Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2009-11-10 Minutes\~~\\~~\\\\\\\~u~~ullll~furrrlri~~i~i / 0 rr• O 9F~~~ .~ '~ ~3U fi~~N ~0 •~ _ ~_ Fey` /%//////////f/~~111lII f I I 11111111111\1\\\\~~~\\\\\\ Town Of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 ext. ]33 FAX (508) 896-8089 Comprehensive Water Planning Committee Date Approved with modifications: November 23, 2009; All Aye; Vote: 7-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 5:00 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Dave Michniewicz convened the RFP review sub-committee meeting on behalf of the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee meeting at 5:00 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Pat Hughes, Joanne Hughes, Dave Bennett, Elizabeth Taylor and Amy Usowski. Amy left at 5:40 pm. Also Present: Sue Leven, Chris Miller, Charlie Sumner and Ed Lewis. 1. Review and discuss Integrated Water Resource Management Plan proposals/interviews. Michniewicz: Reminded the committee that the list of consultants had been narrowed down to three: CDM, Horsley Witten Group and Stearns &Wheler. At the previous meeting the committee had asked Ms. Leven to check their references. Michniewicz then opened to the Board. P. Hughes: Noted that Ms. Leven had prepared an overview of the three companies detailing their answers to the designated questions along with her findings during the reference check process. Ms. Hughes was happy that all three companies' references checked out ok. P. Hughes then went back and reviewed each company's proposals more thoroughly to see their technical aspects and the staffing for the project. She had been leaning toward CDM but after this review she revised her prioritization to the following: Horsley Witten, Stearns &Wheler and then CDM. However she did note that any of the three would be capable of handling this project. J. Hughes: Felt any one of the three would do a good job but was leaning toward Horsley, CDM then Stearns. Bennett: Reviewed the info. His favorite was CDM, then Horsley and finally Stearns. He has some concerns with Stearns doing work in the Town of Eastham and felt there may be a conflict. The CDM proposal and the project leader was what stood out for him. Taylor: The 3 are all very close. She prioritized the companies as follows: CDM, Horsley, and then Stearns. She liked the fact that CDM had discussed finding alternative funding sources (i.e. grants). Leven: Wanted clarification: Why did Dave Bennett think Stearns had a conflict with a neighboring town (Eastham) but CDM is also working with a neighboring town (Harwich)? 11-10-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page l of4 Bennett: the Namskaket marsh is a big concern for Brewster; Stearns is working with Eastham and the Tri-Town facility issue. CDM identified the fact that the Marsh is an asset to the Town of Brewster and needs to be protected. Harwich would not be participating in the Tri-Town therefore does not have the same conflict. J. Hughes: She liked the fact that Horsley had identified Brewster at the top of the line and not the receivers of the wastewater. P. Hughes: Also liked the fact that Horsley talked about the phosphorus research needed to be done on the ponds. Bennett: Really liked Mr. Young and his presentation capabilities - Ms. Barry may not be as hands on but felt she would be the one on the public input sessions. CDM has capped the landfill in Yarmouth and it had been an innovative initiative. Leven: She had worked with all three consultants and provided her impressions of each. Again the committee should pick a consultant based on what is important to the Town. J. Hughes: Was anyone un-impressed with Harwich's website? She was not impressed. P. Hughes had a very difficult time finding the information and CDM had been responsible for the content. Leven: provided her review of the websites. Bennett: Noted that for their determination price is not a consideration but felt that almost anyone of these companies would be appropriate. Could the bids be opened and then they make the final determination? Michniewicz: The committee should not open the bids until they have identified their top choice. Miller: Informed the sub-committee that he was leaning toward Horsley but again any of three would do a good job. He pointed out that the committee could steer the direction of chosen company and how they proceed (i.e. web content). His second choice was Stearns. Michniewicz: Because all reference checks came back essentially very positive that did not sway him. He ranked the consultants as follows: CDM, Horsley then Stearns. He liked the fact that CDM identified the importance for Brewster to protect our interest in Namskaket Marsh. He then asked the sub-committee if they were ready to vote. P. Hughes: Motioned that the Committee recommends CDM as their first choice; Horsley Witten Group as their second and Stearns & Wheler as their third. Seconded by Taylor. All Aye. Sumner: Opened the