Laserfiche WebLink
1 i <br /> Tom said it was not clear from the proposal what Weston and Sampson would do and what Dr. <br /> Howes will be doing. He is concerned moot duplicating efforts. <br /> . Please tell the members more about public outreach. The Commission agrees that building <br /> support will be critical. How much does Weston and Sampson do, how much do they expect the <br /> members to do? How do they see their role? <br /> Weston and Sampson said they are prepared to attend a lot of meeting and prepare a lot of <br /> deliverables, as is Mated in the R"P. They tailor the outreach effort to a specific commun*tyi <br /> Weston and Sampson will provide the technical information(materials, graphics etc.) and work <br /> with a local advocate to male the presentation. The engineers are perceived as outsiders and if <br /> they try to sell something it fails every time. <br /> Dr. Howes asked how they deal with a town wide sell vs. targeting a part of the community? <br /> Weston and Sampson said they set up neighborhood meeting. Costs have to be know up front <br /> and then sell it to the people and neighborhoods. <br /> . John asked how involved they are with the public-private, town taking over the treatment <br /> plant they discussed earlier? <br /> Weston and Sampson said in Gayland the private entitles don-'t want to be in the Sewer <br /> business. The town will tale over the plant. This is a big trump card for Iashp . You can ask <br /> for extra capacity and then the town tales over the plant and the private entities pay pro rates <br /> share of operation. <br /> i Dennis said they mentioned the Mate revolving fund. He thought that fund was depleted? <br /> Weston and Sampson said it is for 1998 and 1999. The Cellucci administration is trying to make <br /> some changes, with a new Secretary of Environmental Affairs and hierarchy of DER Their <br /> sense is the legislature will step up with more money for the SRF. They think the program will <br /> continue because it is so popular. <br /> Mashpee's project is ideal from a Mate vide perspective. Its a true decentralized system., which <br /> the State and IP love. They will want to implement it. <br /> Toni said this project does not deal with public health issues, which put it further down on the <br /> funding list. <br /> Weston and Sampson said last year they changed the rating system. watershed Management is a <br /> new focus for them, it is now scored high. watershed issues and de-centralized issue would both <br /> receive priority points. <br /> Tom asked if they think SR' money is still something we should consider` <br /> Weston and Sampson-think s it is. Not tomorrow,but in the future. DEP will be there as part of <br /> the MEPA process with input.. <br /> . Tom said he is not clear about alternative scenarios, for phase Iv, he hopes they are not using <br /> his suggestion which was just are illustration. <br /> Weston and Sampson used it as a baseline to start, not a model, i.e. where are the current <br /> treatment plants. <br /> . Vona said in the proposals, phase v alternative funding it states sources will be defended and <br /> measured? <br /> Heston and Sampson said this refers to a cost allocation strategy: contribution form developers, <br /> 3 <br />