Respected Engineer Responds to Focus on Weston

This is a letter from Judy Nitsch, a consulting civil engineer from Weston who asked us to forward her letter to our email list. We're glad to do so as she is a very well known and respected engineer and we have had many engineering questions arise without adequate response. I hope you find her comments useful.
Alan Day

---

I am writing my thoughts regarding some of the engineering issues related to the Town of Weston water tanks project for distribution by Engage Weston. I am a civil engineer, registered in Massachusetts, with almost 50 years of experience designing site development and infrastructure projects. I have lived in Weston for 18 years.

First, I am pleased that so much work has been accomplished to advance the water tank project since the December 3, 2024, Town Meeting. The new Working Group has had important meetings to review questions and share feedback. I feel we are all more informed about this necessary project in our town.

Second, I want to respond to the engineering issues in the Focus on Weston handout at the December 3, 2024, town meeting, and their two subsequent emails dated 1/9/25 “Weston’s Water System” and 3/9/25 “Weston’s Water Future.”

Regarding the handout at the last town meeting, I saw numerous engineering misstatements.

1. The very first sentence on Article 1 says ”…no engineering drawings have been prepared…”:
   I know from the work that has been presented that a lot of engineering drawings have been prepared. If they mean “construction documents” (“CDs”) they’d be correct, although one wouldn’t expect to have CDs at this point in the project design/permitting process.

2. The first sentence continues with “…nor specifications and construction timetable necessary for an RFP…”:
   Specifications are never done at this point in a design project. They are normally done in conjunction with the CDs. Outline specs will be prepared first, but they wouldn’t be developed until the designs are further refined. Regarding the construction timetable, I’d seen information about that in the Zooms prior to that town meeting, but the town’s engineering consultant, Wright-Pierce, recently prepared this updated schedule: Reports - Google Drive

3. The first sentence concludes with, “… nor have construction bids been sought.”
   Of course construction bids haven’t been sought yet. The money for the project hasn’t been secured yet so the town can’t go out to bid yet. The purpose of Town Meeting Article 1 was to approve the anticipated expenditure.

4. “The estimated $43 million cost covers only the tanks and related infrastructure and is less than half of the total estimated cost for all system upgrades that were recommended by Wright-Pierce in their 2019 Report.”
   I’ve seen the components of the $43m estimate and know it includes more than what is noted in this statement. Additionally, I’ve read the 2019 report and agree that the $43m is less than half of the total estimated cost for all of the system upgrades that were recommended. (That total was $89.6M through 2040.) BUT not all of those components are being done as part of the water tank project and some are completed as annual projects, so that statement is untrue and misleading to the reader.

5. The final two sentences of the “Vote NO: Article 1 - Appropriate for Water System Improvements” say, “…Specifically with respect to the tank replacement proposal, this complex project, and the land swaps that are required to execute the project, have not been sufficiently engineered, specified, and vetted for us to commit to the proposed expenditures. We recommend voting NO because we do not know what we are authorizing.”
   In my opinion, that is a misleading statement, and this project has been sufficiently engineered and vetted for this phase of the project development for the town to commit to the proposed expenditures. I know this because I’ve attended many of the site walks, zooms, and meetings on the project, and I am familiar with how large public infrastructure projects proceed through the design, funding, permitting, and construction phases.

6. The Article 2 issue (amend Zoning Bylaws – Municipal Utility Structure Standards) was discussed in a water tank meeting zoom that I attended several months ago. The explanation made sense to me. The tanks need the antennae/appurtenances so the in-tank monitoring data can be conveyed to the Town DPW for observation/analysis. Voting to have the height limit adjusted in the zoning by-law to accommodate what we know is actually needed for the water tanks is appropriate . The statement, “… it can simply apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a variance or special permit…” is misleading. Going to the ZBA is anything but a simple process. Also, the ZBA decision can be appealed, thus derailing the project timing and increasing the project cost. Changing the bylaw to include the necessary building height for municipal structures is the way to help the project proceed expeditiously. I understand that some residents are afraid that this bylaw could be construed to mean any structure; the wording would be revised to limit it to municipal water tanks. This is my opinion as a civil engineer; I am not a land-use lawyer.

7. Regarding their Article 3 paragraph – again as a civil engineer and not a land-use attorney – this is a chicken-and-egg issue. The design of the tanks has progressed enough so the areas needed for the new tanks can be ascertained. The Article 97 land swap process is time-consuming and must be completed prior to commencing construction. In order to meet the anticipated construction timetable outlined by Wright-Pierce, this work needs to commence now and run on parallel tracks to the project design.

Regarding the 1/9/25 Focus on Weston email, I read several statements that I’d like to address.

1. Second paragraph: The list of “incomplete” items included both design, engineering, schedule, and cost. Based on attending or watching the Water Tank Working Group’s meetings since then and my knowledge of how large infrastructure projects commence (per my comments above), I feel this is another misleading statement. However, I believe FOW no longer has these issues based on their 3/9/25 email and thanks to the good work of the Working Group in educating residents as to what the appropriate expectations are for this type of project at this point in its planning and design.

2. Page 2, top paragraph: “Design should always precede funding.” Not necessarily. If a funding source is identified and the town might qualify for it, I believe we all should work together to be sure the town is positioned to receive such funds. That will reduce what the water users will pay in the long run.

3. Page 2, Item 1.: “The estimated cost of $43 million may be very different when the detailed engineering and cost estimation gets done.” Completing detailed engineering plans is a part of this next phase of the project. But preparing cost estimates of the project is done at every stage of design, with appropriate contingencies to account for that phase of design.

4. Page 2, Item 2. Siting and Permitting: “…siting is a pacing item for design, engineering, project documentation, for an RFP, and construction. This is a significant risk to the project schedule…”. The site analyses and discussions have progressed since this was published. Also, all projects have risks associated with land takings/swaps. To be an alarmist over the siting process isn’t productive.

Regarding the 3/9/25 Focus on Weston email, I agree with much of what was written. There is a good summary of the actions taken since the first of the year. I agree with the recommendation to vote in favor of the first 3 items. Regarding the recommendation on the fourth vote, however, I would urge residents to vote yes. There is no harm in having this approval now and there is a risk in waiting for another town meeting to approve it. Additionally, I understand there is still the possibility of receiving some funds under the State Revolving Fund (SRF). If Wright Pierce could create an early utility package for the water main to the Cat Rock site, and if other towns ahead of Weston in the SRF queue aren’t “shovel ready” yet, we could be positioned to gain valuable funding for this initial phase of the project. It is worth considering. We will need to have voted to proceed with the construction, however, and voting no on the 4th question will prohibit that. I may suggest at Town Meeting that we consider approving an Early Site Package for utilities to the Cat Rock tank if Wright Pierce thinks this is a viable option and has an estimate for that work that could be voted on Wednesday.

I look forward to seeing everyone at Town Meeting on Wednesday night.

Judith Nitsch, PE, LEED AP