Comments

Proposed Sewer Line — 10 Comments

  1. I WISH TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PUBLICALLY APOLOGISE TO OUR SELECTMEN, MIKE LADD AND JACK SUNBERG. MIKE YOU ARE RIGHT YOU DID SAY THAT YOU WOULDN’T SUPPORT MORE THAN 50% TOWN SHARE,AND THANK YOU THAT SUPPORT.JACK WHEN YOU REFERED TO THE CHANGE OF TOWN PAYING FOR WEST GLOVERS SEWER YOU ARE RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG. AS I REMEMBER THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE FROM ONE OF PARKER PIES OWNERS AT THE TIME THAT THE COST BE BORN BY ALL TAXPAYERS IN THE TOWN OF GLOVER. I BELIEVE THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY STPHEN CANTOR CAN’T REMEMBER WHO SECONED IT. AS FOR CLARIFICATION I DO NOT REMEBER THAT AMENDMENT BEING 50% BUT AGAIN I COULD BE WRONG,MAYBE YOU COULD CLEAR THAT UP FOR ME. ONCE AGAIN MY APOLOGIES AND I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT YOU ARE PUTTING INTO THIS PROJECT,IT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND YOURNORMAL DUTIES.

  2. I live with James and Irene Clayton on Parker Rd. we are interested in the sewer project and wonder if anything has been decided. Thanks.

    • Timely question. We just confirmed today that there will be an informational meeting about the Sewer Project on Saturday, July 20th at 10:00 at the Church. Jack Sumberg from the Selectboard will be there to update us and answer questions. An announcement about the meeting will be going out soon.

  3. I think that the proposed sewer extension for the Lake Parker area is an idea that should be supported by all residents of the affected area and the Lake Parker Association (LPA). I have just finished rereading John Washburn’s “Taking Care of the Lake”, A History of the Lake Parker Association. The work done in the early years of the LPA to clean-up the lake has left us with a reasonably clean body of water. However, the lake still has high phosphorus levels among other pollutants. The new LPA addressed the problem of farm runoff but apparently not “faulty septic systems” noted in a 1969 Water Resources Board reply to the organizing committee. (page 1 of the Washburn paper). We now have the opportunity to address this issue and continue the good stewardship begun over forty years ago.
    There are several reasons why the septic systems may be contributing to the current nutrient and pollution load. Many of the installations are located above a high groundwater level or above impervious ledge material which results in a less than optimum leach field operation. Because of the age of many of the systems, they are not very efficient. All in-ground septic systems fail at some time. Replacement of these old systems to meet State requirements will be very costly and, due to lot sizes in some cases, nearly impossible. High groundwater tables increase the susceptibility of wells to infiltration by water contaminated by inadequate septic systems.
    I expect that the State will, at some time, require that all lakes meet a higher standard of water quality than the current levels. As evidenced by H-526 Shoreline Protection Bill. When this is done the cost of remediation will be much greater than today’s cost.
    Maintaining a good water quality of the lake is good for maintaining property values. A lake with good water quality will be much sought after for recreation. Second homes with good water and waste water handling will be at a premium. This is a good thing for not only the property owner but for the Town of Glover as well.
    I would, however, urge the Town of Glover to consider picking up some of the cost of the new system. The lakefront property owners currently carry the same added tax burden of the West Glover to Glover system as do all of the Glover Town property owners. The Lake Parker Extension, while benefiting the Lake Parker property owners directly, will benefit the entire town by maintaining property values and with a clean recreational facility. I suggest an open discussion regarding how this cost sharing might be achieved.

  4. jack
    my intentions are not to get into a mudslinging war with you and the other selectman,i will say that i stand by my comment, i note your misleading comment of the town will pay 50 percent, if that would be true then the udag grant could go for our share,i stand by your statement at the meeting that if it was proposed as a town project it wouldn’t pass. all i wish is we not get double talk we both know that it is 50% lake people and 50% udag and the vote would be just the acceptanse of the grant i think that 30 years of payments of 650.00 which totals
    19500.00for each property is a lot of money on the backs of 110 properties would be 2,145000.00 for our share on what i understand is approx 1,400,000.00 is real high, especially if as most do only use it 3 months a year. we need a lot more planning as this is just not fiscally sound. by the way if we have failed and failing systems on our shores i suggest you notify the health officer or state of vermont envoirmental dept as that is illegal and should be closed down post haste, i only wish is to not burden us with something that cant be paid for in the bad economy at this time. most of us have to sacrifice to pay our taxes now and adding 780,00 is not a good thing at this time ps. you are right the fee was given at 130,00 but my 780.00 figure was correct.

  5. I would like to respond to a few of the statements in Mr. Morrill’s comment on the sewer proposal. The town is not saying “we will do what we want”. The town is proposing this because some Lake Parker property owners have requested it and now that the W. Glover extension is up and running, an extension to Lake Parker is a possibility. The extension will be built only if there is strong support from lake property owners. The grant/loan program is funded by USDA (Dept. of Agriculture) not “UDAG”. The W.Glover extension is being funded 50% by all town taxpayers and 50% by the sewer users themselves. A similar proposal could be made for Lake Parker and the legal voters of Glover would have the final decision. The yearly user fee for Lake Parker is estimated to start at $130 not $180. Maintenance of the grinder pumps would be included in the $130 annual operations and maintenance fee. All aspects of installation would be paid for as part of the project. It doesn’t matter what side of the road you live on or how far you are from the road. The grinder pump system was not proposed and rejected for W. Glover. W.Glover already had gravity sewer lines in place. This gravity system was disconnected from the failed village septic system and connected to the Glover village system via a force main down Bean Hill Rd. Property values will not go up just because of a sewer connection. A sewer connection is assessed the same as a septic system. The sewer system would only affect lake property values if prospective buyers of lake properties perceived the sewer system as a benefit and were willing to pay more for camps on Lake Parker as a result, or if current owners take advantage of a sewer connection to expand their camps or convert them to year-round homes. I hope this clears up some misunderstandings.

