Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Process And Timeline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lebanon committee narrows site-selection process, sets sealed scoring deadline
Summary
An advisory committee reviewing 21 candidate sites for Lebanon’s planned wastewater treatment plant agreed to add a county landfill site to the list, to score combined Rockwood parcels as one option, and to collect sealed, anonymous site scores from members ahead of a June 29/30 meeting to reduce the list to 6–10 finalists.
A Lebanon advisory committee on wastewater plant siting on Friday reviewed mapped options for a new treatment plant, accepted two procedural changes and set a firm timetable for members to return sealed site scores. The panel voted to approve previous minutes and directed staff to add a county landfill parcel (site 21) to the candidate list and to score site 13 together with the adjacent 13A parcel.
The committee’s engineering staff outlined why the conceptual drawings show the largest potential footprint: “If you buy for the largest one, then you maximize the ability to screen it from any adjacent properties,” an engineer told members while explaining that the layout shown is intentionally conservative to preserve future options. Staff explained that anaerobic basins in the conceptual plans would typically be covered to capture gas while aerobic basins are normally uncovered unless a site constraint makes covers advisable.
Members spent substantial time on the scoring matrix the city will use to evaluate parcels. Jody, the staff member leading the matrix demonstration, explained the method: each of five criteria receives an importance factor (1–3) applied equally across sites, then a raw score (1–5) per site; higher weighted totals identify better-fitting parcels. The committee agreed members should complete their individual matrices, seal them, and return them by a clerk-designated drop-off or by mail so the accounting office can tabulate results before the next meeting. “We’ll decide where you can submit it…we’d like to have that done,” the chair said when setting a submission target in late June.
The panel also directed staff to revise the electronic matrix to include site 21 (the county landfill tract) and to treat 13 and 13A as a single combined site for scoring purposes. Staff said they would distribute the revised matrix to members the next day and provide a clear, anonymous submission process so scores can be tallied in advance of the June 29/30 meeting. The chair said the goal is to cut the long list from about 20 parcels to roughly six–10 that will receive detailed technical follow-up, such as geotechnical or environmental assessments.
Before adjourning, members reiterated the project’s planning assumptions: the group is using a 60-acre benchmark to design conventional activated‑sludge layouts and to compare alternatives, but staff emphasized that smaller technologies (for example membrane systems) could be viable at higher capital cost. Engineers cautioned that while smaller-footprint membrane options cost more per gallon to build, they may offer operational or siting advantages. Staff told the committee they will provide more detailed cost comparisons if the group requests them during the next phase.
The committee closed by thanking public attendees and reminding members of the sealed scoring deadline and the accounting-led tabulation plan ahead of the June 29/30 meeting.
