Laserfiche WebLink
-Lombardo Invoice for3o-Pio Lombardo has submitted a bill in the amount of$ o <br /> representing 2 hours of attendance at the last meeting. <br /> Mr. Lyons made a notion to pay the WE Mr.Malarkey seconded the motion. All voted <br /> unanimously. <br /> The voucher was signed by the Commissioners. <br /> -SMaST Invoice for draft' quoit Bay MEP Report for$15,297-The Chair stated that <br /> Mashpee had not yet been in receipt of the report but that payment would not be processed until <br /> the report was received_ The draft NIEP report for the main body of wauoit Bay had been <br /> authorized by Town Meeting as a separate account, with Mashpee responsible for 1/4of the cost <br /> and Falmouth responsible for / of the report. Falmouth received the report on October I The <br /> Chair has made ears to request the report with n response as of yet. <br /> Mr. Lyons made a motion to pay the bill when the Sewer Commission receives the report. <br /> Mr. Gurnee seconded the motion.. , <br /> i <br /> Mr. Malarkey indicated that he did not support paying the bill until the report was received and <br /> stated that he would not sign the warrant. Mr, Malarkey inquired about when Mashpee was <br /> expected to receive the report and the Chair responded that Falmouth was the lead in the report <br /> and that it was delivered to them on October 3. The Chair reiterated that he would not process <br /> payment until the report was received. Mr. Malarkey suggested funding the invoice next month. <br /> Mr. Gurnee suggested that it would be o.k. to approve the request pending receipt of the report. <br /> Chairman Fudala reported that his messages to Brian Howes stated that they would not pay for <br /> the report until it was received. <br /> vote:. 3 in favor, 1 against <br /> The voucher was signed by 3 commissioners. <br /> Presentation of GHD Proposals for Option 1A and Option 1 <br /> Mr. Gregg submitted a report, labeled DRAFT Scenarios Description, to be 'considered by <br /> members of the Con mission. Mr. Gregg summarized that Falmouth, Barnstable, Sandwich and <br /> Mashpee were presently in different phases of the planning process and that recommendations <br /> were based on identified areas in the two watersheds and the remainder of Mashpee,with focus <br /> on the wastewater flows and loads of the areas. Mr. Gregg stated that the goal was t identify <br /> the recharge areas in order to complete the modeling analysis which would develop the scenarios <br /> that will assist with identifying the costing, alternatives and technologies. Chairman Fudala <br /> stated that the two options would have no costs associated with there and Mr. Gregg agreed, <br /> adding that they were modeling approaches that would determine whether or not the approaches <br /> would meet the TMDL, with.the intent to move forward to build the scenarios. Mr. Gregg <br /> emphasized that the focus was on where the waste-water would be recharged and in which <br /> watershed. Treatment for the water and other issues would be ruined during the planning and <br /> phasing stage. Mr. Gurnee inquired about the modeling and Mr.,Gregg responded that ME <br /> would be conducting the modeling. There was discussion about the use of rainbow spreadsheets <br /> that represented the loadings and review of watersheds and sub-watersheds. The Chair <br /> recommended a review of the reports located on the Sewer website. <br /> 2 <br />