understates what the taxpayer costs will ultimately be.

The main capital costs of the system will be on the property tax and payable by all properties, sewered or not. Those sewered will individually pay a connection charge and monthly maintenance fees. These costs are factored in along with interest (best available from the state) and 3% inflation. The $10 million net benefit from the USDA loan/grant program ($10 million) is credited to the overall cost. Numbers are rounded to zero for easier reading. The spreadsheet which generated the chart can be accessed by clicking on the link at the end of this item.

Click on the table below to get a bigger picture.

To view the back-up spreadsheet, click link below:

100118 ChathPropTaxpCost Analysis chart backup online.xls

Why talk about a sewer at all? There is only one reason for discussing such a system at all: It is believed that by removing "excess nitrogen" from Chatham's embayments the waters will be healthier. Assuming that's so, CCT raised a simple, straightforward question, "Isn't there a way to do that for a lot less money than what town officials are proposing?"

Better, cheaper alternatives. It didn't take long for CCT to discover indeed there was. Low cost neighborhood or cluster sewer systems which can perform the required nitrogen removal task at far less cost. They can be installed jn a much shorter time frame, will cause far less disruption to the community's way of life and are much friendlier to the environment. They will show positive results sooner, no waiting for more than 20 years to see if the centralized sewer system actually does the job.

CCT presented an informational forum on these alternatives in September and petitioned the selectmen (September 22, 2009) to undertake an evaluation process of these alternatives that have the potential of saving taxpayers 25% to 50% of the cost of the centralized sewer system town officials were proposing to build. That could be $100 million to $250 million. The selectmen refused. CCT argued that they had a fiduciary obligation to taxpayers to look into possible savings of this magnitude. Still they refused. The selectmen said alternatives had been considered four or so years back and none of them worked. CCT's investigation showed that the town had never considered an alternative system that could do the job of removing nitrogen as well as any modern large sewer treatment plant at far less cost. Still, the selectmen refused.

There must be a town meeting to vote on the entire CWMP. The third request CCT made to town officials was to put the CWMP to a town meeting for a vote of approval or disapproval before launching any implementation of their hugely expensive project. Shockingly, it appears as if they have no intention of doing so. CCT has learned that the treatment plant upgrade they are planning to do immediately will enlarge it to its 20-year capacity, making it impossible to incorporate any far less expensive alternatives into the nitrogen removal solution. Taxpayers would in effect be forced to vote for all the additional monies ($180 to $200 million) to spread sewer piping throughout the town to provide the large quantities of wastewater the enlarged plant needs to operate. No taxpayer who voted for the treatment plant enlargement on May 11, 2009 in Article 14 of the Warrant had any idea he was in effect being committed to paying for a half billion to a billion dollar project, because he wasn't told that would be the effect of his vote.

COST OF CHATHAM SEWER? MULTIPLY BY 2, 5, 10?

2009-12-28T21:29:13Z

One who read the Cape Cod Times article on December 28th about oppostion rising to the huge centralized sewer systems being proposed for several towns on Cape Cod, including Chatham, emails his comments to Chatham Concerned Taxpayers. He aptly describes how town officials typically try to sneak these big projects past taxpayers with low ball numbers or not using any numbers at all for property taxpayers. Essentially, the writer says these projects are just unaffordable.

This is what he had to say:

To whom it may concern:
I read with interest now that the good taxpayers of Chatham have finally arose to the fact of the astronomical cost to each and every taxpayer.

Let me first say, that three years ago the town was proposing this sewer system at the same $300 million price tag. I wrote several responses to newspapers with the true cost estimates and why sewers were totally cost prohibitive.

I worked with a friend who worked for Ernst & Young as a municipal capital investment expert in long range municipal public works projects in cost analysis, budgeting and funding.

He explained to me three years ago why NO MUNICIPAL AGENCY could fund such a project such as this.

He explained that municipalities will give the taxpayer a totally untrue low ball figure that can't be sustained in the past or present future due to the year to year increase in cost of materials, change order cost, labor increases, police road work costs, new paving costs and on, and on.

He had worked on many of these projects for municipalities while working with one of the largest and respected Accounting Firms in the country as an actuary and accountant. He explained to me that the increase from which the town will try and sell to its taxpayers, which is basically the start up cost if the project is to start today and finish tomorrow.

He pointed out that the largest public works project in the Commonwealth of MA is the CENTRAL ARTERY TUNNEL PROJECT, better known as the 'BIG DIG'.

The BIG DIG was estimated that it would cost taxpayers $2.3 Billion started in 1985 and would take 20 years to complete. Well, here we are 25 years later and the costs of increased to over $22 Billion OR and INCREASE OF 1,000 % in true cost.

So with that in mind, consider the potential cost of a sewer system in Chatham most likely easily NOT costing $300 million but closer to $3 BILLION . You now can do the fifth grade math that the town fathers were not capable of expressing to the taxpayers in SELLING them some ridiculous cost estimates. Remember your talking about 6,300 residential property's paying in reality $3 BILLION DOLLARS over 20 years.

Take that figure I read in a recent article that indicated it would cost $44 thousand per property and MULTIPLY by the INCREASE IN REAL COST OF 1,000% higher and your group can truly get a grasp of this most outrageous project which truly is beyond the taxpayers ability to fund.

