Loading...
2008 CONSULTANT REQUESTS i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OFHEALTH S 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 4TH FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. 978-741-1800 FAx 978-745-0343 Kimberley Driscoll WWW.SALEM.COM Mayor JOANNE SCOTT, MPH, RS, CHO HEALTH AGENT Memo to: Wendy J. Heiger-Bernays, PhD From: Joanne Scott Date: March 3, 2008 Re: Contract for Air Quality review Attached please find a contract, signed by the Board of Health Chairperson Paulette Puleo, regarding your expert review of air quality information to be submitted by the City of Salem to the Salem Board of Health. This information pertains to a proposed increase in tonnage, at an existing transfer station, from 100 to 400 pounds per day. Please sign and return the contract. We will forward any information regarding the air quality information as soon as we receive it. Thank you so much for your consideration. We look forward to working with you in this endeavor. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HEALTH z 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 4TH FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. 978-741-1800 FAx 978-745-0343 Kimberley Driscoll WWVV.SALEM.COM Mayor JOANNE SCOTT, MPH, RS, CHO HEALTH AGENT STANDARD SERVICES CONTRACT FOR EXPERT REVIEW OF AIR QUALITY INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED MINOR MODIFICATION OF THE SALEM TRANSFER STATION BY AND BETWEEN The City of Salem Board of Health, hereinafter sometimes called "the Board" and Wendy J. Heiger- Bemays, PhD,an individual hereinafter sometimes referred to as"the Contractor." DATE Executed this I'day of March in the year 2008. RECITALS 1. Whereas the City of Salem is submitting an application to the Salem Board of Health requesting a Minor Modification of its existing Permit to Operate a Transfer Station, in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection code, 310 CMR 16:00,"Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities';and 2. Whereas the application requests an increase in daily tonnage processed at the Transfer Station from 100 tons per day to 400 tons per day; and 3. Whereas the City has generated an Air Quality Report based upon the increased tonnage resulting in increased traffic; and 4. Whereas the Contractor has made claim and has satisfied the Board that she is capable of performing the required professional services; and 5. Whereas in reliance upon the above, Salem Board of Health, 120 Washington Street, 4th Floor, Salem, MA 01970 Tel. 978-741-1800 THE BOARD AND THE CONTRACTOR AGREE THAT: 1. Services A. The Contractor shall review the Air Quality Report prepared by the City evaluating public health risks, if any, due to increased traffic emissions such as particulate matter or vapors.This would include the following: 1.) Review relevant documentation submitted to the Board; 2.) Attend public hearing(s) held by the Board regarding the request for a Minor Modification; 3.) Ask questions of the applicant at the public hearing, if necessary; 4.) Submit a written opinion of the review. B. Completion Date—May 30,2008 C. Compensation—$1200.00 2. Termination A. This contract may be terminated by either party upon ten days written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. If the Board terminates this agreement under the terms of this paragraph and it is later determined that the Contractor had not so failed, the Contractor shall be paid for services performed to the termination notice date plus reasonable related costs incurred due to termination. B. In addition,the Board may terminate this agreement at any time upon ten days written notice should the services of the Contractor no longer be required. Upon receipt of ANY termination notice,the Contractor shall: 1.)Promptly discontinue all services affected(unless the notice directs otherwise);and 2.) Deliver or otherwise make available to the Board all dates, drawings, reports, estimates, memoranda, summaries, work products and other information that the Contractor may have accumulated in performing this contract, whether complete or in process. C. The Board may take over the work in this contract and prosecute the same to completion by agreement with another party or otherwise. Any work the Board takes over for completion will be completed at the Board's risk and the Board shall hold harmless the Contractor from all claims and damages arising out of the improper use of the Contractor's work. Salem Board of Health, 120 Washington Street, 41"Floor, Salem, MA 01970 Tel. 978-741-1800 D. In the event of a termination,an equitable adjustment shall be made in monies paid the Contractor. The adjustment shall provide for payment to the Contractor for services rendered and expenses incurred before the termination settlement commitments which had become firm before the termination. 3. Payment for Services—The Contractor shall submit invoices,for payment,to the Board either every thirty (30)days or once at the end of the contract. Within fourteen days from the date of submission the Board shall review the invoice and advise the Contractor if there is any dispute as to the amounts billed or the services provided. If there are no disputed amounts or services the Coalition shall pay the invoice within thirty (30) days from the date of its receipt. If any invoice or portion thereof is disputed the Board shall pay the undisputed portion of the invoice within thirty (30) days after the date of its receipt and the disputed invoice or portion thereof within thirty(30)days after the parties have resolved the dispute. 4. Notice — No notice, action, or other communication shall be effective unless received by the following designated persons: FOR THE BOARD FOR THE CONTRACTOR Name: Joanne Scott Name: Wendy Heiger-Bernays Title: Health Agent Title: Contractor Address: Salem Board of Health Address:Department of Environmental Health 120 Washington Street Boston University School of Public Health Salem,MA 01970 715 Albany Street T4W Boston,MA 02118 Telephone:978-741-1800 Telephone: 617-638-7724 All notices shall be in writing or by email except in exigent circumstances; telephone communication confirmed by a subsequent writing shall be effective. 5. Contract Interpretation-This contract shall be construed as a Massachusetts contract and any interpretation of its meaning, effects or consequences shall be determined with reference to Massachusetts statutory and common law. Salem Board of Health, 120 Washington Street, 411,Floor, Salem, MA 01970 Tel. 978-741-1800 6. Contract Changes - This agreement may be modified or altered by the parties at any time, provided, however, that writing evidences such modification or alterations and signed by all parties hereto. For the Board: I(;o <4 f e &e e For the Contractor: Board of Health Chairperson signature Date Contractor signature Date Salem Board of Health, 120 Washington Street, 4t^Floor, Salem, MA 01970 Tel. 978-741-1800 Joanne Scott From: Wendy Heiger-Bernays (whb@bu.edu) [whb@bu.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:19 AM To: Joanne Scott Subject: Away from e-mail RE: As we discussed I will have limited access to e-mail until Monday, February 24th. Wendy J. Heiger-Bernays, PhD Associate Professor Department of Environmental Health B.U. School of Public Health 715 Albany St. T4W Boston, MA 02118 whb@bu.edu telephone: 617. 638-7724 I REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Salem requests qualifications and proposals from engineering firms with project development experience in Massachusetts, including all phases of environmental permitting. The use of specialty sub-consultants with pertinent experience is acceptable in meeting the qualification and experience requirements outlined herein. Such services are anticipated to include technical review of recent environmental documents related to evaluation of environmental impacts of expanding the existing 100 ton-per-day Transfer Station at 12 Swampscott Road to a new 400 ton-per-day facility at the same location. Review of documents associated with closure of the landfill is not included under this solicitation. Overview After an extensive solicitation process and review of proposals for redevelopment of the subject site, the City of Salem selected Northside Carting, Inc. (NSC) of North Andover, Massachusetts, as the preferred developer. NSC has proceeded with the initial phases of permitting and design, including the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission and preparation of the following study reports to support an expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submittal to MEPA: • Traffic Impact Study prepared by Vanasse &Associates, Inc.; and • Air Quality and Noise Impact Analyses prepared by Epsilon, Inc. The technical review of the "Air Quality and Noise Impact Analyses"will be conducted by a different vendor. Additional environmental assessments and documents to support an expanded ENF will also be made available for review. Proposed Scope of Services As part of the review, the selected Consultant will be required to perform the following tasks: • Attend a meeting with the Board of Health, the City Engineer and other City representatives to discuss the objective of the review process, including compliance with 310 CMR 16.00 and specifically 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3; • Review and provide written comments to the Board of Health and City Engineer related to the technical information presented in the respective reports and supporting documents; and • Attend a review meeting with the Board of Health, the City Engineer, NSC and their representatives, to discuss any questions or concerns related to review of the available documents. • Attend the Board of Health Public Hearing and address residents' technical concerns at the Public Hearing or in writing within one week of the end of the Public Hearing. Any additional tasks will be performed on a time and expenses basis. Qualifications Respondents to this RFP must demonstrate compliance with the following minimum selection criteria: VV 1� • Three representative development projects within the past five years that have at a minimum involved the evaluation of traffic, air quality and noise impacts. The use of specialty subconsultants on such projects is permissible. • One or more registered Professional Engineer(s) and/or Licensed Site Professional(s) who will be responsible for signing all review submittals to the City. Proposal Requirements Please provide your letter response, along with any supplemental understandings and/or clarifications of the stipulated scope of work and resumes of key staff and sub-consultants, if any, by 5:00 PM on . Any questions related to this RFQ/P shall be addressed to at 978/ Schedule The review meeting is anticipated to be held in late May or early June 2008. The timeline will follow that