HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin brd of selectmen 04052006
r
f"! ~~ ~.
Mansfield Board of Selectmen
CWMP Workshop 0,6 ~.PQ I ':! MilO: 43
AprilS, 2006 " "I, v
f'f',,\.rr-o
L" \.:ILb f:Cf.
".'-" ,,.-, 0
:;1' I i.:.l_
Present: Vice Chairman Bernard Dolan, Clerk David McCa~:~Y:ld" iSE!lUftlfriialS Louis
Amoruso
John D'Agostino, Town Manager
Lee Azinheira, DPW Director
Kenneth Hackett, Operations Manager, Water Pollution Control Facility
John Sullivan, Town Engineer (arrived at 7:20pm)
David Young, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Robert Mangiaratti, Esq., Volterra, Goldberg, Mangiaratti & Jacobs
Mr. Dolan opened the workshop at 7: 1 Opm with the Pledge of Allegiance.
David Young of Camp Dresser & McKee, the town's wastewater consultant, began the
presentation. He said that since the last update with the Board, a lot of progress has
been made. The development of a recommended plan is needed and they are looking
for input from the Board, staff, businesses and town residents to help develop a
schedule for moving forward.
The agenda of the presentation is as follows:
r 1.) Purpose and history of project
2.) Summary of Phase 1
3.) Overview of Phase 2
4.) Input for recommended program
5.) Project schedule
6.) Questions/Answers and comments
The Town's treatment facility is at two-thirds capacity and the Town needs to determine
how best to utilize remaining capacity. The existing facility can't service the entire town.
A determination needs to be made if additional capacity is needed over the next 20
years and DEP is requiring an updated plan prior to issuing any future sewer extension
permits.
Mr. Young provided a brief project history, noting that the Town's last approved
wastewater facilities plan is dated 1976. The new treatment facility was brought on-line
in 1985, COM began to update the wastewater needs assessment in 1997, and a draft
study was submitted to DEP in 1998, who wanted several additional studies conducted.
In June 2000, COM completed a reclaimed water feasibility study for the town which
evaluated conveying highly treated effluent to the TPC Golf Course in Norton and other
surrounding areas. DEP indicated to the town in July 2000 that future sewer system
approvals would need to be based on an updated Comprehensive Wastewater
Management Plan (CWMP). The CWMP scope and budget was negotiated with DEP
r
April 5, 2006 Board of Selectmen CWMP Workshop Minutes
1
('
and'a state revolving fund loan was procured and town funding was approved in the fall
of 2002. Lastly, phase one was completed in October 2004.
Mr. Young displayed a picture on the slide show on the conceptual water cycle budget.
Wastewater Planning includes on-site systems vs. sewers, decentralized vs. centralized
solutions, local vs. regional alternatives, surface water vs. groundwater recharge, and
nutrient management. Mr. Young said the scope of work for Phase 1 included
assessing existing conditions, evaluating basin-wide water issues, projecting future
conditions, identifying wastewater needs, conducing preliminary screening of
alternatives and preparing Phase 1 draft report and file environmental notification report.
Mr. Young said that we broke the town into 16 sections - the preliminary wastewater
treatment and effluent disposal sites map is in Phase 1 of the report. The Executive
Summary is posted on the town's website and the entire report is available for review at
the Library. He went on to say that based on the needs noted in the Phase 1 report, the
existing flow us about 1,420,000 average day flow. In 2005, the potential flow is
2,376,000, with a 400,000 increase in residential.
In thinking to the future, the town will need an additional 400,000 gpd of wastewater
treatment and disposal capacity over the next 20 years. There is no large scale sewer
expansion program being proposed for the town. Local and regional solutions will be
investigated in Phase 2. In Phase 2, which began about a year ago, the scope of work
includes evaluating nitrogen impacts on town water supply wells, evaluating effluent
disposal areas, evaluating feasible treatment and disposal alternatives, develop overall
long-term recommended plan, and preparing Phase 2 CWMP Report and environmental
r impact report.
CDM evaluated nitrogen impacts on town drinking water wells from septic systems for
build-out of areas not recommended for off-site solutions. They created a computer
model to simulate existing nitrogen conditions and current reading in wells. Some
increase was projected but well within the Drinking Water Standard for nitrogen of
10mg/1. The town should sample surface waters and groundwaters periodically to
monitor and confirm projections. Mr. Young noted that the bottom line is that the town
does not need to extend the sewers to protect the wells to parts of Mansfield.