My friend at Ernst & Young has said this truly presents a true idea of costs. One thing the news article's hasn't presented is the additional costs of a Sewer Disposal Plant, the amount of new town employees with salary and benefits, new town vehicles to operate the plant and system, and anticipated repair and replacement of such a plant and vehicles to operate.

I hope this has been some value to your group, as you can see this would drive everyone out of town, reduce property values to the point the town cease to exist after thousands stop paying their tax bills to support such a TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS PROPOSAL.

Your group should also involve itself with looking at other major municipal public works projects and their start and finish costs and you'll be so enlightened to how this town is trying to push a project that is totally unsustainable through taxation.

Now the writer is somewhat off here and there. The "$300 million" does include the sewer plant.

But his main point is correct: The record of staggering escalation in the costs of large municipal projects is well-known. The Big Dig is indeed an excellent example, though the original $2-$3 billion estimate has after 18 years of construction "only" risen, we believe, to $16 billion or so, not $22 billion. Still, that's up five times over the original estimate.

CCT's estimates were done very modestly, adding no cost escalation, just normal inflation. Nonetheless, the total for the $240 million project comes out to be close to half a billion dollars, almost certainly more if cost escalation is taken into account.

Whether it's twice the stated cost, five times or ten times, there's more than sufficient reason to search out the most cost effective ways to attack the nitrogen problem.

CAPE COD TIMES REPORTS ON UPRISINGS AGAINST SEWER COSTS IN CHATHAM AND ACROSS THE CAPE

2009-12-28T17:32:23Z

Cape Cod Times gets part of the story right: Taxpayers don't want to waste money on wastewater projects that are much more expensive than they need to be.

This is especially true of the largest municipal projects ever, the multi-billion dollar efforts to end wastewater pollution of the Cape's bays and rivers in which all three front-running towns have run up against last-minute opposition.

The opposition to big city centralized sewer solutions is most intense in Mashpee and Falmouth, both facing centralized sewer estimates of more than $500 million, as well as in Chatham and Orleans. Mashpee is currently evaluating a low cost sewer alternative that could save taxpayers as much as $300 million. Falmouth taxpayers are also demanding an open review of sewer alternatives and the selectmen have agreed to hire a public facilitator to run the process. Orleans has put off for a year filing its draft comprehensive wastewater management plan with the state while it considers whether the state requirements for cleaning the water are flawed and how much could be saved by utilizing low cost decentralizied sewers.

Only in Chatham are taxpayer concerns and questions being ignored.

Taxpayers are demanding they be fully informed about costs and how much money can be saved by use of low cost sewer systems such as the decentralized sewers preferred by the federal EPA and national environmental organizations such as Clean Water Action and the local environmental activist the Conservation Law Foundation.

Despite the testiness and annoyance evidenced by town officials in their remarks to the Cape Cod Times in the article, it's never too late to do the right thing by the taxpayers. After all, they're the ones paying the bill.

Late opposition hampers Chatham sewers By Doug Fraser in the Cape Cod Times December 28, 2009
Chatham's $300 million plan to construct a sewer system for most of the town sailed through hearings and board votes with little opposition. That culminated in a unanimous vote at May's town meeting to borrow almost $60 million for the first phase of construction.

So, it came as a surprise to town officials when Fran Meaney and Phil Dupont co-founded the Chatham Concerned Taxpayers Association last February to advocate wastewater alternatives they believe might cost a lot less. Meaney has been a year-round resident for only a couple of years and admits he hadn't paid much attention to the town sewer project. But when it comes to tax dollars, he doesn't think it's ever too late to speak up.

"People say you can't do anything, the train has left the station, and I said, hey, there's hundreds of millions of dollars involved and there may be a way of saving half," said Meaney.

It has happened over and over, in town after town, as late-to-the-party critics come forward in opposition to a project in its final stages. Whether it's a road project, a zoning change or municipal wind turbines, the public process comes to a halt.

This is especially true of the largest municipal projects ever, the multi-billion dollar efforts to end wastewater pollution of the Cape's bays and rivers in which all three front-running towns have run up against last-minute opposition.

"You can have hearings and meetings, and when the stakes go in the ground, that's when people realize it is going to happen," said Yarmouth Town Administrator Robert Lawton. At the very least it costs towns money to hold extra hearings and town meetings. Blown grant deadlines or construction delays can mean lost opportunities and higher building expenses.

So, when can town officials tell citizens they missed their window of opportunity and that they have to move on?

Legally, it's pretty cut-and-dry: as long as towns fulfill their legal requirements on notifications, public hearings and votes, they can go forward, said James Lampke, the executive director of the City Solicitors and Town Counsel Association of Massachusetts.

In most cases, the law requires some form of notification for either a public hearing, or a vote. Towns sometimes use direct mailings to abutters or affected parties, but in other cases citizens must watch for postings in legal ads or the town Web site.

Last-minute implications

Missing a critical meeting or not learning about a project until the last minute is not enough for a citizen to legally extend a project's process.

"People don't realize that they have a responsibility to be informed as to what is going on," said Lampke. "It's not that the community doesn't want them to know what is going on, but a town can only do so much in letting people know."

But with big projects like wind turbines and wastewater, the ante is high. The impact on taxes for Chatham's wastewater project, for instance, stretches out over 40 years.