required in 310 CMR 16.00 Meeting with Northside Carting May 27, 2008 Benefits to NSC for paying fees: • Allow the Board of Health to be confident in its evaluation of the request and to render a determination in complete regulatory compliance. • Allows for more efficient review process • Helps to protect the Board, the Mayor, the City, against law suits. • 310 CMR 16.30 (1) (c) allows for "Alternate Systems" for fees Cost Estimates Engineering Company $10,000 Air Quality $ 2,000 Stenographer $ 1,000. Legal $25,000 I yt(fly Total $38,000 Asking for $40,000 Major Board of Health concerns:: • Air quality 4 N� ti`( 4-, f,? APT ✓ �5�� ' • Traffic • Site maintenance &nf • Size of building • Facility layout /0/ 0Ivv (J 310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 416.30: ntinued (b) Excess Fees. The board of health shall return to the applicant any of the Application Fee in excess ofthe actual expenditures for allowable costs followingthe completion ofthe site assignment process. (c)_Alternative-Systems. The board of health may establish, in lieu of part or all of 310 CMR 16.30,another system for the assessment and payment ofanApphcationFeeprovided such system is agreed to by the applicant. (d) Nothing in 310 CMR 16.30 creates or modifies any rights of boards of health relative to the assessment or collection of fees under applicable statutes, by-laws, or ordinances governing municipal finance. (2) Technical Fee. (a) General. The Technical Fee may be used by the board of health to cover the cost of conducting a review of technical data ardor to cover a portion of the cost of other technical assistance. (b) AssessmentofFee. 1. Assessment. The board of health, upon the receipt of an application, may assess by a written notice to the applicant a Technical Fee for said application not to exceed the maxirxun amount set forth in 310 CMR 16.99. 2. Form ofPavront. The board shall prescribe the amount of the fee and the manner of payment in writing to the applicant within ten days ofthe filing of the application in accordance with 310 CMR 16.08. 3. Payment. The applicant shall pay the Technical Fee in the amount and manner prescribed by the board of health. 4. Waiver. The board of health may waive all or a portion of the Technical Fee. Any such waiver shall be made in writing to the applicant. 5. Absence of assessment or waiver. In the absence of an assessment or waiver of the Technical Fee by the board of health in accordance with 310 CMR 16.30(2)(b)1., 2.or 4., the applicant may satisfy the Technical Fee payment requirements by making a payment in the form of a certified or bank check or money order, in an amount equal to the maximum Technical Fee for the appropriate facility as specified in 310 CMR 16.99. (c) Technical Review 1. General.The Technical Fee maybe expended for 100%ofthe allowable cost ofreviewi ng technical data submitted to the board of health. 2. Allowable costs. Allowable costs for technical review include the cost ofifiring consultants and related technical experts to assist the board of health in reviewing the application, the Department Report on Suitability,the Department of Public Healdis Report and commvnents, public comments and any subsequent amendments or additions to the application. 3. Allowable tasks. Allowable tasks for the consultants and related technical experts include: a. determining completeness and accuracy of data in the application; b. determining whether the correct analytical techniques were used, whether valid data were obtained,and whether the data support the proposed conclusions; c. determining what other data should be obtained,the means to obtain it and its potential significance; d. examining municipal, Department and other relevant records and consulting with Department staff, e. visiting the sae to make a visual inspection; £ preparing and submitting comments to the Department on technical issues relating to the site and the site suitability criteria; & reviewing the Department Report on Suitability and other data submitted prior to and during the hearing;and K preparing a written report of comments and determinations. 4. Excluded Costs. Allowable costs for technical review shall not include the cost of conducting site,environmental or population sampling and analyses,otherwise generating new data,or performing independent analyses of environmental health impacts. These costs may qualify as allowable costs for technical assistance in accordance with 310 CMR 16.30(d)2. 6/8/01 310 CMR-592 Zard of Health Representation Page I of 3 Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:48 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: RE: Board of Health Representation Wow! We'll have to be very specific as to what the board wants them to do. Beth: This particular attorney's fees are $495/hr. There are three attorneys that have expressed interest in this project: Wichael-Scott of Nutter;McClennan-&TFi'sh -Robert-Fitzgerald-of_Goodwin=Proctor Kenneth Whittaker-of-_Adorng A-Yoss:.1 Thank you, Joanne From: Beth Rennard Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:30 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: RE: Board of Health Representation The developer is not able to meet this week. I will schedule for next week. What is the proposed attorney's hourly rate? Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-9327 (fax) From: Joanne Scott Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:44 AM To: Kim Driscoll; Beth Rennard Cc: Barbara Poremba; Carol Rainville; Chris Harrington; Christina Harrington; Joanne Scott; Icorchado@salemstate.edu; Martin Fair; Noreen Casey; Paulette Puleo; Tracy Giarla Subject: FW: Board of Health Representation Dear Mayor and Beth: This is the attorney I mentioned yesterday that I believe the Board would like to use for the Transfer Station process. As you can see, the firm has experience representing applicants before Boards of Health on solid waste matters. r1ll-bMR'16:30 (-f-(cyallows_of—r"_A!temate—Systems,for_fee� I hope that NSC will see the benefit of paying for the engineering, legal, and air quality experts and a stenographer at the public hearing. This expertise will allow the Board of Health to be confident in its evaluation of the request and to render a determination in complete regulatory compliance. Please let me know when I may meet with you and NSC, including Bill Thompson I hope. I am sure that the Board will be fair and objective in this process. 5/27/2008 ;azd of Health Representation Page 2 of 3 Thank you, Joanne From: Fitzgerald, Robert H [mailto:rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:53 AM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Davis, Christopher P Subject: Board of Health Representation Joanne: It was a pleasure to speak with you today. As I mentioned, we do have experience in Site Assignment matters having represented other clients before Boards of Health (though not in Salem)on similar issues. Although we would serve whatever role the Board required, I believe we would be most helpful in working with the Board to assure that the necessary procedures are followed throughout the hearing process and that the application (and ultimately the Board's written decision on the application) satisfies the applicable regulatory criteria. We would also work in conjunction with your other consultants to prepare questions the Board might consider asking of the applicant during the course of the hearing in order to elicit the testimony/information necessary to reach a final decision. I also mentioned that we are performing a conflict check internally, and that process tends to take a few days to complete. I will let you know if any conflicts issues arise on our end. Beyond our internal conflicts review, I understand that it is our firm's policy that any attorney that represents a municipal board in a matter needs to be designated as a special municipal employee under c. 268A of the General Laws for that limited purpose. The City Solicitor is probably intimately familiar with that process, but I wanted to let you know now that this would be one item we would need to address before taking on the representation (in addition to the fee issues we discussed). Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Board, and I hope to speak again soon. Best regards, Bob Robert H. Fitzgerald Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1343 F: (617)227-8591 rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com www.a oodwi n procte r.co m IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the 5/27/2008 Board of Health Representation Page 1 of 2 1 Joanne Scott From: Davis, Christopher P [cdavis@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 10:05 AM To: Joanne Scott; Fitzgerald, Robert H Subject: RE: Board of Health Representation Joanne--Ken Whittaker is a friend and a former colleague whom I hold in high regard. I'm sure he would do a good job too. Ken's hourly rate may be lower, as he is with a considerably smaller firm, but I'm not sure if he has as much relevant experience as Bob does or what kind of associate/paralegal backup he has. Of course, the Board should choose the counsel it is most comfortable with based on all relevant considerations. Thanks.--Chris Christopher P. Davis Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1354 F: (617) 227-8591 cdavis@goodwinprocter.com www.goodwinprocter.com From: Joanne Scott [mailto:JScott@Salem.com] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:59 AM To: Davis, Christopher P; Fitzgerald, Robert H Subject: RE: Board of Health Representation Dear Chris and Bob: Yesterday, I was speaking with Margaret, a young woman in my office, about the transfer station and learned that her Dad, Ken Whittaker, is an attorney who worked for Goodwin Proctor and who knows you, Chris, very well! Margaret spoke with her Dad about our needs and he is interested in the work too. Last night, the Salem Board of Health authorized me to request funds from NSC for legal, environmental engineering, and clerical assistance for our review of the request for a minor modification. Once I learn what the amount will be, I will be in touch with you, and Ken as well, to see who will be able to help us. I have not spoken with Ken yet so I do not know his fee schedule. Thank you so much for your help with this process. It will be a huge relief to have legal assistance so I need to be very convincing in the meeting with NSC! Sincerely, Joanne Scott 5/27/2008 Board of Health Representation Page 2 of 2 IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient,you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 1 Joanne Scott From: Margaret Whittaker Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:15 AM To: Joanne Scott Subject: My Dad's Contact Info Here is my Dad's contact info if you want it. Work: 617449-6023 Cell: 978-930-0411 Email: kwhittaker@adorno.com Margaret Whittaker, MPH Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Salem Board of Health 120 Washington St. Salem MA 01970 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 3 Joanne Scott From: Davis, Christopher P [cdavis@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:23 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Paulette Puleo; Carol Rainville; Fitzgerald, Robert H Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2] agree Bob is an excellent and well qualified choice for this engagement. I know Tom Mackie well (an able and experienced lawyer). I would think we could reach agreement on our fees and Bob is quite efficient. To the extent he requires research backup from a junior associate on any issues, we have a lot of strong junior talent with lower billing rates. We may get some push back on the applicant paying "big firm" rates, but as you note this is a significant and potentially lucrative matter for the applicant. I'll ask Bob to get in touch with you tomorrow to discuss details and logistics. Christopher P. Davis Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1354 F: (617)227-8591 cdavis@goodwinprocter.com www.goodwinprocter.com From: Joanne Scott [mailto:]Scott@Salem.