bids in no particular order. All three consultants were within a few thousand dollars. A brief discussion of the bids occurred. Lewis: It was noted that CDM had prepared an overview budget and Mr. Lewis suggested that the committee ask CDM to provide a breakdown of how they got to the numbers they got to just to make sure they have included the appropriate hours/tasks. Michniewicz: Felt the bottom line number was what was appropriate to him. 11-10-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 2 of4 Leven: Agreed that the breakdown should be provided. She felt they could obtain that information at the kick off meeting but the detail would not change the outcome. Sumner: A breakout would be good for the contract. Leven: What happens now? Lewis: The committee needs to make the presentation to the Board of Selectman on Monday night with your recommendation then Sumner would draw up the contract and present to CDM. Once the contract was signed then the committee could get going with the hired consultant. Sumner: Would like CDM to provide a draft contract and then he would forward it to town counsel. Leven: It was agreed that Ms. Leven would call CDM to let them know that they are the recommendation of the committee but let them know that it still needed to go to the Selectmen. The bottom 6 companies could receive the rejection letters. Bennett: Was reviewing the bids more carefully and felt strongly that the breakdown was necessary to make sure that they were comparing apples to apples. Leven: Sub-committee could take home the bids and review them more carefully and see if any further questions arise. A further discussion of the bids occurred. Bennett: Do you need a motion for a breakdown? Sumner: Not a motion but would like the breakdown and felt that was information that CDM could relatively easily prepare and provide. Leven: Would contact CDM tonight. P. Hughes: What was expected at the Selectman's meeting (i.e. handouts, documentation etc)? Sumner: The committee should be prepared to address the process: how many proposals were reviewed, how many were interviewed, how they were narrowed down, why they selected the top company and how much was the bid. Other Business: 1. Tri-Town Proposal P. Hughes: Noted that the committee had drafted a memo and submitted it to the Town Administrator. The memo outlined the concerns the committee had regarding the facility. She also noted that a meeting had been requested with Orleans and Brewster to discuss further. Lewis: felt it was important that all 3 towns are involved in that meeting. P. Hughes reviewed the CWPC committee's concerns on the plan. Lewis: wanted to make sure that the CWPC had input into the process. He didn't want to rush into this. 11-10-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 3 of4 P. Hughes felt that the other towns need to be aware that Brewster understands the importance of the Namskaket Marsh. Bennett: Felt it was important for Brewster to outline our concerns and to address the following key points with the other towns: We appreciate the fact that they are us getting motivated, we are on the train and we know we need to pay particular attention to the Namskaket Marsh and Pleasant Bay. Finally, inform Eastham and Orleans and let them know that Brewster is in the process of hiring a consultant... nothing is off our plate and we are open to hearing what their plans are. J. Hughes: How important is the Tri-town Facility to Brewster? She has heard from the BOH that the haulers are going to other facilities. Bennett: The haulers are going to Yarmouth because it is cheaper. Also, he liked the fact the Yarmouth facility is treating the septage and discharging out on the town landfill/golf course. It is a better outcome than the discharge going to Namskaket - Brewster's water. P. Hughes: Wants to make sure that we keep our options open, at this point we don't know where we are going but want to keep talking with all parties. Miller: Pointed out that regional is not only Orleans, Eastham. Bennett: Is there a regional group of towns through the Cape Cod Commission? Taylor: There is another group that may knock the legs out of the local groups. The collaborative has discussed but she doesn't think it would proceed. Leven: The Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative has just gone through a review. The review committee decided that they would establish a governing committee -this was not well received. A letter from the Town of Brewster was submitted and Ms. Leven discussed some of the points/concerns the town had addressed. P. Hughes: Agreed to rewrite the memo to the Board of Selectmen outlining the committee's concerns. She would send a draft to the committee members. 2. Next Meeting: P. Hughes: The committee agreed to the next Meeting date of Monday, November 23 at 4:30 pm Bennett: Motioned to adjourn. Seconded by J. Hughes. All Aye. i Ja ne ci/Adminis ative Clerk 11-10-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 4 of4