4/24/2012 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

t � Chairman Fudala had requested that the steps from the current stage to the end of the process be clearly outlined. 1 -. Hall emphasized that the language and the desired items from the original scope were carried forward to the amended scope, rvith the exception of the pipeline design. The Chair added that it had been'12 years since GHD had originally bid on the contract. Chairman Fudala stated that signatures were needed from the Commissioners on the cover sheet which had already been signed by Town Counsel as to form. Mr. Gurnee inquired whether a schedule was available for completion of the work. Mr. Hall responded that the work would commence as quickly as possible but that information was need from outside agencies such as SMaST, as well as the Sever Commission and public comments. Mr. Hall noted that the original contract was signed in 2001. ' Gurnee urnee inquired about Mr. Hall's best guess at timeline. Nk. Hall explained the he could provide tuning for GHD's tasks but that he couldof predict the time needed for Concession or public review,, as well as time r needed by regulatory agencies to review the material. Mr. full suggested the possibility of 1 months, assuming that the information was.received quickly. Mr. Hall detailed changes to the Proposed Scope Amendment. Task descriptio-ns 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 were deleted. The key elements were reinserted into 8B. The revised task 71ncluded the evaluation of the disposal site, a task that had been completed. Devised task 8A was the preparation of the original Notice of Project Change, which had been completed. Revised task , the Development of the.Alternative Screening Analysis Report took elements from task 5. Mr. Hall stated that a draft Final Alternative Screening Analysis Deport had been developed, but was awaiting feedback from SMaST. once a response was received from SMaST, a report mould be developed and the findings would be presented to the Commission for comments. The report would thea be modified to reflect feedback and submitted to a regulatory review meeting that would include the Cape Cod Commission,DEP, CAVI and Division of Marine fisheries (DW) to review the findings. The report would then be reviewed by 1 . The draft recommended plan would then be created based on feedback and would include the environmental impacts of the plan. Mr. Gurnee inquired whether casts of the project would b considered and Mr. Hall responded that the regulatory agencies would comment about the plan's 5 effectiveness and whether modifications were needed. Chairman Fudala stated that the three plans submitted would be a more complete version of the thre scenarios and that a rough cost would be available. The Chair stated that the Draft Recommended Plan would be developed based on feedback from all involved parties. Mr. Hall noted that cost considerations would-be i presented with the Alternative Screenings Analysis Report for the three plans and that timing would be established as part of the single Draft Recommended Plan. The Draft Recommended Plan would be vetted by the Sever Commission and the public and would go back to DEP, Cape Cod Commission and through the MEPA.process. Comments received would thea be incorporated into the Final Recommended Plan and before'proceeding through the process again. Mr-. Hall stated that Phase 9 and 10, regarding Public outreach and Project Adm'Inistration, had been modified with the available budget based on Commission feedback. Chairman Fudala stated that a vote was needed to approve the modification agreement. The Chair read the agreement. Mr. Klenert expressed preference in first reading the documents provided. IIS-. Gurnee inquired about what had been efiminated and the Chair stated that the design of the } effluent pipeline was eliminated. Mr. Hall.refereced Phase 7 related to the pipeline and stated 2