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:39 PM To: Davis, Christopher P Cc: Paulette Puleo; Carol Rainville Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2] Dear Chris: Thank you very much for your interest in this project. Attorney Fitzgerald would be the legal representative we hope to obtain. The Board of Health is holding a special meeting this Thursday to discuss, and probably vote on, a request to North Side Carting for funds to cover legal, engineering, and clerical costs. It is my understanding that NSC's attorney is Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea and O'Brien, Newbury Street, Boston. It is necessary for the Board of Health to have an attorney of equal caliber and experience to represent it in this matter. Without the proper resources, the Board is more likely to be overwhelmed and deny the application. This project must have a significant monetary value to NSC, so I feel confident that I can word the request to them in a way that will garner a positive response. The Code, 310 CMR 16.00, has a formula for calculating fees. If this were a Major Modification, Table 2 allows for a maximum technical fee of$23,000. 1 know that communities have assessed higher fees to cover higher costs, even when the request is for a Minor Modification, and petitioners pay it. This is the case in Taunton which is similar to Salem because the actual applicant is the City, but the operator of the transfer station pays the bills. Do you or Mr. Fitzgerald think we can do by mutual agreement legally? Thank you again, 5/27/2008 Page 2 of 3 s Joanne From: Davis, Christopher P [mailto:cdavis@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:25 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com; Fitzgerald, Robert H Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2] Joanne--I think Bob Fitzgerald, senior counsel in our environmental practice, would be well suited to advise and represent the Board of Health in this matter. Bob is an experienced environmental lawyer with an engineering background and considerable experience in similar regulatory permitting and compliance work, including air quality and permitting issues. I'd be happy to forward Bob's resume and put him in touch with you. His current hourly rate is$495. Please let me know if you would like to talk with Bob and receive a copy of his resume.--Chris Christopher P. Davis Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1354 F: (617) 227-8591 cdavis@goodwinprocter.com www.goodwinprocter.com From: Joanne Scott [mailto:JScott@Salem.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:45 PM To: Davis, Christopher P Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com Subject: Salem Transfer Station Dear Mr. Davis: I am the Health Agent for the Salem Board of Health, following up on Carol Rainville's e-mail to you. The applicant for the Minor Modification request(regulated by DEP's Code 310 CMR 16.00, "Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities') to the Salem Board of Health is the City of Salem, who currently owns the property. An RFP for the sale of the property has been awarded to the current operator of the Transfer Station, NSC, pending City Council approval. North Side Carting, Inc. (NSC) is owned by Robert George and several Thompson Brothers. The modification is to increase the daily tonnage average from 100 tons to 400 tons and to accept"municipal solid waste' (msw) in addition to "construction &demolition" (c&d) that is brought there now The plan includes building a new transfer facility. The Board of Health must review the request, hold a public hearing, and review technical information regarding air quality impacts, facility and building design, traffic impacts, etc. The Board has the option to accept the request, deny the request, or accept the request with conditions. As the Health Agent, my major concern is the political pressure that will be exerted because the actual applicant 5/27/2008 Page 3 of 3 • is the City. In addition, the City is under the threat of significant DEP penalties because of an outstanding (for several years) order to cap the ash landfill that exists on the property. The Board of Health will be asking the City to allocate money (probably received from NSC) to pay the expenses of an attorney, engineering company, and air quality expert. Since the City Solicitor represents the City in this application to the Board, it does not seem possible for her to also represent the Board in this matter. The Board of Health attorney would guide the Board to ensure compliance with the DEP Code including specific time requirements for the filing and holding of a public hearing, and for the time allowed for a written decision to be rendered. Legal assistance would also be needed to write the decision and the specific conditions if the request was approved with conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Joanne Scott 978-741-1800 jscott@salem.com 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 3 Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:07 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: 'Paulette Puleo' Subject: BOH RFP Questions Joanne, I received your email yesterday, but I have been in negotiations and my assoc. is on vaca. Here is my response to your recent questions. How does this RFP allow for the contract with the Air Quality review expert from BU? The RFP may be edited to allow for separate proposals for each report to be reviewed. Please send me a marked up copy of the RFP with any additions Al has made and this added (and any other edits discussed below). The Respondents may also retain technical experts or subconsultants if they feel they need technical support. Firms who routinely perform these services most likely have either in-house experts or they have relationships with subconsultants who do. I don't think what the Board of Health is requesting a "peer" review" but a "technical review." Regardless of what it is called, the review needs to include the items listed in the RFP, including review of the technical aspects of the proposed redevelopment and compliance with regulatory permitting and other project requirements. Reference to the tasks outlined in 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 can be added to the RFP. What does the paragraph "to understand the objectives of the peer review process" mean? If the engineering company has done this before, they will understand that the objective is to comply with the DEP code, 310 CMR 16.00. There are other issues that must be addressed beyond the scope of 310 CMR 16.00. It is my understanding that Northside Carting will be submitting an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, including the traffic, air quality and noise studies, to MEPA on or about May 1st. Those studies need to be reviewed and the Board should feel free to ask any other questions they feel are appropriate. Otherwise, because the site already has a Site Assignment from the BOH, many of the requirements outlined in 310 CMR 16.00 do not apply. Written comments should be submitted to the Board of Health, not the City Engineer, because the company is working for the Board in this review. Because this is a City project involving significant liability, financial and technical issues, the City Engineer should be directly involved to support the review 5/27/2008 Page 2 of 3 process. Nevertheless, you can request that the selected firm respond to both the Board of Health and the City Engineer. Under qualifications, we should ask for Registered Professional Engineers, and not LSP's since LSP's are mainly concerned with remediating contaminated soils and water under different DEP requirements and laws. Both Engineers and LSPs are involved with these activities; some LSPs may be more qualified than some Engineers in dealing with the technical and regulatory compliance issues. We should probably allow the Respondents staff the project as they see fit, based upon the qualifications of the individuals they propose to use. The wording in the RFP needs.to reflect what is said in the Code regarding Technical Review. You could site that part of the code, 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 or include its wording. It says that the Technical Review is to assist the Board of Health in: Reviewing the application (which could mean the MEPA application); reviewing the request for the minor modification; reviewing public comments and any subsequent amendments or additions to the application. Tasks could include: Determining completeness and accuracy of the data in the application; determining whether the correct analytical techniques were used, whether valid data was obtained; whether the data support the proposed conclusions; determining what other data should be obtained, the means to obtain it and its potential significance; examining municipal and other relevant documents and consulting with DEP staff; visiting the site to make a visual inspection; preparing and submitting comments to the Board of Health on technical issues relating to the site; reviewing data submitted prior to and during the public hearing; preparing a written report of comments and determinations. The RFP can be amended to include reference to 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3. Under:" Schedule" I would ask the engineering company for a review of all documents submitted to MEPA so that any deficiencies or concerns could be addresses prior to filing with the Board of Health. Once the MEPA determination is made, I would anticipate a filing with the Board of Health. If I understand the Code correctly, the Board is required to advertise a public hearing within 7 