"When I talked to people, nobody knew the (fiscal) impact and nobody knew there might be a cheaper way to do it," Meaney said.

"This is happening for two reasons: the economy has tanked and everybody is freaked out about the bill," said Augusta McKusick, who spent the past decade as chairman of the Orleans wastewater committee. McKusick thought residents supported the need for constructing sewers in large parts of town.

So, she was surprised when opposition to the town's wastewater treatment plan finally surfaced two years ago, just ahead of a critical town meeting vote. McKusick was angry, she said, because some people had chosen not to participate in the public process and the town was forced to go over old ground.

"Certainly the opportunities were there. We've had townwide mailings," she said. "Obviously, there's this: Excuse me, where were you?"

Despite the Orleans town meeting vote in October 2008, overwhelmingly endorsing the wastewater plan, a town committee was formed to "peer review" scientific conclusions of University of Massachusetts scientists [which had] already been reviewed by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

But selectman chairman David Dunford sees things differently. He believes McKusick's committee was always preaching to a core group of about 300 voters who would show up at hearings and town meetings. The reality of a $150 million project didn't dawn on most citizens, he said.

"When something that is not pleasant is about to fall on you, it tends to focus your attention," he said.

Sometimes, citizens — seasonal residents and newcomers, for example — are in the dark because they weren't here.

'In the dark'

When Alice Kuntz bought her Harwich home in August, the real estate agent told her the woods out back were conservation land, she said.

What he either neglected to tell her or didn't know, was that the town was planning on installing two wind turbines on the land.

"It's supposed to be 800 feet from my back door and 400 feet tall, equivalent to 40 stories," Kuntz said. "We feel like we were very much in the dark. I wish the town would have notified us in person."

"I feel like it kind of got slipped in the back door," she added.

But the possibility that turbines could be built on that land — water department property — had been in the news and discussed at public meetings for months, said Harwich Water Department Superintendent Craig Wiegand.

A presentation on the town Web site for an Oct. 26 public meeting on the proposal shows the turbine locations on a map, as did the warrant for the Nov. 12 special town meeting.
There was little discussion at town meeting, and voters nearly unanimously authorized selectmen to contract to build the turbines.

Wiegand is not sympathetic to those who say it flew under their radar. "There's a lot of information out there," he said. "If you choose not to go to town meeting, you've given up your right to complain."

CHATHAM TOWN OFFICIALS FAIL TO COME CLEAN ON SEWER COSTS: $2,600 OR $175 PER YEAR FOR AVERAGE HOMEOWNER?

2009-12-27T17:39:01Z

Chatham’s town officials, despite repeated requests, have not published detailed information about the cost of the centralized sewer system they are proposing, although Dr. Robert Duncanson, who is in charge of the project under Town Manager William Hinchey, told a Cape Cod Times reporter this past week (Cape Cod Times, December 7, 2009) that over 20 years it would only cost the average homeowner $3,500 or $175 a year on average.

For a $200-$300 million project, that is an unbelievable statement. It is a shame that town officials have not published detailed information to substantiate that claim -- but then, they could not. They should publish the real information in full detail so taxpayers will know what town officials are planning for them to pay. The financial information about taxpayer costs in the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan posted on the town's website is also inaccurate, incomplete and not credible.

In the absence of any credible estimates of the true cost to taxpayers of the proposed centralized sewer, Chatham Concerned Taxpayers did its own calculation of costs based on publicly available information and common engineering assumptions and the best financing arrangements currently available from the state, e.g., 30 year terms, level payment, 2%.

For those getting sewers in so-called Phase 1 (about two-thirds of all residential properties) the average homeowner cost over 20 years will be about $52,000, not $3,500. Their average annual cost will be about $2,600 or $217 a month over a 20-year period. Payments will continue for 30 more years until all the debt incurred to finance the project is paid. The total financed cost of this property would be about $76,109.

]]> For those not getting a sewer at this time, the average homeowner cost over 20 years will be approximately $30,000, not $3,500. That’s about $1,500 a year on average, not $175 or $125 a month over the same 20-year period. The 50-year cost would be $54,768.

All told, the 50-year cost of the centralized sewer will approach if not exceed half a billion dollars. (Our calculations did not include any so-called "cost escalation" that is almost inevitable in long-term projects, of which Boston's Big Dig is a prime example.)

If Phase 2 is ever done to sewer those parts of town that don't need to be sewered for nitrogen reduction purposes, costs for everyone would be higher still (unless a betterment approach were taken for these properties since they aren't required to be sewered to help keep town waters healthy).

Under the EPA affordability guidelines, for about half the households in Chatham the sewer charge should be no more than $83 a month. The centralized sewer doesn't pass the test.

It seems inevitable that people of modest means will be driven out of Chatham with these unnecessarily high sewer costs being a major factor..

We all want to clean excess nitrogen out of Chatham’s coastal waters.

Using alternatives to centralized sewers such as cluster systems could cut those costs in half.

We want town officials to do what’s best for Chatham’s taxpayers and take those cost effective alternatives into account.

Town officials failed to get stimulus money from the program they originally targeted, but were able to secure about that much from a USDA loan/grant program.

