Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Selection Matrix topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lebanon committee adopts scoring matrix to narrow wastewater plant site choices
Summary
A Lebanon advisory committee approved a draft weighted scoring matrix to evaluate 15 candidate sites for a proposed wastewater reclamation facility; members agreed to shortlist five to six sites for deeper technical review and public outreach, and scheduled a follow-up meeting for June 2.
A Lebanon advisory committee voted to adopt a draft scoring matrix on Monday that officials said will be used to narrow 15 candidate sites for a proposed wastewater (water reclamation) facility.
Committee chair Jeff Thangs opened the 4 p.m. session by reminding members the group is advisory only and “we will not make any final decisions” — the city council will. Jody Vance presented the matrix as a simple, two-step weighting system that assigns each criterion an importance factor (1–3) and a site score (1–5), producing a weighted total to rank parcels.
The matrix lists five high-level criteria to begin: community impact, environmental impact and permitting, existing infrastructure (roads/utilities), property size/buildable acres and service efficiency/proximity to growth areas. “It’s a pretty simple scoring matrix,” Vance told the committee, explaining the system is intended to shrink the list to a short set of sites for a more technical review.
Consulting staff and engineers urged the committee to keep proximity to force mains and hydraulic constraints in view while evaluating large tracts. “The estimated price right now talking to contractors on the 36-in pipe is $1,000 a foot,” an engineer said, warning that multiple runs or longer distances could multiply that cost and materially change site economics.
The committee discussed several technical limits the matrix will capture: the consultant said a minimum of 60 buildable acres is desirable to host a first-phase treatment facility, room for future expansion and a 100-foot buffer; the design team estimated that acreage could support 50–60 years of capacity depending on growth. The consultant also briefed the group on existing force-main layouts, flood-plain percentages on candidate parcels and tradeoffs where large tracts offer buffer but are far from conveyance mains.
After discussion, the chair moved to adopt the spreadsheet as the committee’s initial evaluation tool; the motion was seconded and committee members voted in favor. The chair emphasized the matrix is a draft and can be revised later.
Next steps: members asked staff to add clarifying columns (for example, price-per-acre and number of pipes required), circulate an updated scoring sheet by email and submit additional candidate parcels promptly. The group set a short reconvening meeting for Tuesday, June 2 at 4:00 p.m. to continue the work; the committee earlier stated it expects to deliver a preliminary recommendation to the city council within about 45 days and a fuller committee decision within roughly 90 days.
The committee repeated that it has no authority to buy property or allocate funds and that any site recommendation would be forwarded to the city council for final action.
