Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> J <br /> -G Site'Vesting Status <br /> Mr. Gregg reported that, after finalizing their agreement,the contractor would be signed this <br /> week. Mr. Gregg hoped to beg*n drilling in April. <br /> -GIEID Notice of Project Change <br /> The Chair stated that the Notice of Project Change was on hold until the Sever Commission's <br /> Article had been considered. Chairman Fudala stated that he requested that Mr. Gregg begin <br /> work on the next scenarios. <br /> Lombardo Associates <br /> -SRF Loan for Popponesset PR <br /> The Chair referenced the offer of a 2% state revolving fund loan to fund the PRB project at <br /> Pirate's Cove, and the OS' request that the Sewer Commission provide a recommendation <br /> about whether or not the loan should be pursued. Mr. Lombardo referenced financing and noted <br /> that there was a septic system upgrade tax credit, of up to $6,900,,that.vas issued by the State for <br /> primary residences. Mr. Lombardo suggested that a septic upgrade would not exceed $25,000 <br /> per property, whereas the cost of severs would total $ 0,000.�Mr. Lombardo also referenced his <br /> scenario that met the TMDL and was based on septic tank eluent collection systems. <br /> Regarding the PRB technology, Mr. Lombardo stated that the approach would have a strong <br /> chance of being fruitful and that the average cost would total less than $20,900 per property, <br /> although the location was not the most ideal for an economic benefit. Mr. Lombardo stated that <br /> the PRB was a passive system with little construction impact, requiring limited maintenance, <br /> adding that the conventional options tend to be more expensive and costly to residents. Mr., <br /> Lombardo stated that the proposed FRB was suggested as an alternate system to be used-along <br /> with individual systems in an effort to achieve the goals affordably. -IfMashpee chose not to <br /> move forward, without a grant,fir. Lombardo recommended that demonstrations of individual <br /> systems-be considered, which would offer a more strategic and cost effective option_ <br /> Mr. Malarkey inquired whether Mashpee could select different ways to use the funds from the <br /> original purpose, should Mashpee receive the loan or grant. Mr. Lombardo was unsure. The <br /> Chair inquired about the deadline and Mr. Lombardo responded.that the application and Ton <br /> Meeting action to appropriate the full wads would be necessary by June I The Chair stated that <br /> the BOS already voted on the Warrant so it would have to be considered for the fall. Mr. <br /> Lombardo stated that legal documents would need to be-executed and that the Town' <br /> authorization for funding would be needed by the end of the summer. Mr. Marcelli stated that. ' <br /> when presenting to the Board of Selectmen,they wished to ensure that they would not be <br /> obligated to spend Town funds for the PRB. Mr.Lombardo suggested that the project would be <br /> too small to pursue a public/private partnership and recommended considering individual <br /> systems in order to show progress. Chairman Fudala stated that the Town would prefer not to <br /> fund demonstration projects for particular technology. Mr. Marcelli added that the outlying <br /> areas of Mashp ee may not be severed.' fir.Lombardo clarified that he referred to to outlying <br /> areas of the severed areas and recommended selecting areas that would offer the greatest.impact. <br /> Mr. Klenert inquired about the paperwork atready prepared for the grant ding and whether it <br /> could be re-submitted. Mr, Lombardo stated that it could be re-submitted at the end of August <br /> for nominal fee. Mr. Lombardo indicated that he would need to review the new guidelines, <br /> requirements and whether or not the scoring system would be needed. Mr. Lombardo suggested <br /> that 1ashpee did not receive the grant because nutrient removal projects were not-considered. <br /> 6 <br />