Laserfiche WebLink
Daley recommended the addition of"publictprivate" for Task 7, which would be evaluating the <br /> available land. Ms. Daley suggested that the scope provided a general look at what could be <br /> implemented. <br /> Chairman Laurent referenced the signatories listed on page 2 and noted that the Air National Guard <br /> was not a signatory on the IMA. Additionally,Mashpee had contracted with New Bedford Waste <br /> Services and rail would not be an option for transportation to that facility. In Task 2, the Chair <br /> inquired whether usage of solid waste facility might be too narrow. Regarding the rail spur, further <br /> clarification and definition was needed to identify responsibility for maintenance of the rail. In <br /> Task 6, Chairman Laurent referenced the estimate of waste quantities and whether it should be <br /> limited to solid waste since it had already been determined that the UCRTS was likely not a viable <br /> option for solid waste in the future. Ms. Daley recommended referring back to Task 3. The Chair <br /> suggested that Tasks 9 until the end may be better suited for a second phase when an alternative <br /> usage would be identified. Sharon Rooney, of the Cape Cod Commission, suggested the addition of <br /> another deliverable meeting in order to consult with the Board of Managers to determine the most <br /> viable option. <br /> Regarding the rail spur, Mr. Jack agreed with the Chair that more clarification was needed as well <br /> as classification of the track speed. In Task 3, Mr. Jack suggested changing the wording from <br /> "select" to"identify" or"recommend" Mr. Jack also recommended clarification regarding <br /> recycling referenced on the first page, which was not referenced anyplace else in the document. Mr. <br /> Jack suggested that the deliverables in Task 3 were redundant and could be combined. Mr. Jack <br /> noted that Task 4 should complement or be merged with Task 3 and suggested that the Task 5 <br /> appraisal should follow Task 2. There was also discussion regarding electricity needs being added <br /> to Task 2. Mr. Jack recommended that meeting attendance in Task 17 be defined and Ms. Daley <br /> recommended check-ins after the completion of inspections of the physical plant and consideration <br /> of options. <br /> Mr. Tilton was in agreement with the Chair and Mr. Jack and stated that he was impressed with the <br /> scope. Mr. Tilton referenced Task 4 and Task 11 and suggested a preliminary investigation of any <br /> regulatory hurdles to identify uses that would not be allowable at the site. Mr. Segura indicated that <br /> he had already provided comments. <br /> Mr. D. Barrett also concurred with previously stated comments but suggested that the tonnage <br /> capacity noted on page 2 was greater than 40,000. It was agreed that the DEP permit allowed 1,750 <br /> tons for a 6-day week and that the permit be pulled as part of the scope in order to add detail. <br /> Regarding the deliverables of Task l Mr. D. Barrett recommended adding specific information <br /> regarding annual tonnage limitations and the possibility of sub-dividing the land to allow for usage <br /> of multiple technologies. Mr. D. Barrett recommended considering other options in Task 4 besides <br /> solid waste and Ms. Daley indicated that other options had been identified in the JLUS, which could <br /> be added to the scope. <br /> Mr. Cavossa expressed concern about an additional study regarding usage of the UCRTS, noting <br /> that there was not a lot of industrial use land available. Chairman Laurent indicated that solid waste <br /> no longer made sense as an option for member communities and Mr. Cavossa responded that the <br /> commercial waste of the member towns would be looking for a location. Ms. Daley noted that the <br /> Office of Economic Development was interested in the well-being of the base so would be <br /> 2 <br />