days, hold a public hearing within 30 days, and make a determination within 45 days of the public hearing. Of course, the public hearing could last more than one day. The Board will need this time to make an informed, articulate determination. Reference is made to the ENF and supporting documents in the Overview section of the RFP; the selected firm will be requested to review all pertinent documents. With respect to the schedule, it is my understanding that Northside Carting will be filing the ENF with MEPA on or about April 29th. We are not certain when they will be filing with the Board of Health, but they have indicated they will be filing in late May or early June. 5/27/2008 Page 3 of 3 L On a different note, I was told that NSC has Attorney Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea & O'Brien, 137 Newbury Street, working for them. Since you will be representing the City in this application before the Board of Health, and NSC has a firm who advertises a completed project as, "Solid Waste- Negotiation of a multi-faceted host community agreement for the new owner of a regional solid waste landfill", the Board must have independent council. It has discussed writing a formal request for legal council to assist it in this process. This is extremely common in all communities that we know have gone through this process. The communities you are referring to likely involve new Site Assignments under DEP regulations. The public hearing for this project is for a minor modification of an existing Site Assignment under 310 CMR 16.22(c) and is not for a new Site Assignment. The Board should focus on the environmental impacts to the area associated with the increase in traffic and operation of the new transfer station, but it should also consider the benefits of landfill closure to the Forest River and the benefits to the City. As I have indicated in the past, the City does not have the funds to hire outside counsel. If you are able to secure a commitment from Northside, that would be fine. I would suggest that you may want to wait to see how much $ you will be requesting for the technical review so you will have an idea how much $ is available for legal counsel. According to 310 CMR 16.99 Appendix A, the maximum tech fee the bd. may charge is $11,000. See also section 16.30(d) re. limitation of technical fee toward legal,... Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-9327 (fax) 5/27/2008 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Salem requests qualifications and proposals from legal firms or attorneys with project development experience in Massachusetts including all phases of environmental permitting. Experience with the DEP code, 310 CMR 16.00: Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities is preferred. Such services are anticipated to include working with the Board of Health to assure that the necessary procedures are followed, in accordance with 310 CMR 16.00, as the Board reviews and decide upon a site assignment modification request. This request involves the expansion of an existing 100 ton-per-day Transfer Station at 12 Swampscott Road to a new 400 ton-per-day facility at the same location. Review of documents associated with closure of the landfill is not included under this solicitation. Overview After an extensive solicitation process and review of proposals for redevelopment of the subject site, the City of Salem selected Northside Carting, Inc. (NSC) of North Andover, Massachusetts, as the preferred developer. NSC has proceeded with the initial phases of permitting and design, including the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission and preparation of study reports to support an expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submittal to MEPA. Proposed Scope of Services As part of the Board's review of the application, the selected Consultant will be required to perform the following tasks: • Work in conjunction with other consultants and the Board to prepare questions the Board might ask of the applicant during the Public Hearing in order to elicit the testimony/information necessary for the Board to reach a final decision; • Represent the Board at the hearing and to examine witnesses at the hearing; • Assure that necessary procedures are followed throughout the Hearing process; and • Assure that the application and the Board's written decision satisfy the applicable regulatory criteria. Any additional tasks will be performed on a time and expenses basis, upon approval by the Board of Health. Qualifications Respondents to this RFP must demonstrate compliance with the following minimum selection criterion: • One or more Attorneys licensed to practice in Massachusetts who have had experience with environmental regulatory requirements in the community setting. x 1 Proposal Requirements Please provide your letter response, along with any supplemental understandings and/or clarifications of the stipulated scope of work and resumes of key staff and sub-consultants, if any, by 5:00 PM on . Any questions related to this RFQ/P shall be addressed to at W8/ Schedule The review meeting is anticipated to be held in late May or early June 2008. The timeline will follow that required in 310 CMR 16.00 Page 1 of 2 9 K Joanne Scott From: Davis, Christopher P [cdavis@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 3:58 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station Joanne--I or one of my environmental colleagues am potentially interested, but I am concerned whether our fees (as a large Boston law firm) would be a problem. I or any partner's hourly rate will be at least$550/hr.(assisted by an associate with a lower hourly rate). Do you think that would be a problem for the City (or your ability to pass that on to the buyer)?--Chris Christopher P. Davis Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1354 F: (617) 227-8591 cdavis@goodwinprocter.com www.goodwinprocter.com From: Joanne Scott [mailto:JScott@Salem.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:45 PM To: Davis, Christopher P Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com Subject: Salem Transfer Station Dear Mr. Davis: I am the Health Agent for the Salem Board of Health, following up on Carol Rainville's e-mail to you. The applicant for the Minor Modification request(regulated by DEP's Code 310 CMR 16.00, "Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities") to the Salem Board of Health is the City of Salem, who currently owns the property. An RFP for the sale of the property has been awarded to the current operator of the Transfer Station, NSC, pending City Council approval. North Side Carting, Inc. (NSC) is owned by Robert George and several Thompson Brothers. The modification is to increase the daily tonnage average from 100 tons to 400 tons and to accept"municipal solid waste" (msw) in addition to"construction & demolition" (c&d) that is brought there now The plan includes building a new transfer facility. The Board of Health must review the request, hold a public hearing, and review technical information regarding air quality impacts, facility and building design, traffic impacts, etc. The Board has the option to accept the request, deny the request, or accept the request with conditions. As the Health Agent, my major concern is the political pressure that will be exerted because the actual applicant is the City. In addition, the City is under the threat of significant DEP penalties because of an outstanding (for several years) order to cap the ash landfill that exists on the property. The Board of Health will be asking the City to allocate money (probably received from NSC) to pay the expenses 5/27/2008 Page 2 of 2 w . .v of an attorney, engineering company, and air quality expert. Since the City Solicitor represents the City in this application to the Board, it does not seem possible for her to also represent the Board in this matter. The Board of Health attorney would guide the Board to ensure compliance with the DEP Code including specific time requirements for the filing and holding of a public hearing, and for the time allowed for a written decision to be rendered. Legal assistance would also be needed to write the decision and the specific conditions if the request was approved with conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Joanne Scott 978-741-1800 jscott@salem.com 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 2 ,VA Joanne Scott From: Plourde, Kim [plourdek@wseinc.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:04 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Scipione, Michaelfi Subject: RE: Weston & Sampson Solid Waste Experience Thank you for the update. I will be sure to forward it to Mike our other technical staff members when it comes in. My complete contact information is: Kimberly A. Plourde Marketing Manager Weston&"Sampson 5 Centennial Drive Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 1-800-SAMPSON plourdek@wseinc.corn www.westonandsampson.com Thanks again, Kim The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and the property of the Weston& Sampson companies. The email contents are only to be used by the intended recipient of the email. If you are not the intended recipient then use,disclosure,copying,distribution or reliance on the email is prohibited. All professional advice from us should be obtained in writing(not email). From: Joanne Scott [mailto:JScott@Salem.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:36 PM To: Plourde, Kim Subject: RE: Weston &Sampson Solid Waste Experience Dear Kim: Please let Mike know that we are writing an RFP for this work and that I will send it to you as soon as it is complete. Please let him know, to, that David Murphy of Tighe& Bond is also interested. Thank you, Joanne Scott 5/27/2008 Page 2 of 2 r<, From: Plourde, Kim [mailto:plourdek@wseinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:25 AM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Scipione, Michael Subject: Weston &Sampson Solid Waste Experience Hi Ms. Scott- Please find attached the information you discussed with Mike Scipione yesterday. Once you have had a chance to review the information, please call Mike at your convenience at(987) 532-1900. In the meantime, feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional information for you. Thank you for your interest in Weston & Sampson. Kimberly A. Plourde Marketing Manager Weston & Sampson 1-800-SAMPSON plourdek@wseinc.com www.westonandsampson.com The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and the property of the Weston& Sampson companies. The email contents are only to be used by the intended recipient of the email. If you are not the intended recipient then use, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on the email is prohibited. All professional advice from us should be obtained in writing (not email). 