Laserfiche WebLink
required to be the primary applicant for the project due to the necessary long term maintenance. The <br /> Friends of Santuit Pond and the Mashpee Environmental Coalition would be co-sponsors of the <br /> application. The project proposal consisted of purchasing 6 solar powered circulators that would be <br /> placed in Santuit Pond to address the algae problem. Ms. Laurent referenced photographs from 2009 <br /> and 2010 showing the conditions, which will be included with the application. Ms. Laurent noted that, <br /> due to the conditions of the pond, there have been impacts to usage of the pond and closures to <br /> swimming in the pond. Ms. Laurent reported the possibility that the circulators could be operated <br /> seasonally, adding that the units would not eliminate phosphorus from the pond but that it would <br /> address the quality of the water by introducing oxygen to the system. <br /> Due to the funding involved, the project will go out for bid. The RFP will include a service plan that <br /> would provide semi-annual maintenance as well as insurance to cover the replacement or repair of the <br /> units. Ms. Laurent noted that regular maintenance would be minimal and members of the Friends of <br /> Santuit Pond and Mashpee Environmental Coalition have volunteered their assistance. Ms. Laurent <br /> reported that the Waterways Commission will submit of letter of support for the project to the <br /> Community Preservation Committee and indicated that they did not see any negative impact to the use <br /> of the pond. <br /> Chairman Cahalane noted that a new vote from the Committee may be needed for the new application <br /> and invited members to ask questions. George Petersen applauded everyone's efforts to identify a <br /> solution to remediate the problem in the pond, but expressed concern about the proposed 15 year cost <br /> represented in Table 8-4 in the AECOM report and also in the application. Mr. Petersen referenced the <br /> three remediation options, dredging, solar circulators and chemical treatment. Mr. Petersen inquired <br /> about the reason why an alum treatment was eliminated as an option and questioned AECOM's cost <br /> comparisons compared to the quotes provided in the application, Mr. Petersen confirmed that the <br /> capital costs of$300,000 and permitting costs of$30,000 were similar. However, regarding the <br /> maintenance costs, Mr. Petersen stated that the first 2 years would each cost $8,000 and that the <br /> remaining 13 years would cost $16,000 each year totaling $211,000. Mr. Petersen stated that the <br /> project becomes very expensive to the Town when all costs for the circulators are totaled for the 15 <br /> years, whereas an alum treatment may be less costly at $200,000 for a one time treatment. Mr. <br /> Petersen inquired whether the Town had considered a different remediation strategy in order to <br /> conserve funds. Mr. Petersen also agreed that it would be important to seek bids from other companies <br /> for the solar circulators and questioned the reasoning for Solar Bee's yearly cost to double to $16,000 <br /> after the expiration of the 2 year warranty. Mr. Petersen questioned whether the additional cost would <br /> be necessary if the equipment was expected to last over a long period of time. Mr. Petersen added that <br /> Solar Bee would continue to offer the very same services as the first 2 years, but for double the cost. <br /> Mr. York inquired whether Mr. Petersen's prime concern was regarding the $8,000 versus $16,000 <br /> warranty cost, and whether he agreed that it would be a similar cost to the alum treatment without the <br /> warranty expenses. Mr. Petersen agreed, but noted that case histories show both the success and the <br /> failure of Solar Bees and that the company did not make any guarantees about the success of the <br /> technology. There was discussion involving the recommendation to utilize 6 units and Mr. York stated <br /> that 6 were recommended based on the performance of the units to cover the bottom of the pond. Mr. <br /> York suggested that purchase of the warranty may be unnecessary but that bid responses may provide <br /> additional information. Regarding Mr. Petersen's reference to an alum treatment, Mr. York stated that <br /> Ashumet Pond has had success with an alum treatment because it was a deep pond and the treatment <br /> was injected below the fish with no mixing. Mr. York noted that Santuit Pond was shallower and <br /> could easily mix which would result in a fish kill. Mr. York added that the EOC had previously <br /> considered the various remediation options and voted to recommend the circulators. Mr. Petersen <br /> 2 <br />