Ironically, the vote for the wastewater treatment plant bond issue of $60 million rushed through at the May town meeting so the town could seek to qualify for stimulus money by becoming shovel ready by February 17, 2010 became meaningless: Chatham coujldn't meet the conditions and federal officials dropped the February 17 deadline from the program anyway

While the need to rush ahead before taxpayers have a chance to understand the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, learn about cheaper alternatives to a centralized sewer and what all the costs might be has vanished, town officials are still pressing on with apparently no intention to provide credible financial information to taxpayers or put the plan and alternatives to a town meeting vote.

We still have the same question we had when we first had about the monumental cost of the centralized sewer that town officials had chosen to deal with the excess nitrogen problems: "Isn't there a less expensive way to do it?"

We've learned there are several, but town officials have no interest in learning about them or testing them out, as other Cape towns are doing. Taxpayers will be the losers to the tune of $100 million to $200 million.

SO WHERE ARE WE NOW ON THE SEWER THIS END OF DECEMBER, 2009?

2009-12-12T03:35:56Z

The big story continues to be the $240 million centralized sewer that town officials are planning to build, apparently without any town meeting ever voting on it.

It appears as if town officials are content to just use the vote this past May for a $60 million upgrade of the treatment plant as the only vote they need to plow ahead with their centralized sewer plan for the whole town.

Why is that, you may ask?

Once that upgrade to the treatment plant is done, in just two years from now according to the plan, we've been told voters will be forced to go ahead with the $240 million big city sewer or “waste” the money spent on the upgrade. The huge enlargement of capacity will require lots of wastewater to run properly. Their apparent strategy on this is just as clever as how they whisked the treatment plant upgrade through town meeting on a quick vote to see if the town could get “free” federal stimulus money, which required having all approvals in hand and being “shovel ready” by the deadline of February 17, 2010. Nobody understood the implications of that vote. CCT said at the time, well, let's get all the facts out on costs, stimulus and everything else and maybe in December or January a town meeting could vote to ratify or rescind the May vote, which was cast by an uninformed electorate. It isn't going to happen, if town officials have the say.

Indeed, as of this writing, taxpayers have still not been told what the true costs to them will be. But now maybe there's not even the need to rush for the stimulus money. The White House seems to have dropped the deadline and promised worthy projects will get funded after February 17.

As for costs, Dr. Duncanson made the astounding statement to a Cape Cod Times reporter last Saturday that the average homeowner would pay only $175 a year on average for 20 years for his sewer, which doesn’t compute. That amount wouldn’t even cover the average hook-up charge of $6,500 over 20 years let alone his cost for the sewer! This extraordinary assertion motivated CCT to do its own calculation. We found that for the average homeowner who gets sewered, the costs will be in the neighborhood of $2200 a year, not $175, on average over the first 20 years of financing. Get the details. (Payments will continue for another30 years.) See our analysis!)

We’re asking that town officials issue detailed financial information to support Duncanson’s claim or provide the real cost information for all property owners.

Again, the town should stop rushing the taxpayers along.

This is the biggest expense in the history of Chatham. Already, Chatham spends more per capita on capital projects than any other town on the Cape. Outstanding bonds to be paid off are now about $30 million. Imagine adding $240 million plus in debt to that! Multiplying debt eight-fold!

And we're in the middle of a great recession. Last spring CCT urged town officials to defer non-emegency capital spending in light of the dire economic situation, but they decided to press ahead anyway with the PD/Annex and this massive sewer project. The debt service costs for these two projects will be driving the property tax up in the not too distant future.

This project should not go into the ground until taxpayers have had a chance to be fully informed and a town meeting vote is held. But town officials have goine ahead and put out contract bids, which now have been opened. They are in the process of negotiating contracts with the aim of getting the treatment plant underway before taxpayers learn of the costs they will be forced to pay.

There are low cost systems that do the nitrogen reduction job just as well. They can be integrated into the sewer plan to save as much as $100 million in taxpayer money. Thus far, town officials have refused to evaluate them.

Selectmen have a fiduciary duty to spend taxpayer money wisely and they have not demonstrated they are doing that.

CCT does not believe chasing $10 million in stimulus money and ignoring $100 million in possible savings for taxpayers is responsible stewardship. The midst of a great recession is no time for wasteful spending, no time for such an expensive sewer system when the job can be done for so much less.

Let's stop and do this right. Many good Chatham citizens worked hard to identify the nitrogen problem and map out what needed to be done. But they never were shown any low cost alternatives that can reduce nitrogen as well as the big city sewer systems and cost far less to build and operate. All in all, they are better environmentally, are cheaper and can be built in much less time with far less disruption. Good information was presented at the recent forum in Mashpee on "Rethinking Sewers." Also, check this.

Town officials should inform taxpayers of the true costs of the proposed centralized sewer for their properties. Taxpayers should learn what alternatives can be utilized to bring the costs down. They should have the right to vote on the entire nitrogen reduction plan when it is finalized, hopefully at much less cost than town officials are currently proposing.

Instead, it appears as if town officials are buying a white elephant for the town's taxpayers and, worst yet, the taxpayers don't even know how much they are going to have to pay for it.

