My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/10/2000 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes
>
05/10/2000 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/9/2019 2:21:49 PM
Creation date
12/9/2019 2:21:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
SEWER COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/10/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
f , <br /> wastewater treatment plant and run sewer lines, all those costs would be allocated back to the <br /> community by user fees. <br /> Tour agreed but there would be no Mashpee Commons project adding m'trogen to the watershed. <br /> Duncan said that MC provides the economic engine to do something about cleaning up the <br /> Mashpee River. <br /> Torn said the MC project is creating the additional nitrogen the CCC is asking be mitigated. If <br /> MC went away, it would be a wash. <br /> Duncan said they are trying to help by providing a common place for wastewater treatment. <br /> Tom said its a Xoggcal approach,the concern is about who pays for it. <br /> Duncan asked if the Sewer Commission thought that the MC project could be a first step, <br /> p <br /> working with Stearns and wheler` <br /> Tom thinks so. A combined planet makes sense. The questions remains the mitigation cost. No <br /> one pays MC back for traffic mitigation-its a cost of doing business. <br /> Tom also has a problemwith,operating costs. Once other facilities are hooked up they have to <br /> pay fees. Is it fair to expect they to tie in` <br /> Doug said they are paying now for maintenance of their septic system. <br /> e thinks the town can take a lead role in helping to solve the river problem by Ong in <br /> municipal buildings. He understands the concern about-the cost. <br /> Setting aside the cast issue, is this outline/concept something the Sewer Commission can <br /> support, so that MC can move forward' <br /> Type of Flow: does everyone agree on actual flows? Everyone agreed it rake the most sense but <br /> is ultimately up to the CCC as to which numbers will be used. <br /> John said whichever methodology is used, it must be used for bath sides. <br /> Dungy said the discrepancy between the school's actual flaw and title 5 is greater than the <br /> proposed development flow and title 5. <br /> Doug agreed that actual flows is the best approach. <br /> Tom said, because he knows the school numbers are so far off, he wants to tie in something <br /> There the real numbers are closer to title 5 - like Deer Crossing. <br /> Duncan asked how that would be implemented, with 160 owners, who now pay nothing for <br /> sewage? <br /> Tom said that is why he would like to see MC go to Deer Crossing,with a deal where the costs <br /> are partly subsidized,than the Sewer Commission ask them to pay 100%. <br /> Dens said MC has to sell this, and prove to residents it will benefit the River. <br /> MC and fewer Commission has to agree n flow rates and how it Vll be paid for. <br /> Buff suggested letting them figure out what this will cost first before making decisions. <br /> Form said another issue is with MC creating a private sewer district within the boundaries of <br /> Sewer Commission. <br /> Dungy explained.it is until the town-is prepared. Tom said the Sewer Commission-is prepared. <br /> Duncan believes a private entity could move forward easier and faster than a vote of town <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.