5/27/2008 RE: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Page 1 of 3 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:53 PM To: 'David A. Murphy' Subject: RE: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Hi David: I'm sorry I called you Chris. I don'y even know who I was thinking ofll Joanne From: David A. Murphy [mailto:DAM urphy@tigheBond.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:48 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: RE: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Thanks for keeping us posted. David David X-Murphy P.E.j Tiki a-&"Bondi 446 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Direct Line: (508) 471-9620 Main: (508) 754-2201 x106 Cell: (617) 319-0447 Fax: (508) 795-1087 From: Joanne Scott [mailto:JScott@Salem.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:45 PM To: David A. Murphy Subject: RE: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Dear Chris: So sorry for the delay. We are putting together an RFP and I will let you know as son as it is available. Thank you, Joanne Scott From: David A. Murphy [mailto:DAMurphy@tigheBond.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:10 AM To: Joanne Scott Subject: RE: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Hi Joanne, Just checking in. I was curious if the City has made any decisions regarding the peer review selection. 5/27/2008 RE: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Page 2 of 3 As a side note I have had the opportunity to review some of your files and am about as up to speed as one can get before actually coming on board. If it's of any value in your selection, I have been in all three positions over my 23 professional years.... 1. The regulator reviewing and permitting these types of facilities 2. The engineer representing the developer trying to permit the same kind of facility in a similar city, and 3. The peer review engineer representing the municipality that has to review the developers proposal. Good luck with your selection. Please don't forget that we represent SESD and the City of Peabody and that we work right beside your fair city every week. David Murphy David A. Murphy P.E. Tighe & Bond 446 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Direct Line: (508) 471-9620 Main: (508) 754-2201 x106 Cell: (617) 319-0447 Fax: (508) 795-1087 From: David A. Murphy Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 12:22 PM To: 'jscott@salem.com' Cc: Dana Huff Subject: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Hi Joanne, Thanks for taking my call and for your consideration of Tighe and Bond to serve your peer review needs at the Old Salem ash landfill site. I thought you might be able to use the attached GIS orthophoto we plotted of the transfer station and ash landfill site. It is in PDF format and can be easily printed on a color plotter. We would be glad, at 5/27/2008 RE: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Page 3 of 3 t our cost,to provide you with a larger 24" x 36" plot if that would be helpful. If you don't select Mike at W&S you have my permission to tell him I'll treat him to lunch next time! O Have a great weekend David Murphy << File: aerial_SwampscottRd_Landfill.pdf>> David A. Murphy P.E. Tighe & Bond 446 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Direct Line: (508) 471-9620 Main: (508) 754-2201 x106 Cell: (617) 319-0447 Fax: (508) 795-1087 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott From: wbernays@gmail.com on behalf of Wendy Heiger-Bernays(whb@bu.edu) [whb@bu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:26 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: Re: Any Info? Hi Joanne, I just want to make sure that I haven't missed something. Please keep me posted on your situation regarding the MEPA process and transfer station. Take care, Wendy On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Joanne Scott <JScottcWi salem.com> wrote: Dear Wendy: Thank you for the update. I understand what you said about reimbursement if the number of public meetings exceeds two. I am sure that will not be a problem. I look forward to working with you, although we have not received any information yet! I will contact you as soon as I do. I do not think it will be next week. Sincerely, Joanne From: wbernays@@il.com [mailto:wbernays@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Wendy Heiger-Bernays (whb@bu.edu) Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:31 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: Re: Any Info? Joanne, I just received the contract and will sign today and return. I am happy to attend 1-2 public meetings under this, but, if for some reason, this drags out to several more, I will probably need to be reimbursed - if that's ok. Also, I just want to remind the BOH that I teach on Tuesday evenings until May 6th and am unavailable. I assume that you haven't heard or received documents yet- I just want to let you know that I will be out of town next week and won't be back until March 25th. Thank you, Wendy H-B 5/27/2008 Page 2 of 2 ,r Wendy J. Heiger-Bernays, PhD Associate Professor Department of Environmental Health B.U. School of Public Health 715 Albany St. T4W Boston, MA 02118 On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Wendy Heiger-Bernays (whb bu.edu) <whb@bu.edu>wrote: Hi Joanne (I apologize if spelled incorrectly), I am wondering if any decision was made about my reviewing a document - my calendar is rapidly filling up and I want to make certain to set the time aside, if needed. Thanks & Take Care, Wendy Wendy J. Heiger-Bernays, PhD Associate Professor Department of Environmental Health B.U. School of Public Health 715 Albany St. T4W Boston, MA 02118 whb@bu.edu telephone: 617.638-7724 whbnabu.edu telephone: 617.638-7724 Wendy J. Heiger-Bernays, PhD Associate Professor Department of Environmental Health B.U. School of Public Health 715 Albany St. T4W Boston, MA 02118 whb@bu.edu telephone: 617.638-7724 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:43 PM To: Beth Rennard Cc: 'Paulette Puleo' Subject: FW: Engineering Company Attachments: Trasnsfer st. RFP for BOH.doc Dear Beth: The following are comments regarding the attached RFP. How does this RFP allow for the contract with the Air Quality review expert from BU? I don't think what the Board of Health is requesting a "peer" review" but a "technical review." What does the paragraph "to understand the objectives of the peer review process" mean? If the engineering company has done this before, they will understand that the objective is to comply with the DEP code, 310 CMR 16.00. Written comments should be submitted to the Board of Health, not the City Engineer, because the company is working for the Board in this review. Under qualifications, we should ask for Registered Professional Engineers, and not LSP's since LSP's are mainly concerned with remediating contaminated soils and water under different DEP requirements and laws. The wording in the RFP needs to reflect what is said in the Code regarding Technical Review. You could site that part of the code, 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 or include its wording. It says that the Technical Review is to assist the Board of Health in: Reviewing the application (which could mean the MEPA application); reviewing the request for the minor modification; reviewing public comments and any subsequent amendments or additions to the application. Tasks could include: Determining completeness and accuracy of the data in the application; determining whether the correct analytical techniques were used, whether valid data was obtained; whether the data support the proposed conclusions; determining what other data should be obtained, the means to obtain it and its potential significance; examining municipal and other relevant documents and consulting with DEP staff; visiting the site to make a visual inspection; preparing and submitting comments to the Board of Health on technical issues relating to the site; reviewing data submitted prior to and during the public hearing; preparing a written report of comments and determinations. Under:" Schedule" I would ask the engineering company for a review of all documents submitted to MEPA so that any deficiencies or concerns could be addresses prior to filing with the Board of Health. Once the MEPA determination is made, I would anticipate a filing with the Board of Health. If I understand the Code correctly, the Board is required to advertise a public hearing within 7 days, hold a public hearing within 30 days, and make a determination within 45 days of the public hearing. Of course, the public hearing could last more than one day. The Board will need this time to make an informed, articulate determination. 4/14/2008 Page 2 of 2 On a different note, I was told that NSC has Attorney Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea & O'Brien, 137 Newbury Street, working for them. Since you will be representing the City in this application before the Board of Health, and NSC has a firm who advertises a completed project as, "Solid Waste- Negotiation of a multi-faceted host community agreement for the new owner of a regional solid waste landfill", the Board must have independent council. It has discussed writing a formal request for legal council to assist it in this process. This is extremely common in all communities that we know have gone through this process. Separate, independent legal counsel is needed to ensure the best possible outcome of this process, in accordance with the Site Assignment Regulation, for the City and its residents. The attorney, air quality expert, and the technical assistance do add a cost for NSC, however, without such review and assistance, the Board will not be able to adequately evaluate this application. Thank you, Joanne From: Beth Rennard Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:24 AM To: Joanne Scott Subject: RE: Engineering Company Yes, here is RFP language which you/AI Hill can incorporate into AI's boilerplate RFP format. Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-9327 (fax) From: Joanne Scott Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:15 AM To: Beth Rennard Subject: Engineering Company Dear Beth: I have two engineering companies that are interested in reviewing the Transfer Station plans for the Board of Health. Are you writing an RFP for that? Also, I think that you were including Air Quality review in that document so that we can move forward with that part of the review with the BU professor, once we receive the information. Thank you, Joanne 4/14/2008 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Salem requests qualifications and proposals from engineering firms with project development experience in Massachusetts, including all phases of environmental permitting. The use of specialty sub-consultants with pertinent experience is acceptable in meeting the qualification and experience requirements outlined herein. Such services are anticipated to include technical peer review of recent environmental documents related to evaluation of environmental impacts of expanding the existing 100 ton-per-day Transfer Station at 12 Swampscott Road to a new 400 ton-per-day facility at the same location. Review of documents associated with closure of the landfill is not included under this solicitation. Overview After an extensive solicitation process and review of proposals for redevelopment of the subject site, the City of Salem selected Northside Carting, Inc. (NSC) of North Andover, Massachusetts, as the preferred developer. NSC has proceeded with the initial phases of permitting and design, including the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission and preparation of the following study reports to support an expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submittal to MEPA: • Traffic Impact Study prepared by Vanasse&Associates, Inc., and • Air Quality and Noise Impact Analyses prepared by Epsilon, Inc. Additional environmental assessments and documents to support an expanded ENF will also be made available for review. Proposed Scope of Services As part of the peer review, the selected Consultant will be required to perform the following tasks: • Attend a kick-off meeting with the Board of Health, the City Engineer and other City representatives to better-understand_the-objective-of-the-p_e_er review-process, • Review and-provide-written_comments-to_the=Cit yy-E-ngineenrelated to the technical 9 information presented in the respective reports and supporting documents; and • Attend a review meeting with the BOH, the City Engineer, NSC and their representatives to discuss any questions or concerns related to review of the available documents. Any additional tasks will be performed on a time and expenses basis. Qualifications Respondents to this RFP must demonstrate compliance with the following minimum selection criteria: • Three representative development projects within the past five years that have at a minimum involved the evaluation of traffic, air quality and noise impacts. The use of specialty subconsultants on such projects is permissible. • One or more registered Professional Engineer(s) and/or�Licensed_Site-P-rofessional(s)DI, who will be responsible for signing all review submittals to the City. Proposal Requirements • Please provide your letter response, along with any supplemental understandings and/or clarifications of the stipulated scope of work and resumes of key staff and sub-consultants, if any, by 5:00 PM on . Any questions related to this RFQ/P shall be addressed to at 978/ '1;Z_S'ched7:) The schedule is extremely critical due to the time lines established in the Administrative Consent Order with the DEP. It is expected that the selected Consultant will need to review all documents and provide written comments within two weeks after receipt. The review meeting will anticipated to be held during the last week of May 2008. rte- �.�- -� ✓� �. ��i���`� - -zu 'tit G �e Pagel of 2 i Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:39 PM To: 'Davis, Christopher P' Cc: 'Paulette Puleo'; Carol Rainville Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2] Dear Chris: Thank you very much for your interest in this project. Attorney Fitzgerald would be the legal representative we hope to obtain. The Board of Health is holding a special meeting this Thursday to discuss, and probably vote on, a request to North Side Carting for funds to cover legal, engineering, and clerical costs. It is my understanding that NSC's attorney is Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea and O'Brien, Newbury Street, Boston. It is necessary for the Board of Health to have an attorney of equal caliber and experience to represent it in this matter. Without the proper resources, the Board is more likely to be overwhelmed and deny the application. This project must have a significant monetary value to NSC, so I feel confident that I can word the request to them in a way that will garner a positive response. The Code, 310 CMR 16.00, has a formula for calculating fees. If this were a Major Modification, Table 2 allows for a maximum technical fee of$23,000. I know that communities have assessed higher fees to cover higher costs, even when the request is for a Minor Modification, and petitioners pay it. This is the case in Taunton which is similar to Salem because the actual applicant is the City, but the operator of the transfer station pays the bills. Do you or Mr. Fitzgerald think we can do by mutual agreement legally? Thank you again, Joanne From: Davis, Christopher P [mailto:cdavis@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:25 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com; Fitzgerald, Robert H Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2] Joanne--I think Bob Fitzgerald, senior counsel in our environmental practice, would be well suited to advise and represent the Board of Health in this matter. Bob is an experienced environmental lawyer with an engineering background and considerable experience in similar regulatory permitting and compliance work, including air quality and permitting issues. I'd be happy to forward Bob's resume and put him in touch with you. His current hourly rate is $495. Please let me know if you would like to talk with Bob and receive a copy of his resume.—Chris Christopher P. Davis Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1354 F: (617) 227-8591 cdavis@goodwinprocter.com 4/17/2008 Page 2 of 2 i www.goodwinprocter.com From: Joanne Scott [mailto:]Scott@Salem.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:45 PM To: Davis, Christopher P Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com Subject: Salem Transfer Station Dear Mr. Davis: I am the Health Agent for the Salem Board of Health, following up on Carol Rainville's e-mail to you. The applicant for the Minor Modification request(regulated by DEP's Code 310 CMR 16.00, "Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities')to the Salem Board of Health is the City of Salem, who currently owns the property. An RFP for the sale of the property has been awarded to the current operator of the Transfer Station, NSC, pending City Council approval. North Side Carting, Inc. (NSC) is owned by Robert George and several Thompson Brothers. The modification is to increase the daily tonnage average from 100 tons to 400 tons and to accept"municipal solid waste" (msw) in addition to"construction &demolition" (c&d)that is brought there now The plan includes building a new transfer facility. The Board of Health must review the request, hold a public hearing, and review technical information regarding air quality impacts,facility and building design, traffic impacts, etc. The Board has the option to accept the request, deny the request, or accept the request with conditions. As the Health Agent, my major concern is the political pressure that will be exerted because the actual applicant is the City. In addition, the City is under the threat of significant DEP penalties because of an outstanding(for several years) order to cap the ash landfill that exists on the property. The Board of Health will be asking the City to allocate money(probably received from NSC)to pay the expenses of an attorney, engineering company, and air quality expert. Since the City Solicitor represents the City in this application to the Board, it does not seem possible for her to also represent the Board in this matter. The Board of Health attorney would guide the Board to ensure compliance with the DEP Code including specific time requirements for the filing and holding of a public hearing, and for the time allowed for a written decision to be rendered. Legal assistance would also be needed to write the decision and the specific conditions if the request was approved with conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Joanne Scott 978-741-1800 jscott.@salem.com 4/17/2008 Board of Health Representation Page 1 of 2 \ Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:44 AM To: Kim Driscoll; Beth Rennard Cc: Barbara Poremba; Carol Rainville; Chris Harrington; Christina Harrington; Joanne Scott; Icorchado@salemstate.edu; Martin Fair; Noreen Casey; Paulette Puleo;Tracy Giarla Subject: FW: Board of Health Representation Dear Mayor and Beth: This is the attorney I mentioned yesterday that I believe the Board would like to use for the Transfer Station process. As you can see, the firm has experience representing applicants before Boards of Health on solid waste matters. 310 CMR 16.30(1) (c)allows for"Alternate Systems"for fees. I hope that NSC will see the benefit of paying for the engineering, legal, and air quality experts and a stenographer at the public hearing. This expertise will allow the Board of Health to be confident in its evaluation of the request and to render a determination in complete regulatory compliance. Please let me know when I may meet with you and NSC, including Bill Thompson I hope. I am sure that the Board will be fair and objective in this process. Thank you, Joanne From: Fitzgerald, Robert H (mailto:rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:53 AM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Davis, Christopher P Subject: Board of Health Representation Joanne: It was a pleasure to speak with you today. As I mentioned, we do have experience in Site Assignment matters having represented other clients before Boards of Health (though not in Salem)on similar issues. Although we would serve whatever role the Board required, I believe we would be most helpful in working with the Board to assure that the necessary procedures are followed throughout the hearing process and that the application (and ultimately the Board's written decision on the application) satisfies the applicable regulatory criteria. We would also work in conjunction with your other consultants to prepare questions the Board might consider asking of the applicant during the course of the hearing in order to elicit the testimony/information necessary to reach a final decision. I also mentioned that we are performing a conflict check internally, and that process tends to take a few days to complete. I will let you know if any conflicts issues arise on our end. Beyond our internal conflicts review, I understand that it is our firm's policy that any attorney that represents a municipal board in a matter needs to be designated as a special municipal employee under c. 268A of the General Laws for that limited purpose. The City Solicitor is probably intimately familiar with that process, but I wanted to let you know now that this would be one item we would need to address before taking on the representation (in addition to the fee issues we discussed). 