Chatham may be the last Cape Cod town to buy a centralized sewer system. Other Cape towns are looking at alternatives to big city sewer systems. These expensive systems just aren't needed to solve the excess nitrogren problem. Officials in Falmouth, Mashpee and Orleans want to save taxpayer money and aren't convinced they need to buy a white elephant as Chatham is doing.

CHATHAM TAX BILLS HIT THE MAIL, JANUARY 8 IS DEADLINE TO PAY AND FILE FOR ABATEMENT

2009-12-12T03:16:42Z

The Chatham property tax bills are in the mail. By law payment is due by January 8th. That is also the final day for filing for an abatement if you think it's warranted. It requires some homework to see what sales in your neighborhood have been and how properties near and like yours are assessed. You can check all town properties for their current assessments on the town's website. See our earlier report.

Click on this link to obtain a copy of the Abatement Application form.

WHITE HOUSE SAYS FEBRUARY STIMULUS DEADLINE DEAD

2009-12-10T19:15:57Z

The Wall Street Journal reports that the President has said that worthy projects that aren't ready for the February 17, 2010 target date for the first stimulus plan can relax.

"White House economist Jared Berstein said worthy projects not deemed "shovel ready" in the initial funding applications now will see money, implying that federal stimulus spending could stretch well beyond 2010."

So there is no reason not to take the time to evaluate how much money Chatham taxpayers can save by integrating decentralized systems and innovative devices such as the Nitrex permeable barrier approved by DEP for installation in Orleans into the nitrogren reduction program.

Wtth as much as $100 million in taxpayer savings possible, town officials have a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to determine how and where to utilize these alternatives.

It never made any sense to rush to get "free" federal stimulus money of perhaps $10 or $15 million and ignore possible savings of $100 million or more.

DEP, "MINDFUL OF FINANCIALS CHALLENGES FACING YOUR CONSTITUENTS," APPROVES COST-SAVING ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER APPROACH

2009-12-10T15:19:41Z

Representative Matt Patrick (Falmouth) has been working closely with the Department of Environmental Protection on getting its attention focused urgently on the need for less costly solutions to the removal of nitrogen from the Cape's coastal waters.

Patrick has just been informed by the DEP Commissioner Laurie Bird that DEP has approved the installation of a Nitrex permeable barrier in Orleans to demonstrate its effectiveness in removing nitrogen and other contaminants in the groundwater before they enter Pleasant Bay waters.

The Lombardo Nitrex barrier is installed in the ground at water's edge and intercepts nitrogen and other contaminants already in the groundwater and prevents them from entering the bay.

What's particularly important about the DEP approval is the Commissioner's statement that "DEP is mindful of the financial challenges facing your constituents."

More than a few believe that DEP is indifferent to what an environmental solution costs taxpayers; the attitude has seemed to be, "Just do it, whatever it costs."

For those who think this, this statement is a dramatic endorsement of the success Matt Patrick is having in his work with the Governor, the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Commissioner Burt in getting them to recognize that cheaper alternatives to solve the nitrogen problem must be utilzed. If the EPA and national environmental organizations support the use of alternatives to centralized sewers such as decentralized systems, why shouldn't the DEP?

]]> Chatham Concerned Taxpayers applauded Matt Patrick's successful effort.

Matt, this is excellent. This isn’t even your district! You’re benefitting all of the Cape. To us here in Chatham, it is a very important statement that the DEP commissioner is “mindful of the financial challenges.” That is a huge step forward. There is a general feeling that state officials couldn’t care less what the solution costs. If DEP is indeed mindful, then they very well should put their shoulder to pushing forward to quickly approve alternatives that are in wide use elsewhere in the U.S. that DEP has neglected to this point.
It’s always easy to argue against looking at something new. But with national environmental organizations and even the Conservation Law Foundation supporting taking a hard look at alternatives such as cluster systems, maybe the logjam is breaking and some quick action can take place.

We need that for the sake of Chatham taxpayers, because our town officials are rushing ahead with a $240 million centralized sewer system to solve a nitrogen problem that with the use of cluster systems could be dealt with for tens of millions of dollars less. Chatham resident taxpayers aren’t rich, even though the real estate valuations of the town are so high. They’re just like other residents of the Cape and saving significant dollars on the excess nitrogen problem is very important.

I hope this new attitude doesn’t come too late for Chatham. This would be a waste of taxpayer and state money (e.g., interest rate subsidy for the 2% or 0% loans) not to have clusters considered for integration into the Chatham system. Town officials have been refusing, since DEP just seemed to want to push the project along, regardless of expense.

It would be great if DEP urged Chatham to evaluate clusters now for integration into their planned system. This would be an enormous assist in the battle we are waging on behalf of Chatham taxpayers, who, in the last analysis, will bear the brunt of the cost of cleaning up Chatham’s coastal waters. We’re committed to the result, we just want to do it in the most cost effective way possible. Why spend $240 million when we could do the job for $180, $150 or $120 million?

Again, great work, Matt. You are helping us all and we are grateful for your leadership.

To read the Commissioner's letter, click the link below.

DEP nitrex ok 12 08 09 (2).pdf

CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION SAYS CAPE TAXPAYERS SHOULD LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES TO CENTRALIZED SEWERS FIRST

2009-12-10T14:43:07Z

Chatham selectmen, among other Cape Cod officials, keep warning that the Conservation Law Foundation will sue if they don't push ahead with their centralized sewer plans.