They looked at effluent disposal areas and evaluated the airport property, the WPCF
property and Pine Street in Norton - it is a private site in Norton with no access. The
field work that was done on the other sites included test pits, borings and infiltration
testing to determine what the rate might be. We developed a recharged model and we
were able to find 400,000 gpd acceptable at the airport property site with minimal
groundwater mounding.
Mr. Young described the various alternatives. Alternative A is called the 'no additional
municipal wastewater treatment and effluent disposal capacity'. Mansfield's current
wastewater allocation is 1.99 mgd, its current wastewater flow is 1.42 mgd, leaving less
than 600,000 gpd treatment capacity over the next 20 years. Under this alternative, the
town would manage future flow connections to stay within existing allocation. The
r
April 5, 2006 Board of Selectmen CWMP Workshop Minutes
2
('
additional 400,000 gpd of wastewater flow would be handled through private treatment
facilities and/or development would be prohibited through zoning changes.
Alternative B would involve the construction of a 400,000 gpd satellite wastewater
facility at the former Mansfield \fNIJTF site and the Mansfield Municipal Airport. This
alternative would divert flow from main wastewater regional interceptor to new facility,
treat effluent to reclaimed water standards for potential reuse at Tournament Players
Club golf course and other potential locations. In addition, the effluent year-round or
during non growing season would be land applied via subsurface leaching fields on
airport property or other potential sites.
Alternative C would consist of the expanding the existing WPCF to accommodate
400,000 gpd of future Mansfield-only flow. DEP will not permit additional surface water
disposal greater than the existing 3.14 mgd discharge to the Three Mile River.
Additional effluent would be recharged to groundwater via land application at Mansfield
Airport or reused at TPC golf course or other potential reuse sites.
Alternative 0 consists of expanding the existing WPCF to accommodate future
Mansfield flow (400,000 gpd) and Norton flow (50,000 to 275,000 gpd). This alternative
would also expand the WPCF by 0.73 mgd, treat effluent to reclaimed water standards,
and work with the Town of Norton to identify groundwater recharge sites (Pine Street
site) along interceptor route to supplement those sites noted in Alternative C.
The last alternative, alternative E, would expand the existing WPCF to accommodate
r future Mansfield (400,000 gpd), Norton (50,000 to 333,000 gpd), Foxboro (625,000
gpd), and Easton (100,000 gpd) for a total potential flow expansion of up to 1.46 mgd.
The alternative would also involve working with Norton and Foxboro to identify
groundwater recharge sites to accommodate the additional effluent and to treat the
effluent to reclaimed water standards. Mr. Young noted that the plant was designed to
be expandable by 100%.
Mr. Young provided an aerial of the airport site layout. COM looked at several sites on
the property and found two sites for a sub-service leaching field. He also provided a
site layout of the current WPCF in Norton. He noted that the Pine Street site is located
near the effluent route along the interceptor.
Alternative A is actually a cost shift. They assumed that half of the systems would be
built in Year One and the other half built in Year Ten. It does not account for lost tax
revenue due to limited commercial, industrial and mixed-use growth.
Mr. Young noted that the presentation will be available on the Town's website. He
provided details on Table 5-2 and Table 5-6 (Alternative E). Table 5-16 displays the five
alternatives and their project costs, present worth operating costs, total present worth
(rounded), present worth $/gal and total project cost to the Town of Mansfield. In
looking at the last row, alternative E ranges from $14-16 million (sharing costs with
r
April 5, 2006 Board of Selectmen CWMP Workshop Minutes
3
r
other communities). In looking at Alternative 0, the cost could go down $2-3 million if
the town could gain access to the Pine Street area.
The development of the recommended plan includes environmental issues, regulatory,
design and reliability issues, implementation issues and costs. The project schedule
involves selecting a recommended plan, complete and submit the draft EIR, conduct a
public hearing on recommended plan, address final EIR comments after MEPA,
developing an implementation timeline, seeking appropriate funding option and a 3-
year+ design-bid-build period.
Atty. Mangiaratti asked if COM looked at the deed for the Airport to see if there are any
restrictions. Mr. Young said that we did not look at the deed and that will be done; the
airport had questioned if the additional water would attract fowl.
Mr. McCarter asked if there are limits to the amount of discharge into the Three Mile
River. Mr. Young replied that DEP gives out permits and they are not allowing any
additional flow or nutrients into the river any more. Mr. McCarter noted that the plant
was built for expansion in mind but asked what that means. Mr. Young replied that a
mirror image was created so that it could handle the influent.
