SWAMPSCOTT — The Select Board received an update on the town’s American Rescue Plan Act funds at its latest meeting, presented by Town Administrator Nick Connors. This update led to a long discussion on the UV Pilot program for King’s Beach.
The voted on allocations were $100,000 for Peer Review Study of IDDE/Source Elimination Work, $400,000 for Phase 2 IDDE and Design, $1,500,000 for Phase 2A Construction, $200,000 for the Remaining Balance of Kleinfelder Complementary Strategies Report, and $300,000 for the UV Pilot.
He noted it would include both the work already spent and the IDDE and other items that fall under the broad description. Connors specifically wanted to highlight Phase 2 IDDE and Phase 2A Construction.
“If the will of the Board was to participate in Phase 1A that Kleinfelder suggested when they were here two weeks ago, which is a roughly $75,000 expense… ” It’s the next steps (of the UV Pilot program),” Connors said. He then noted that it would most likely be $77,000 in total.
Board Vice Chair Doug Thompson asked if any steps have been taken to find a peer reviewer yet, and Connors said the town has not.
“I am adamantly opposed to not spending that $1.5 (million) for pipe work,” Thompson said.
The Board then discussed whether they were going to do the peer review and the work being done by Kleinfelder.
“I think my question is always when you work with somebody for a very long time on very similar projects, everybody becomes very comfortable, the players all know each other, and things all sort of blur together. Is there a chance that when you bring somebody new to the table, the way you look at it changes, the way you see things is a little bit different?” Board Chair Katie Phelan said.
Board member MaryEllen Fletcher said she’d think it would be a good safeguard to double-check.
Thompson said there were pros and cons to Kleinfelder’s level of involvement in the project.
“They know our pipes inside and out. And our system inside and out. We’ve seen in some other matters how expensive it is to get a reasonable second opinion. I’m not sure $100,000 would really get you a very thorough second opinion,” he said.
Thompson said if they do want to pursue the peer review, it would be better if they were looking at a proposed scope of work.
Board member Danielle Leonard said her hesitation was Kleinfelder.
“I don’t know how much more money we can give Kleinfelder to tell us information that none of us can figure out on our own. It just seems like there has to be another player in this game that can give us some feedback in terms of what Kleinfelder has done for us already,” Leonard said.
Phelan noted that while there may be a responsible answer to still proceed with the peer review, they are not in that place today, and she’d like to understand the scope of work related to the peer review.
The discussion then zoomed in on the $77,000 and whether that money would be well spent.
“I see arguments both ways. I think taking anything related to a permanent UV pilot out of the picture is the only thing that made me open to this spot because I’m not there yet. I don’t think that Kleinfelder would say we’re there yet. We can’t even confirm that DEP and the regulators are willing to be there,” Phelan said.
She said what they can do is look at flow data.
“If we know how much of the flow is ours and we understand how much of that is better or worse based on the IDDE work we’re doing, then we come to the table with the City of Lynn… We’re able to come to the table with more information,” she said.
Fletcher asked if there was anybody at the table who could see the town being able to invest millions of dollars in a UV facility within the next 10 years.
“If you do not see that happening, why are we spending any more dollars whatsoever? … We spend the $300,000, we have the results, we also have comments that we should be able to have these pipes lined and secured by 2027. We are on a march to tighten this up. I just would like to see every penny possible put into these pipes,” she said.
Leonard recalled that none of them could fathom spending all of that money on the UV facility.
“It would be a regional solution which would necessarily include state participation. I don’t see a scenario where the two communities alone would pay for something like that,” Connors said.
Thompson stressed that he’s objecting to the conversations with regulators, not to the data collection, and other Board members agreed. But Select Board member David Grishman spoke in favor of conversations with regulators.
“I still don’t understand why we wouldn’t want to hear from the regulators as to what their opinion was of the UV,” Grishman said. “If the regulators say the UV is not worth pursuing, that’s off the table.”
Thompson noted that if the Board has already taken it off the table, then it would be a waste of time.