That's not true.

CLF was the major force behind the Boston Harbor clean-up solely using a centralized sewer system for the entire Greater Boston area that collected wastewater (and water from the water tables) and dumped it about nine miles out in Cape Cod Bay. As a consequence, Greater Boston reservoirs and streams today are experiencing smaller water flows.

What does CLF say today? Cape Cod towns should carefully look at low cost decentralized sewer systems and not be rushed into building big city-type sewer systems by municipal officials.

These quotes are from an article in the Cape Codder (Wicked Local Orleans) by Doreen Leggett on May 8, 2009:

Thinking small

If Conservation Law Foundation does sue, it won’t be to superimpose Boston Harbor’s solution on Cape Cod.

“The biggest lesson I learned from the Boston Harbor cleanup is we didn’t work hard enough to look at alternative approaches to wastewater,” said Peter Shelley, a vice president at CLF who was involved in the Boston Harbor suit.

]]> Back then the idea of smaller treatment plants was floated, but a couple of factors were working against the idea.

“Because so much of the system had already been built, it was hard to imagine doing it any other way and reversing the engineering,” Shelley said.

The geology of the area also made it easy to move wastewater flow long distances via gravity relatively cheaply. Then there is human nature. People want their waste dumped in some other community rather than their own, Shelley said.

Because of groundwater seeping into the system, the big plant, big pipe solution is now taking clean water out of a number of ecosystems and putting it nine and half miles out into Massachusetts Bay. (Not to mention that ratepayers are spending money to treat clean water.)

Shelley also believes that replacing the plant in 10 to 15 years is going to turn out to be far more expensive than what it would have cost to update a series of smaller facilities.

CLF is turning away from sewers as the be-all, end-all solution. The conventional technology may have a place in some areas, but enhanced treatment at individual homes – with a utility that maintains them – and using the natural environment to remove nitrogen should be explored as well.

These methods are becoming mainstream in other parts of the country, but aren’t catching on here, Shelley said.

“DEP is very conservative,” he said. “The knee-jerk engineering answer is to sewer because it’s known technology.

“Our interest on the Cape is that these other approaches are considered and that residents aren’t rushed into things by municipal officials who tend to be very risk averse,” Shelley said.

CLF readily admits that the Cape’s problem isn’t as noticeable as Boston Harbor’s.

“The damage to the Cape environment is different … you have a chronic, escalating problem of eutrophication,” Shelley said. “It’s not quite as dramatic as a turd on the beach.”

Still it’s pollution that is strangling the Cape, and through a lawsuit CLF may not only prompt the peninsula to address its wastewater conundrum; it may also gain influence so it can help fashion a comprehensive plan.

“How do we develop wastewater management services on the Cape that will serve the Cape well and protect the Cape’s environment 50 years from now?” Shelley asked.

That’s the billion dollar question.

For a marked-up copy of the article, click below.

View image

DECENTRALIZED LOW COST SEWERS -- BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER

2009-12-07T13:48:17Z

Decentralized sewer systems are mini-sewer systems. Rather than lay big pipes all over town, neighborhoods needing treatment can be serviced one by one, thus saving moving wastewater great distances to one place where the wastewater usually gets wasted by being dumped into the ocean. Decentralized sewers save taxpayer money. EPA favors decentralized sewers over centralized sewers as better for the environment and more affordable for communities. So does the Conservation Law Foundation and national environmental organizations such as Clean Water Action.

The first chart below shows how decentralized and centralized systems differ. The conventional centralized system lays big pipes deep under streets and drains all the wastewater to one location, as in Chatham's case above Cockle Cove, to drain into the cove and Nantucket Sound. Along the way it picks up a great deal of drinkng water from the water table, which also winds up wastedin Nantucket Sound.

]]>
This second chart shows some of the basic differences and notes why decades-old centralized sewers are still thought of as the standard, though they are far more expensive and are environmentally disruptive. In centralized sewers, big pipes are laid deep under roads, often invade and deplete water tables since they leak. Decentralized mini-sewers are far less expensive and better for the environment since they use smaller pipes that generally don't leak at all, are installed above water tables and recycle cleansed wastewater to the water table. Decentralized systems are in wide use throughout the U.S. (though not yet much in Massachusetts) and Canada. DEP will be putting more emphasis on decentralized systems because of the need to do the job of nitrogen removal from coastal waters affordably.

This third chart notes the great number of decentralized systems are in operation across the United States. Because they use less resources, involve shorter piping distances, no deep ditch digging, don't tie up streets with construction, they can be built much quicker and show improvement in water quality sooner.

Slides courtesy of Jim Kreissl, former top researcher at EPA National on alternative systems.

To view JIm Kreissl's full PowerPoint presentation at the Mashpee December 5, 2009 conference on "Rethinking Sewers on Cape Cod," click on the link below.

CAPE COD JK 12.05.09 MASHPEE.pdf

MASHPEE CONFERENCE ON SAVING MONEY ON SEWERS SMASH SUCCESS

2009-12-06T12:59:56Z

PRESS RELEASE
DECEMBER 6, 2009

RETHINKING SEWERS ON CAPE COD: TAXPAYERS DEMAND PUBLIC OFFICIALS NOT WASTE MONEY ON UNNECESSARILYEXPENSIVE CENTRALIZED SEWERS

December 5, 2009--On a rainy Saturday just a few weeks before Christmas about 110 people from across Cape Cod gathered in Mashpee to learn about better, faster and cheaper ways to clean up the Cape’s waters of its excess nitrogen than with hugely expensive and disruptive conventional centralized sewer systems.