4/17/2008 Board-of Health Representation Page 2 of 2 ` _ Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Board, and I hope to speak again soon. Best regards, Bob Robert H. Fitzgerald Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 T: (617)570-1343 F: (617) 227-8591 rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com www.goodwinprocter.corn IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. 4/17/2008 r �t REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Salem requests qualifications and proposals from engineering firms with project development experience in Massachusetts, including all phases of environmental permitting. The use of specialty sub-consultants with pertinent experience is acceptable in meeting the qualification and experience requirements outlined herein. Such services are anticipated to include technical peer review of recent environmental documents related to evaluation of environmental impacts of expanding the existing 100 ton-per-day Transfer Station at 12 Swampscott Road to a new 400 ton-per-day facility at the same location. Review of documents associated with closure of the landfill is not included under this solicitation. Overview After an extensive solicitation process and review of proposals for redevelopment of the subject site, the City of Salem selected Northside Carting, Inc. (NSC)of North Andover, Massachusetts, as the preferred developer. NSC has proceeded with the initial phases of permitting and design, including the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission and preparation of the following study reports to support an expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF)submittal to MEPA: • Traffic Impact Study prepared by Vanasse &Associates, Inc.; and • Air Quality and Noise Impact Analyses prepared by Epsilon, Inc. Additional environmental assessments and documents to support an expanded ENF will also be made available for review. Proposed Scope of Services As part of the peer review, the selected Consultant will be required to perform the following tasks: Attend a kick-off meeting with the Board of Health, the City Engineer and other City representatives to better understand the objective of the peer review process; • Review and provide written comments to the City Engineer related to the technical information presented in the respective reports and supporting documents; and • Attend a review meeting with the BOH, the City Engineer, NSC and their representatives to discuss any questions or concerns related to review of the available documents. Any additional tasks will be performed on a time and expenses basis. Qualifications Respondents to this RFP must demonstrate compliance with the following minimum selection criteria: • Three representative development projects within the past five years that have at a minimum involved the evaluation of traffic, air quality and noise impacts. The use of specialty subconsultants on such projects is permissible. • One or more registered Professional Engineer(s)and/or Licensed Site Professional(s) who will be responsible for signing all review submittals to the City. Proposal Requirements 1 Please provide your letter response, along with any supplemental understandings and/or clarifications of the stipulated scope of work and resumes of key staff and sub-consultants, if any, by 5:00 PM on . Any questions related to this RFQ/P shall be addressed to at W8/ Schedule The schedule is extremely critical due to the time lines established in the Administrative Consent Order with the DEP. It is expected that the selected Consultant will need to review all documents and provide written comments within two weeks after receipt. The review meeting will anticipated to be held during the last week of May 2008. I Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott v From: Joanne Scott Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:43 PM To: Beth Rennard Cc: 'Paulette Puleo' Subject: FW: Engineering Company Attachments: Trasnsfer st. RFP for BOH.doc Dear Beth: The following are comments regarding the attached RFP. How does this RFP allow for the contract with the Air Quality review expert from BU? I don't think what the Board of Health is requesting a "peer" review" but a "technical review." What does the paragraph "to understand the objectives of the peer review process" mean? If the engineering company has done this before, they will understand that the objective is to comply with the DEP code, 310 CMR 16.00. Written comments should be submitted to the Board of Health, not the City Engineer, because the company is working for the Board in this review. Under qualifications, we should ask for Registered Professional Engineers, and not LSP's since LSP's are mainly concerned with remediating contaminated soils and water under different DEP requirements and laws. The wording in the RFP needs to reflect what is said in the Code regarding Technical Review. You could site that part of the code, 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 or include its wording. It says that the Technical Review is to assist the Board of Health in: Reviewing the application (which could mean the MEPA application); reviewing the request for the minor modification; reviewing public comments and any subsequent amendments or additions to the application. Tasks could include: Determining completeness and accuracy of the data in the application; determining whether the correct analytical techniques were used, whether valid data was obtained; whether the data support the proposed conclusions; determining what other data should be obtained, the means to obtain it and its potential significance; examining municipal and other relevant documents and consulting with DEP staff; visiting the site to make a visual inspection; preparing and submitting comments to the Board of Health on technical issues relating to the site; reviewing data submitted prior to and during the public hearing; preparing a written report of comments and determinations. Under:" Schedule" I would ask the engineering company for a review of all documents submitted to MEPA so that any deficiencies or concerns could be addresses prior to filing with the Board of Health. Once the MEPA determination is made, I would anticipate a filing with the Board of Health. If I understand the Code correctly, the Board is required to advertise a public hearing within 7 days, hold a public hearing within 30 days, and make a determination within 45 days of the public hearing. Of course, the public hearing could last more than one day. The Board will need this time to make an informed, articulate determination. 4/24/2008 Page 2 of 2 } L On a different note, I was told that NSC has Attorney Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea & O'Brien, 137 Newbury Street, working for them. Since you will be representing the City in this application before the Board of Health, and NSC has a firm who advertises a completed project as, "Solid Waste- Negotiation of a multi-faceted host community agreement for the new owner of a regional solid waste landfill", the Board must have independent council. It has discussed writing a formal request for legal council to assist it in this process. This is extremely common in all communities that we know have gone through this process. Separate, independent legal counsel is needed to ensure the best possible outcome of this process, in accordance with the Site Assignment Regulation, for the City and its residents. The attorney, air quality expert, and the technical assistance do add a cost for NSC, however, without such review and assistance, the Board will not be able to adequately evaluate this application. Thank you, Joanne From: Beth Rennard Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:24 AM To: Joanne Scott Subject: RE: Engineering Company Yes, here is RFP language which you/AI Hill can incorporate into AI's boilerplate RFP format. Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-9327 (fax) From: Joanne Scott Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:15 AM To: Beth Rennard Subject: Engineering Company Dear Beth: I have two engineering companies that are interested in reviewing the Transfer Station plans for the Board of Health. Are you writing an RFP for that? Also, I think that you were including Air Quality review in that document so that we can move forward with that part of the review with the BU professor, once we receive the information. Thank you, Joanne 4/24/2008 Pagel of 3 Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:07 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: 'Paulette Puleo' Subject: BOH RFP Questions Joanne, I received your email yesterday, but I have been in negotiations and my assoc. is on vaca. Here is my response to your recent questions. How does this RFP allow for the contract with the Air Quality review expert from BU? The RFP may be edited to allow for separate proposals for each report to be reviewed. Please send me a marked up copy of the RFP with any additions Al has made and this added (and any other edits discussed below). The Respondents may also retain technical experts or subconsultants if they feel they need technical support. Firms who routinely perform these services most likely have either in-house experts or they have relationships with subconsultants who do. I don't think what the Board of Health is requesting a "peer" review" but a "technical review." Regardless of what it is called, the review needs to include the items listed in the RFP, including review of the technical aspects of the proposed redevelopment and compliance with regulatory permitting and other project requirements. Reference to the tasks outlined in 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 can be added to the RFP. What does the paragraph "to understand the objectives of the peer review process" mean? If the engineering company has done this before, they will understand that the objective is to comply with the DEP code, 310 CMR 16.00. There are other issues that must be addressed beyond the scope of 310 CMR 16.00. It is my understanding that Northside Carting will be submitting an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, including the traffic, air quality and noise studies, to MEPA on or about May 1st. Those studies need to be reviewed and the Board should feel free to ask any other questions they feel are appropriate. Otherwise, because the site already has a Site Assignment from the BOH, many of the requirements outlined in 310 CMR 16.00 do not apply. Written comments should be submitted to the Board of Health, not the City Engineer, because the company is working for the Board in this review. Because this is a City project involving significant liability, financial and technical issues, the City Engineer should be directly involved to support the review 4/24/2008 Page 2 of 3 process. Nevertheless, you can request that the selected firm respond to both the Board of Health and