  6. This comment moved by Moderator to “New Sewer Line” discussion

    I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED NEW SEWER LINES.
    (1)I THINK THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT SUPPORT THIS ACTION BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE ARE BEING LED DOWN THE PATH OF YOU CAN’T VOTE IN THIS TOWN SO WE WILL DO WHAT WE WANT.
    THE SELECMEN HAVE PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING THAT WE APPROX 110 SITES WILL PAY THE FULL COST OF BUILDING THIS SYSTEM
    THE APPROXIMATE COST WILL BE IN THE NEHIBORHOOD OF $1.4 MILLION IF WE GET A UDAG GRANT.NOTE THEY FEEL THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY BECAUSE THE TOWN WOULD NOT SUPPORT PAYING FOR US LAKIES. I MIGHT ADD WE WERE NOT GIVEN A CHOICE WHEN THE WEST GLOVER SYTEM WAS PUT IN,WE ARE AS TAXPAYERS PAYING THE FRIEGHT FOR 21 HOUSEHOLDS IN VILLAGE. THEY PROPOSE THAT THE COST WILL BE FINANCED FOR US FOR 30 YEARS AT 650.00 PER YEAR, PLUS A USER FEE THAT IS 180.00 AT PRESENT FOR A TOTAL COST OF $780.00 PER YEAR (IF USER FEES DON.T INCREASE OVER TIME)THE SYSTEM WOULD REQIRE EACH UNIT TO HAVE A GRINDER PUMP ELECTRICITY HOOKED TO OUR HOUSES/CAMPS. MAINTAINANACE ON THESE PUMPS HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS YET.(WONDER HOW MANY OF US WILL HAVE A BIG BILL FOR INSTALLATION IF YOUR SEWER LINE IS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD. AS I LIVE HERE WAS THERE FOR THE MEETING,BUT OTHER THAN US RESIDENTS VERY FEW OF OUR SEASONAL PEOPLE WERE THERE. THEY ALSO TOLD US THAT WE ALL WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE $650.00 DOLLAR ASSESMENT WHETHER WE HOOK UP OR NOT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY UDAG,I AM SUSPECT OF THIS,AS IN EFFECT WE ARE BIENG FORCED INTO A 30 YEARS OF PAYMENTS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE THAN A 30 YEAR MORTGAGE ON YOUR PROPERTY.THIS WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON RESALE VALUE AS WE ARE PUTTING THE BUYER INTO AN EXTRA PAYMENT FOR THE TIME LEFT WHEN YOU SELL.
    I WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS AS I THOUGHT WE WOULD BE TREATED AS THE VILLAGE WAS (west glover).
    I DON’T THINK THIS IS A FAIR SOLUTION. THEY ARE USING A SYSTEM (GRINDER PUMPS) THAT WAS PROPOSED AND REJECTED IN VILLAGE FOR UNSPECIFIED REASONS.
    AS IT IS PROPOSED NOW I CANNOT SUPPORT IT.A FAIRER WAY WOULD BE AS THE VILLAGE OF GLOVER AND WEST GLOVER WAS,A TOWN BOND FOR THE COST.A FAIRER WAY. THEY COULD ASSESS A IMPACT FEE OF 1000.00 AND THEY WOULD HAVE $110,000
    FOR A DOWNPAYMENT ON THE BOND GOOD WILL IF YOU WISH ON OUR PART. HOWEVER THEY SEEM TO BE RUSHING BECAUSE OF A DEADLINE TO APPLY FOR THE GRANT, I SUGGEST AS AN ASSOCIATION THAT WE FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT THING.I ALSO THINK WE NEED SOME LEGAL ADVICE AS TO THE FORCED PAYMENT,AND THE OUTING OF THE TOWN OF THE PAYMENT BECAUSE WE LIVE AND ENJOY BEING HERE ON LAKE PARKER THIS SYSTEM WOULD BE A MUNICPAL SYSTEM TOTALLY FINANCED BY US AND US AND UDAG THEY MIGHT PAY UP TO 55%. OUR PART WOULD BE $19500.00 OVER THIRTY YEARS FOLKS, WE PAY A MUCH HIGHER PROPORTION OF TAXES TO THE TOWN NOW.AND WE ALWAYS WILL, THEREFORE I FEEL THAT WE SHOULD FIGHT FOR OUR PROTECTION,ONE THING MENTIONED AT THE MEETING WAS THAT WITH THE SYSTEM IN PLACE THE PROPERTY VALUE WILL GO UP,TRANSLATION MORE TAXES.
    I STRONGLY URGE THE ASSOCIATION GET INVOLVED AND FIND OUT THE ANSWERS LEGALLY BEFORE THE BOND GOES UP FOR VOTE.
    I ALSO URGE FELLOW MEMBERS TO URGE THEM ALSO.
    BOB MORRILL 681 WEST SHORE RD.

  7. Some people have asked what the LPA board thinks of this project and if they are taking a position. As your board we feel that our role is to represent all members for or against and be a conduit for information about the project. We want to be impartial and without bias and give you the information you need to make an informed decision. Like you we are still learning about the project but at some point we will poll the membership and share that information with you.

  8. I am unfamiliar with the new sewer line. Could you explain? Is it a new sewer line around the lake? Is there an existing sewer line? Who is paying for the sewer line?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *