Laserfiche WebLink
Seabury and Willowbend were considered more closely as options and discussions have begun with both <br /> locations. <br /> Mr. Gregg described the next step in the project as incorporating the scenario results into the draft <br /> alternative screening analyses report that will include the next two scenarios and results from the <br /> modeling. Once completed, the report will be forwarded to MEP and GHD will then move toward a <br /> recommended plan. Mr. Gregg emphasized the importance of public participation and support. Mr. <br /> Gregg and Chairman Fudala also discussed the need to file with MEPA. <br /> Mr. Klenert questioned whether budget information was provided to GHD prior to their planning and <br /> Chairman Fudala responded that budget guidelines were not provided because the project was driven by <br /> the Clean Water Act and the need to meet TMDL targets for nitrogen. Chairman Fudala emphasized the <br /> need to meet the targets as cost effectively as possible. Mr. Klenert questioned the selection of discharge <br /> sites and Mr. Gregg responded that it was a complicated issue dependent upon the concentration of the <br /> effluent and its location along with consideration of many factors. New Seabury was selected because of <br /> its location outside of the two watersheds allowing effluent to be treated at a less stringent level than other <br /> locations. Willowbend would also allow recharge into a less sensitive area. Effluent being discharged in <br /> a watershed area will require a higher level of treatment. The Chair added that conservation lands could <br /> not be used for discharge and most of the sites being considered were town tax-taking land. A new list of <br /> sites has been developed including Willowbend and properties north of Johns and Moody Ponds, but <br /> Ashumet Road and the Keeter Property have been removed from the list. The new list has sufficient <br /> capacity to meet the TMDLs. <br /> W. Kaplan also reminded the Commission that costs would be extended over the long term. Mr. Gregg <br /> emphasized that plans could be developed in such a way that the Town address pieces of the plan, while <br /> the Town continued to monitor its efforts, showing its long term goal and commitment to meeting the <br /> TMDLs. Chairman Fudala discussed funding options that will allow borrowing for 50 years. Other <br /> towns have identified the ways in which costs would affect residents, including the impact of debt <br /> schedules. Further discussion will be needed to consider funding options. Mr. Klenert requested reliable <br /> figures from consultants to allow careful financial planning for the project and Mr. Gregg responded that <br /> a plan will be recommended but changes or details impacting the design may affect the final costs. <br /> Chairman Fudala added that the economy could affect costs and also that the scope of the project could <br /> change should Mashpee's water quality monitoring indicate improvements. Mr. Gregg added that <br /> technology could improve in the coming years and provide other options. Mr. Gregg also clarified that <br /> the recommended plan would establish a basic timeline of how to implement the plan and the first 20 <br /> years would contain the most specific details. Mr. Marcelli questioned whether Mashpee could budget for <br /> components of the plan rather than the entire cost to keep the tax rate level and Mr. Gregg responded that <br /> a fiscal plan could be established and developed with the 20 year plan. The Chair stated that the plan <br /> must be designed to meet the targets and that the State will want to ensure that adequate progress is being <br /> made to meet the goals. Chairman Fudala added that recent legislation has created zero interest loans for <br /> towns on Cape but are available only with completed plans. In order to receive the loan, the Town will <br /> also need to adopt growth neutral zoning regulations. Commission members also discussed sewerage <br /> fees, the tax base and betterments to fund the project. <br /> Beverly Kane, a citizen representative of the Community Advisory Committee(CAC), expressed concern <br /> about developing a final plan and ensuring that user friendly information about the plan be provided <br /> directly to residents. Mr. Gregg emphasized the importance of including public participation in the plan <br /> and educating the public about the reasons why the plan is important and what it will entail. Regina Villa <br /> 6 <br />