the City Engineer. Under qualifications, we should ask for Registered Professional Engineers, and not LSP's since LSP's are mainly concerned with remediating contaminated soils and water under different DEP requirements and laws. Both Engineers and LSPs are involved with these activities; some LSPs may be more qualified than some Engineers in dealing with the technical and regulatory compliance issues. We should probably allow the Respondents staff the project as they see fit, based upon the qualifications of the individuals they propose to use. The wording in the RFP needs to reflect what is said in the Code regarding Technical Review. You could site that part of the code, 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 or include its wording. It says that the Technical Review is to assist the Board of Health in: Reviewing the application (which could mean the MEPA application); reviewing the request for the minor modification; reviewing public comments and any subsequent amendments or additions to the application. Tasks could include: Determining completeness and accuracy of the data in the application; determining whether the correct analytical techniques were used, whether valid data was obtained; whether the data support the proposed conclusions; determining what other data should be obtained, the means to obtain it and its potential significance; examining municipal and other relevant documents and consulting with DEP staff; visiting the site to make a visual inspection; preparing and submitting comments to the Board of Health on technical issues relating to the site; reviewing data submitted prior to and during the public hearing; preparing a written report of comments and determinations. The RFP can be amended to include reference to 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3. Under:" Schedule" I would ask the engineering company for a review of all documents submitted to MEPA so that any deficiencies or concerns could be addresses prior to filing with the Board of Health. Once the MEPA determination is made, I would anticipate a filing with the Board of Health. If I understand the Code correctly, the Board is required to advertise a public hearing within 7 days, hold a public hearing within 30 days, and make a determination within 45 days of the public hearing. Of course, the public hearing could last more than one day. The Board will need this time to make an informed, articulate determination. Reference is made to the ENF and supporting documents in the Overview section of the RFP; the selected firm will be requested to review all pertinent documents. With respect to the schedule, it is my understanding that Northside Carting will be filing the ENF with MEPA on or about April 29th. We are not certain when they will be filing with the Board of Health, but they have indicated they will be filing in late May or early June. 4/24/2008 Page 3 of 3 On a different note, I was told that NSC has Attorney Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea & O'Brien, 137 Newbury Street, working for them. Since you will be representing the City in this application before the Board of Health, and NSC has a firm who advertises a completed project as, "Solid Waste- Negotiation of a multi-faceted host community agreement for the new owner of a regional solid waste landfill", the Board must have independent council. It has discussed writing a formal request for legal council to assist it in this process. This is extremely common in all communities that we know have gone through this process. The communities you are referring to likely involve new Site Assignments under DEP regulations. The public hearing for this project is for a minor modification of an existing Site Assignment under 310 CMR 16.22(c) and is not for a new Site Assignment. The Board should focus on the environmental impacts to the area associated with the increase in traffic and operation of the new transfer station, but it should also consider the benefits of landfill closure to the Forest River and the benefits to the City. As I have indicated in the past, the City does not have the funds to hire outside counsel. If you are able to secure a commitment from Northside, that would be fine. I would suggest that you may want to wait to see how much $ you will be requesting for the technical review so you will have an idea how much $ is available for legal counsel. According to 310 CMR 16.99 Appendix A, the maximum tech fee the bd. may charge is $11,000. See also section 16.30(d) re. limitation of technical fee toward legal,... Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-9327 (fax) 4/24/2008 Board of Health Representation Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott From: Fitzgerald, Robert H [rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:53 AM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Davis, Christopher P Subject: Board of Health Representation Joanne: It was a pleasure to speak with you today. As I mentioned, we do have experience in Site Assignment matters having represented other clients before Boards of Health (though not in Salem)on similar issues. Although we would serve whatever role the Board required, I believe we would be most helpful in working with the Board to assure that the necessary procedures are followed throughout the hearing process and that the application (and ultimately the Board's written decision on the application) satisfies the applicable regulatory criteria. We would also work in conjunction with your other consultants to prepare questions the Board might consider asking of the applicant during the course of the hearing in order to elicit the testimony/information necessary to reach a final decision. I also mentioned that we are performing a conflict check internally, and that process tends to take a few days to complete. I,will let you know if any conflicts issues arise on our end. Beyond our internal conflicts review, I understand that it is our firm's policy that any attorney that represents a municipal board in a matter needs to be designated as a special municipal employee under c. 268A of the General Laws for that limited purpose. The City Solicitor is probably intimately familiar with that process, but I wanted to let you know now that this would be one item we would need to address before taking on the representation (in addition to the fee issues we discussed). Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Board, and I hope to speak again soon. Best regards, Bob Robert H. Fitzgerald Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1343 F: (617) 227-8591 rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com www.goodw i n procte r.com IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any 5/2/2008 Thank you for you help Gail Dear Mike: The Salem Board of Health is meeting this evening. I hope to have a draft letter, for their review, to the Mayor requesting funds (fees)for review of the Minor Modification request by the City for its Transfer Station. The City had put the property out to bid last year and the current operator of the facility won the bid to purchase the land. His intention is to purchase the land once the modification to go from 100 to 400 tons per day is granted. You and I had discussed some details of this last week. If you have time, it would be helpful to have a few questions about the Site Assignment Regulations answered before I write the draft letter. Here they are, the italics are mine: • Section 16.22 (3) states, "The Board of Health may modify a site assignment to address a minor modification, at the request of the facility owner or operator, without requiring a filing of a new application by the applicant or site suitability report by the Department..." Requirements for a Public Hearing remain. • Section 16.30(2)Technical Fee (b) Assessment of Fee Fee. 1. Assessment states, "The board of health, upon the receipt of the application, may assess by written notice to the applicant a technical Fee for said application not to excee the maximum amount set forth in 310 CMR 16.99." Given these two sections, because this is a minor modification and an application will not be submitted, can the Board still assess a fee? Or should the Board require an application so that the fee may be assessed? Would attorney's fees be considered "Technical Review" under • Section 16.30(2) (c) 1. where 100% of the Technical Fee maybe used? or would those fees be covered under • Section 16.30 (2) (d)where 50% of the cost of providing expert legal , scientific, or engineering assistance to the board of health to assure that all points of view are adequately presented and evaluated at the public hearing."? Last question(s)! I have used the Appendix A to calculate the Technical Fee, under Table 2 and the"Adjustment of Technical Fee for Inflation." Maximum Fee =$3000 + [$20 x Daily Volume (tons/day)] _$3000 + ($20 x 500) _ $13,000 _( $13,000) (BCP 2007[227.85]/ BCP 1988 [126.2] = 23,471.08 Is this the usual ballpark for fees assessed? Can higher fees than those allowed in the Regulation be assessed? Thank you so much for your help with this. I hope to have you officially aboard soon. Sincerely, Joanne Scott Salem Board of Health 978-741-1800; 978-479-9911 From: Gail Cranstoun [mailto:gcranstoun@nutter.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:28 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: For Mike Scott You can respond to me and I will pass your questions on to Mike. Thanks Gail Gail E. Cranstoun Nutter McClerinen &Fish LLP World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210-2604 617=439-2846 617-310-9846 Fax Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any federal tax advice included in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be.dsed, for the purpose of(i) avoiding the imposition of'federal tax penalties or(ii)promoting,marketing.or"recommeifding t another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. Page 1 of 1 Joanne Scott From: Gail Cranstoun [gcranstoun@nutter.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:14 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: Re: Request for Quotes-Legal Dear Joanne: Thank you for forwarding the information on the City of Salem matter. Michael Scott has reviewed the Request for Quotes, and unfortunately does not feel the work can be done within the amount budgeted for this project. (I believe he had previously given you another quote). Thank you for considering Michael in this project. Best regards, Gail Cranstoun Gail E. Cranstoun Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210-2604 617439-2846 617-310-9846 Fax Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any federal tax advice included in this communication(including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of(i) avoiding the imposition of federal tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 6/18/2008