Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southborough committee narrows near‑term tasks for proposed sewer system; parcel database and site tests prioritized
Summary
A Town of Southborough advisory committee agreed to prioritize building a shared parcel database, run perk/percolation tests at candidate sites and pursue grant and financing follow‑ups as early steps toward a phased wastewater system. Committee members flagged regional capacity and public outreach timing.
Speaker 1, the committee chair, opened the meeting by framing three near‑term gates for any sewer project: a plant site that works, a discharge site that works and a financing plan. “If we get that rolling and find one site, that would just move forward,” Speaker 1 said, summarizing the committee’s priorities.
Committee members agreed to create a shared OneDrive repository of prior studies, templates and documents and to organize a parcel database containing acreage, map numbers, ownership and development status to help rank candidate properties. “I think that’s a great database to start collecting information,” Speaker 1 said when members discussed folder structure and indexing for the shared files.
On technical feasibility, members debated whether to build a large, single system or phase the project. Speaker 5 argued for a smaller Phase 1 focused on the Dell EMC area to reduce initial costs and complexity and make expansion possible later. Members discussed designing plants to be expandable — leaving space for extra tanks and piping — so capacity can be increased as demand grows.
Regional capacity and intermunicipal options factored into the discussion. Speaker 2 told the committee Westborough had about 400,000 gallons of available capacity and said EMC had offered roughly 50,000 gallons, observations members said could influence siting and financing choices.
The committee agreed to pursue an early, low‑cost verification step: perk/percolation testing and informal site investigations. Speaker 5 volunteered to coordinate tests and to check existing perk records with the Board of Health and local engineers, describing the work as a way to get a quick “go/no‑go” read on candidate sites.
On funding, members reviewed recent regional grant programs (One Stop and MAPC technical assistance were mentioned) and expressed disappointment at not securing larger grants this cycle; Speaker 1 moved that the committee officially ask Vanessa to follow up on regional grant lessons learned, the motion was approved and assigned for follow‑up.
Members also prepared a concise Select Board update to explain the committee’s request clearly and early in presentations. The group emphasized keeping public engagement until there is a more concrete plan — Speaker 1 cautioned that wide public forums before design and phasing details could create unnecessary concern.
The committee listed next steps: (1) assemble and index the shared OneDrive repository and parcel database, (2) run on‑site perk/percolation tests and consult the Board of Health, (3) investigate nearby municipal capacity options, and (4) compile materials for a short Select Board briefing and grant follow‑up. Committee members set the next meeting for December 18 and adjourned after a unanimous voice vote.
What’s next: volunteers will organize the OneDrive and parcel spreadsheet, Speaker 5 will coordinate perk testing and Board of Health checks, and Vanessa (requested by motion) will be asked to debrief on regional grant outcomes so the committee can refine funding strategy before town meeting.