Mr. Azinheira said that one of the projects that we have been working on with COM is
the evaluation of the existing plant. The plant went online in 1985, and many of the
parts are ending their useful life. $27 million is the grand total in proposed
improvements. The first phase includes all components that Mr. Hackett and his staff
(' have concerns of and COM added safety and code issues that have changed since
1985. The plan is to have Phase 1 begin next summer and Phase 2 would commence
in 5 years. They looked at two pump stations on School Street and provided a
summary of the School Street Sewer Interceptor Capital Improvements Program. The
total estimate of town funding is $1.1 million. The estimated schedule for this project is
Phase 1 would include construction from Summer 2006 to Spring 2007; Phase 2 said
that the bid would take place in December 2006 with construction to follow in Spring
2007 to Fall 2007; Phase 3 would follow the same schedule and Phase 4 would have a
finalized design and bid in December 2006 with construction to begin in the summer of
2007 to end in the fall of 2007.
The projected CIP schedule for the plant is as follows: DPW has requested $1.5 million
for FY07 for Phase 1 for final design, bidding, value, engineering & miscellaneous; Mr.
Azinheira would to go Town Meeting for FY08 for money for construction in the amount
of $12,240,000. In FY2012, the Phase 2 final design would cost $1.5 million and for
FY2013, the Phase 2 construction would cost $12,250,000. He noted that the impacts
on the rates are significant. He provided a rate scenario for just making improvements
to the existing facility. He would recommend scenario A. Mr. D'Agostino noted that
these scenarios would' assume the 2% SRF loan for construction. Mansfield's annual
residential sewer rates, based on state average of 12,000 cubic feet of water per year,
is $301 versus the state average of $458. The three 20% increases would bring us to
r
April 5, 2006 Board of Selectmen CWMP Workshop Minutes
4
r
the"state average. Mr. Young noted that Foxboro is requesting the highest percentage
of gallons between the four towns.
Mr. McCarter asked what the motivation is is for current ratepayers to pay the higher
amount for future ratepayers. Mr. Azinheira said we want to get this information out
there so that the ratepayers can weigh in. Mr. Amoruso said that Foxboro seems to just
want to give us what they have and build their own solution for the rest. Foxboro's
treatment plant alone is in the $12-13 million range. Mr. Young said that half of the
expanded flow comes from commercial/industrial and the ratepayers may want them to
shoulder the burden.
Mr. McCarter asked if new customers can be imposed a surcharge and Mr. Azinheira
said that there would be. Mr. D'Agostino said that this discussion is good. Mr.
Azinheira hopes these discussions will spur more interest from the community. Mr.
D'Agostino said that with regard to the master plan for expansion, extending sewer
beyond the 495/West Street cut off - the town negotiated a deal with Fairfield Green
that the sewer would only go to them and no one could hook up. Mr. Young said that
we aren't planning to expand sewer to that end of town. A map showing the plan for the
next twenty years, outlining the areas of town which will get service will need to be
approved at Town Meeting.
Mr. D'Agostino said that the town never intended currently to expand sewer to further
down West Street and the pipe that services Fairfield Green cannot handle capacity.
Mr. Amoruso pointed out that people with septic that need to have a new system will
r need to spend $20,000-$25,000 all at one time; with the proposed sewer rates, the
ratepayer can pay over a period of time. Mr. Amoruso noted that it appears like sticker
shock with respect to the sewer rates, but we have a lot to think about.
Warrant No. 41 in the amount of $2,530,487.35
Motion: To approve
(Amoruso - McCarter) 3-0 Passes (with Mr. McCarter abstaining from check
#351480)
Motion: To open the Special Town Meeting Warrant
(Amoruso - McCarter) 3-0 Passes
Motion: To enter into Executive Session at 8:50pm for the sole purpose of discussing
pending litigation and return to Open Session for the sole purpose of adjournment
(Amoruso - McCarter) 3-0 Passes
Roll Call Vote: Amoruso, aye; Dolan, aye; McCarter, aye
r
April 5, 2006 Board of Selectmen CWMP Workshop Minutes
5
r
r
,.-..
Motion: To adjourn the Open Session at 9:10pm
(Amoruso) 3-0 Passes
~
'l:Jew-iel W. 'PI c-(}t'VCt u
Signature of Clerk
~t IZ, Z006
Date of Approval
April S, 2006 Board of Selectmen CWMP Workshop Minutes
6