Officials and taxpayers, consultants and environmentalists from the towns of Chatham, Orleans, Dennis, Barnstable, Mashpee, Falmouth and Sandwich were in the audience as was Department of Environmental official David DeLorenzo.

The principal sponsor was the national environmental organization Clean Water Action, which claims 30,000 members in Massachusetts.

Representative Matt Patrick opened the proceedings by detailing the struggles faced by taxpayers he deals with on a daily basis and the impossibility of their being able to bear the cost of the centralized sewer system ($600 million) being proposed by Stearns & Wheler for his home town of Falmouth.

As Patrick said, “I don’t fault Stearns & Wheler. Their job is to make money and building these big sewer systems is a great way for them to do that.” It’s up to public officials to find ways to do the job cheaper.

Representative Patrick said that the billions it would take to build centralized sewer systems all over Cape Cod was a mad and unnecessary expenditure – even it were affordable, which it is not.

]]> Patrick reported that he has discussed this matter with Governor Patrick and told him that there were much alternatives available to do the job that were much in use throughout the United States but not so much in Massachusetts that could reduce costs 25% to 50%.

The Governor agreed that saving money on such important projects had to be made an urgent priority. He asked Representative Patrick to meet to meet right away with Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles and Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Laurie Bird to get their help in dealing with the Cape Cod cost crisis. Whatever was needed to get cheaper alternatives into the clean water solution mix should be done was the message Representative Patrick carried away from his meeting with the Governor.

In Representative Patrick’s meeting with Bowles and Bird, they promptly agreed to sponsor a Capewide informational session on educating the public and public officials on these less expensive ways of dealing with wastewater pollution that are in us elsewhere in the United States and in Canada. It will be held early in 2010.

Representative Patrick will also be working with DEP to get more money allocated to developing model plans for use of decentralized systems alone or in combination with centralized systems to meet the goal of coastal waters clear of excess nitrogen.

Becky Smith, speaking for the principal sponsor Clean Water Action, made clear that CWA’s primary interest was in cleaning up the Cape’s waters and it strongly believed that this could be accomplished in a better way for the environment by the use of alternative low cost decentralized sewer systems. These systems use fewer resources to construct, do not violate and deplete the water table and in fact constantly replenish the existing water supply.

Since such low cost alternative systems are far more affordable than the environmentally disruptive centralized sewer systems, CWA is happy to unite with taxpayers who also want to clean away the excess nitrogen problems, but at far less cost.

Smith noted that the Conservation Law Foundation also supports Cape towns considering alternatives to centralized sewers and has stated flatly it is not forcing Cape towns into centralized sewers, which they also consider environmentally damaging..

Valerie Nelson, head of the Coalition for Alternative Wastewater Treatment, just back from a conference on the interrelationship of water-energy-and wastewater in Beijing, reported on how integrating resource management has suddenly become a matter of pressing environmental importance.

While in the United States there is new focus on energy conservation, what’s rapidly developing is an awareness that saving all water and even wastewater is an environmental imperative, Nelson said. The electrifying discovery is that in conserving and recycling money can not only be saved, but made. Byproducts of the processes can be used, such as heat for cooling, biosolids for fuel and recovery of nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater for use in fertilizers. There is, she said, a whole new excitement about how profits can be made, costs reduced and resources conserved. The paradigm shift is taking place faster than hardly anyone thinks.

The main part of the informational session was presenting real world examples of how alternative systems are being used around the country. Jim Kreissl, now retired but for years the top researcher at EPA National on the use of alternative systems, led off with a primer on how alternative systems differed from centralized systems and why they could be built cheaper, better (for the environment and community disruption) and faster.

Kreissl had presented at the Chatham Concerned Taxpayers forum “Cleaning the Waters and Saving Taxpayer Money, Too” on September 12, 2009 in Chatham.

Kreissl's emphasis was on decentralized or cluster systems, which are the alternatives which seem most suitable to Massachusetts. Low cost systems use smaller pipes that don’t leak, are installed above water tables and convey wastewater shorter distances) as contrasted with centralized sewers (up to 25 feet deep, big pipes, in water tables often, leak, cause major street disruption).

His critical comment about the excessive amount of “effluent” the centralized sewer system proposed by Chatham town officials would “jam” into the one patch of soil that drains into Cockle Cove was sharply protested by Dr. Robert Donaldson, who heads the Chatham centralized sewer project under Town Manager William Hinchey; Donaldson asserted that that high level had been approved by DEP. Kreissl still didn't believe that was a good environmental decision.

Craig Goodwin of Northwest Cascade, headquartered in the State of Washington, gave the most extensive presentation of work his company has done throughout the country, including in the ecologically trouble Chesapeake Bay region.

While centralized sewers are somewhat of a “one size or plan fits all” alternative systems can be tailored to the needs and geographic requirements of the particular locale. Because decentralized systems allow for an incremental approach, they can be used to attack particularly troublesome areas quickly and individually and get the remedial underway in short order; there is no need to wait years for a townwide solution to be hooked up as is the case for a centralized system.

