Laserfiche WebLink
' r ' <br /> .y <br /> Property was located in a well recharge area and would require a higher level of treatment. Mr. <br /> Gregg added that additional areas around Mashpee Commons would p6tentially be directed t <br /> Mashpee Commons with surplus flow directed to-New Seabury. Windchime Point would utilize <br /> its own recharge area. Chairman Fudala noted that eluent from Windchime and Mashpee <br /> Commons.would be pumped by the effluent discharge pipeline due to their location near the <br /> Mashpee River. <br /> Site5/High School-The existing leaching facilities would be utilized and the balance <br /> would need to be directed to the Back Road propenes. <br /> Site Transfer Station-Mr. Klenert inquired about the use of the Transfer Station site in <br /> the watershed area and fir. Gregg reported that it was not a problem but a limiting factor and <br /> was a viable location because it was town-owned offering a lot of potential. Mr_ Menert <br /> inquired about the number of other sites that were privately owned and Mr. Gregg responded that <br /> New Seabury and Willowbend were private and I eeter, A humet,Back Roads and Site 4 were <br /> town owned properties. The Chair noted that the Mashpee leer was a top priority. <br /> Mr. Gurnee inquired about the modeling used. Brian Howes described the MEP model that has <br /> been developed, using the wastewater flow reductions from GHD to create a load reduction. The <br /> details and timing of the modeling were discussed. Mr, Gurnee inquired about whom reviews <br /> the information and�&. Howes responded that the MEP technical team had been in place for six <br /> gears and had reviewed hundreds of municipal scenarios. Mr. Lowes also referenced the issue <br /> of wells and their location, noting that wells could be-relocated for$142 mullion, and <br /> recommended considering the value of not having to pump long distances. <br /> The Chair noted that lam-. Gregg most intuitively determine what parts of town to remove the <br /> wastewater and where to discharge it based on previous scenarios and their response to the MEP <br /> modeling. Mr. Gregg stated that he was balancing drivers and constraints and wanted to ensure <br /> that the Commissioners understood and agree with the proposed two scenarios. The Chair stated <br /> that the two scenarios were needed since USG S had agreed to do two model runs of the solute <br /> transport model, but that it.needed to be.completed by June. <br /> Mr. Gregg inquired about Stratford Ponds' permit and the Chair responded that it was the same <br /> volume but that the location had changed: Mr. Gregg inquired whether Southport would be <br /> contacted by the Commission about expanding-their recharge facility and the Chair indicated that <br /> they would 'if it made sense. Mr. Gregg requested the flows for Cotuit Meadows. The Chair <br /> indicated that the Commission will await more detailed information from Mr. Gregg_ <br /> 4 <br /> �ldet <br /> Chairman Fudala reported that the Sever Commission's proposed articles were approved at <br /> Town Meeting. The Chair referenced the job description of the Sewer Commission <br /> Administrator draped by the Budget Subco rnittee and located in Commissioners' packets along <br /> with the article on-Gall Engineering Services. The Chair inquired about the Commission's <br /> interest in moving forward and questioned who would be in control of the approved funds. Mr. <br /> Klenert recommended that a subcommittee be formed to meet with the Town Manager to obtain <br /> more information. b&. Malarkey,y, Mr. eons, lam-. Klenert and the Chair expressed interest in <br /> joining the subcommittee. There was discussion regarding scheduling a subcommittee meeting <br /> prior to meeting with the Town Manager but Mr.Klenert recommended scheduling a meeting <br /> i <br /> } <br />