Board of Selectmen’s Meeting
Monday, April 4, 2005
6:00 p.m.
Selectmen’s Chambers
356 Main St., Municipal Offices
Minutes
Present: Joan A. Funk, Paula Proulx, Paul Parker, and George Meyer. Matt Scruton arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Also Present: Dale Sprague, George Neal
The meeting convened at 6:05 p.m.
1. The Pledge of allegiance
2. Interviews with Waste Water Plant Engineering Consultants
Dale Sprague introduced George Neal, a representative from The Department of Environmental Services. George explained that he could not participate in the actual selection process but was there as a technical advisor and to ask pertinent questions of the firms in order to protect the Town’s interests. Dale explained that the DES Administrative rule to restrain from inquiring on fees should be followed in order to be eligible for New Hampshire funding. Dale started off the discussion explaining the interview process, which would begin with an introduction from the firm followed by a presentation then finishing up with questioning by the Board of Selectmen.
I. HTA . Nelson L. Thilbault, P.E. Senior Vice President, Robert M. Trzpacz, P.E., Senior Environmental Project Manager and Michael Trainque, Vice President.
Nelson Thibault introduced his company as one of the largest Engineer consulting firms in New Hampshire in perspective to the workload they have. HTA has been in operation for the past 30 years and has offices throughout the Northeast. Michael Trainque made a presentation to the Board for their project approach. Included in the presentation was a description of effluent limitations (level of treatment), funding sources and HTA’s ability to get the Town maximum funding, treatment alternatives and a project schedule.
Discussion followed. Nelson explained that the way of the future to get rid of effluent discharge was to use it as spray irrigation for Golf Courses, etc. The EPA is pushing this method and wants to do away with discharging into waterways. George Meyer questioned whether the plant design could allow for additional piping if irrigation was used in the future. Nelson explained that a combination method of discharge could be installed giving the option of both methods. George Meyer asked if the design allowed for expansion. Paul Parker stated that the current oxidation ditches have a capacity of 225,000 gallons. Robert Trzepacz stated that the design capacity is 350,000 gallons; it might be necessary to expand, attach 6 more basins. Paul Parker stated that it would be a good idea to plan for growth and George agreed
stating that there should be an expansion plan. Robert stated that with respect for the schedule, DES and EPA would have to finish their total maximus daily load (tmdl) study so it is difficult to come up with an answer at this time. In response to a question by Paul Parker, Nelson explained that as much of the existing plant as possible would be used in the new design, including the oxidation ditch. Ernie Creveling stated that the plant is in poor condition and needs immediate attention to be updated. George Meyer questioned Dale on the plan for solids disposal. Dale responded that it was addressed in the overall picture. It is now going to the landfill where there is a five year window with a reasonable 2 year margin, after that …. Nelson stated that it is a nationwide problem.HTA ended their proposal at 7:15p.m.
II. Underwood Engineers, Inc. Frank Underwood, P.E., President, Steve Clifton.
Frank Underwood began his presentation with a brief synopsis of his company. He explained that Underwood Engineers primarily works for municipalities and presently have 15 registered engineers working for their company. He added that their expertise was in wastewater engineering.
Frank Underwood explained that it was common practice to do phasing with this type of project. Frank stated that the permit was due for renewal this year, the application process should begin in June, and there is an opportunity to negotiate. Frank explained that their company puts a lot of time and effort into getting the maximum amount of funding and grants. Frank told the Board that he had prepared pre- application forms, which were ready to be signed and sent. This would get the Town on a list for funding. Paul Parker stated that the plant was old, there were 2 oxidation ditches, and what would be Underwood’s direction for improvement be. Steve Clifton stated that there were four treatment alternatives: 1) Upgrade the existing system. 2) membrane bioreactors, 3)sequencing batch reactors (SBR’S),
4)rotating biological contactors. George Neal stated that there was pressure from the government to consider other techniques. Steve stated that biological treatment was preferred to chemical treatment; it was the most cost effective. George Neal asked what Underwood’s proposal for residuals management would be. Steve replied that it belongs in a treatment plant where they have the expertise to dispose of it; it’s nasty stuff. The town should get into a written agreement with Somersworth’s treatment plant now. Underwood ended their proposal at 8:15 p.m.
III. Wright and Pierce. Peter C. Atherton, P.E., Vice president, Edward J. Leonard, Project Manager.
Peter Atherton began by saying that they are proud of the work they have done for the Town in the past 9 years and they are knowledgeable of the existing facilities. Peter made a presentation of their proposal. Included in the presentation was a discussion regarding discharge options which included river based effluent discharge, and land and combination based effluent discharge. Paul Parker asked Peter about the Phase I project and where it stood. Peter stated that the project was designed, bid on, and ready to go but it was not approved by the Town vote. Edward Leonard stated that the present plant is a 30 year old treatment facility, in the spring of 2003, the aerator failed, parts are becoming mechanically obsolete, there are safety issues such as the current access to the storage tank. These issues should be
addressed regardless of where the town decides to go with this. Paul Parker asked what part of the plant would be kept for upgrade. Peter recommended the town still move forward with the Phase 1. project. The town should invest in its existing facilities, keep the oxidation ditches, increase aeration capabilities, and maximize the use of existing infrastructure. Ten years down the road, combination discharge could be possible. A lot of communities are looking into land-based discharge. George Meyer stated that it was a seasonal option. Matt Scruton asked if there were any new evaluations for long-term groundwater discharge since the 2002 report. Peter responded that further hydro geological study was needed. There were many good sites in Farmington that should be evaluated. Matt Scruton asked why further study was needed and Peter responded that the information should be updated. More discussion followed regarding funding and effluent discharge. Wright and Pierce ended their
proposal at 9:30 P.m.
The Board discussed the proposals. Joan asked Dale what his recommendation would be for the engineering firm. Dale responded that Wright and Pierce would be his first choice, Underwood his second and HTA his third choice. Joan asked Dale if Wright and Pierce were chosen, would the cost be lower since they are familiar with the project and would not have to conduct any preliminary studies which the other firms may have to do. Dale responded that that would be his guess. Matt Scruton asked if the work has already been done, why rehire someone to do it again; go with the 2002 report. George Neal stated that the report seemed complete; I encourage the town to pursue Phase I to keep what is there now functioning regardless of what is needed down the road. Ernie stated that maybe the reason the report did not pass at Town Meeting was because
people did not have a clear understanding of the content. The 2000census may need to be looked into to see if the numbers are correct. Dale stated that the contract is done, there should be a supplemental contract drawn up. George Neal stated that a new contract should include hydro geological studies. George Meyer asked for a motion for Wright and Pierce to continue their on efforts working on the Wastewater plant evaluation and updating the Draft report done in 2000 under guidance of Town employees and others. George Meyer Made a motion to negotiate a new contract with Wright and Pierce. Paula Proulx seconded the motion. All in favor.
10:15 p.m. motion to adjourn. All in favor
Approved on this _______day of _________, 2005
_______________________ _______________________
Joan A. Funk, Chairman Paula Proulx, Vice Chair
_______________________ ________________________
George Meyer Paul Parker
_______________________ ________________________
Matt Scruton
| 