Northwest Cascade's experience is that such alternatives do in fact deliver savings of 25% to 50% over what centralized systems would cost.

David Cotton, speaking for Orenco Systems of Oregon and Craig Lindell, speaking for Aquapoint, a national organization headquartered in New Bedford, both echoed Goodwin on the cost savings achieved through use of alternative systems and they both emphasized that these alternative systems are able to remove whatever contaminants are desired to be removed, be it nitrogen or pharmaceutical residues.

The engineering firm with the most experience on Cape Cod with decentralized systems that remove nitrogen at the required level is Lombardo Associates of Newton, Massachusetts. His system is in the process of evaluation for nitrogen removal in Mashpee alongside Stearns & Wheler’s centralized sewer system.

The first (Popponesset Bay) of two reports to be made by the Massachusetts Estuaries Project has just been released. The Lombardo system was the only one that met requirements. The second report (Waquoit Bay) is to be issued December 15th.. Lombardo Associates expects it will pass that test as well.

For Mashpee, the Lombardo decentralized system could represent a savings of $300 million over the Stearns & Wheler centralized system. Lombardo presented information about the many other alternative systems it has installed around the country, all of which removed nitrogen at or better than the required levels.

Bruce Douglas of Stone Environmental, Vermont turned to the kind of integrated approach to energy, water and wastewater that Valerie Nelson reported on as an important focus of the Beijing environmental conference she attended last month. Douglas has been working on a project on Victoria, British Columbia that incorporates this vision and turning costs centers into profits.

What dominated the roundtable discussion that wound up the all-day session was frustration with state, county and local officials who seem indifferent to taxpayer concerns about the proposed costs of centralized sewers to solve the nitrogen problem.

In some if not most Cape towns, a big city sewer would not even be a consideration were it not for the need to remove excess nitrogen out the coastal waters. While solving the problem is important, it is also important not to drive families out of their homes, not to burden operating budgets for years to come and to crowd out other needed capital projects. DEP officials, at least those at the on-the-ground level, were charged with opposing change, being content with what they had worked with for years.

As Representative Patrick noted, consultants such as big sewer designers and builders Stearns & Wheler and Wright-Pierce should be expected to sell their solutions, but both appointed and elected officials are also too content to just do what others have done for decades rather than seek out alternatives that will do the job for far less taxpayer money.

Listeners were dismayed to hear Fran Meaney of Chatham Concerned Taxpayers describe how CCT's appeals in person and in writing to the fiduciary responsibility of the Chatham selectmen to taxpayers to spend their money wisely were rejected. CCT was only asking that town officials at least evaluate currently available alternative systems that could remove the required excess nitrogen at far less cost than the centralized sewer system they are rushing to install. The Chatham selectmen voted 5 to 0 that looking into the possible savings of up to $100 million of taxpayer money did not interest them.

Chatham is the only town using the pretext of "free" federal stimulus money to rush ahead with a centralized sewer system without a town meeting vote on the overall Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan.

Meaney indicated there was too much money at stake for Cape taxpayers everywhere not to keep pressing hard to get officials at every level to give fair consideration of alternatives that could save Cape taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions. There are others options that can be pursued if elected officials refuse to do their duty, he noted.

Several spoke of the desirability of a Capewide coalition to press the case for alternatives. Such a coalition is in the process of formation now – Cape Cod Clean Water Coalition for Cost Effective alternatives.

Representative Patrick was applauded for the leadership he has taken on to push state authorities.

Valerie Nelson concluded on a upbeat note, stressing that these are exciting times when new thinking is bringing forward ideas of how to improve the environment, do it less expensively and even, in the not too distance future, to even make a profit in the process.

As for sewers on Cape Cod, Nelson said, they can be built better, faster and cheaper with alternative methods and no one should let up on their demands that public officials do their duty to taxpayers and not waste taxpayer money on unnecessarily expensive wastewater solutions.

-- 30--

CHATHAM OFFICIALS PUSH ON WITH MOST EXPENSIVE SEWER ON CAPE COD

2009-12-04T13:27:52Z

Despite the repeated urging, pleading even, of Chatham Concerned Taxpayers, Chatham town officials have to this point refused to even look at methods to clean up the coastal waters at far less cost to taxpayers than what they are planning.

Even though alternatives to the conventional, hugely expensive centralized sewer system used in densely populated big cities exist and can do the job just as well at far less cost, Chatham officials seem determined to spend at least $300 milliion of taxpayer money to install a townwide sewer system. For a town with about 6,500 residents, this has to be the most expensive sewer on Cape Cod.

It is not clear who decided to plan for a centralized sewer system that will cover the entire town when it isn't needed to solve the environmental problem that was the reason for starting the process in the first place.

There has been no town meeting vote to plan to spend $340 million to sewer the entire town.

There has been no town meeting vote to plan to spend $240 million to clean up the coastal waters rather than spend far less to solve the problem.

Surveys indicate Chatham taxpayers could save as much as $100 million (of the $240 million) in cleaning up their coastal waters, but the selectmen and town manager refuse to even consider these cost effective alternatives.

Whaat about the fiduciary duty to spend taxpayer money wisely?