August 19, 2025 – Board of Public Works – Video & Transcript

August 19, 2025 - Board of Public Works

Autoscroll:

George Uveges: Okay. it's six o'clock and everyone is here.
Read the information. First of all. this is the Board of Public Works Board Meeting starting at 6pm on Zoom only note items may not be discussed in the order listed or at the specific time. Estimated times are approximate. All topics may be subject to deliberation. In addition to common abbreviations. the Board of Public Works uses DEP W for the Department of Public Works. MWRA for Massachusetts Water Authority. and PFAS for Perry or whatever that could ever pronounce. One may watch or participate remotely with the meeting link that can be found at and the link is on the agenda. pursuant to chapter two of the act of 2025 this meeting will be conducted via remote participation. No in person attendance by members of the public will be permitted. This meeting may be recorded and will be made available to the public on WayCAM as soon after the meeting as practical. Okay. I want to start with a roll call vote if we could. Ed. yeah. okay. yeah. Judy. you're muted. Judy here. Mike Spellman here. and George veges is here. So we have a quorum. Any opening remarks? Tom Holder: I do not have any. I have Michael Spelman: to apologize. It's seven o'clock. My wife has a boosters meeting. so I'll be kicked out of the office. and you'll see me walk around a little bit till I find a quiet space elsewhere in my house. Unknown: Okay. Michael Spelman: well. that's about all I got. Okay. George Uveges: any announcements
Tom Holder: Tom staff? Have none. Joe. hi.
George Uveges: okay. Do we have anyone for public comment?
Judy Haun-Ping Ling: I have a announcement. Sorry. Okay. so I think I shared with Tom George and Abby Shuto that the DEP has a $5 million grant money with a maximum payout of 350.000 per grant awarded. And it has to do with if municipalities add. I guess. solar panels or things like that to the buildings like water treatment facilities to lower the ongoing operating costs going forward. so hopefully it's something we can take advantage of.
George Uveges: Okay. Tom. you might want to mention that to our friendly engineers. Any chance that is that just for water treatment. or can that be for anything? Judy. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: that there's two one is for water treatment and another one is for waste of waste. wastewater. George Uveges: Yeah. Okay. so nothing we could use for the transfer station.
Judy Haun-Ping Ling: unless you put the water treatment plant there no
George Uveges: put it on wheels. Okay? So no public comment. Tom Holder: I am seeing none. Okay. George Uveges: Next one is the review of do our concerns associated with the water Enterprise Fund? Tom. you want to start? I
Tom Holder: was going to offer you to start. but. yeah. power of the chair. you know. So through our finance director. Brian. Kevin E The town has been communicating with the Department of Revenue. they have started a little bit early this year. They generally don't start to reach out to municipalities until later on in the calendar year. but communications have begun with them. Brian has relayed to us that the folks there. the do are. there's two in particular that he's has been dealing with with much of his career. Are concerned with the Enterprise Fund. financial stability and the model moving forward. They. you know. I am stating what I am. you know. information that's being passed on to me. But they are disheartened by the fact that the board voted no rate increase for FY 26 with the information that they're seeing. They are not agreeable to that. They don't think that that fits what needs to be done so. Over the course of the last 10 days or so. staff and the DEP W. George and Brian have been and Matt Abrahams have been compiling information that the DOI is looking for. So we successfully did that. I crafted a memorandum describing the Automated Meter infrastructure project that we have ongoing to try to. you know. impress upon them the importance of this project. the fact that. having brand new meters. we will more accurate. accurately record what's actually consumed. you know. and that we should see. you know. the intent is that we would experience an increase in the volumes recorded. and so we will see you know how that is received. We've sent it off to them. They have yet to reply with any questions. We welcomed early questions. We are scheduled to meet remotely with them next week. August. 28 on the invite list is myself. George Mike. Wege Bauer. Matt Abrams and Brian. Kevin e so our intent is to present what I've just been talking about and really hear back from them what their concerns are. and we're anticipating they're going to offer their suggestions on what could or should be done. So we'll have a little bit more to report once that meeting is completed.
George Uveges: From Brian. he is saying that they could actually. as a worst case. require us to go back and raise rates. But I think the issue that we are working with is two fold. One is Tom said. the issue. I'm sorry. Ed. you were overriding me that the increase in the meters are going to give us the increase that we're talking about. The other thing that I've talked to Tom about is the billing timing. As you may remember. we're going from semi annual to quarterly billing. if that can be moved into fiscal 26 that would also give us a pop in terms of revenue. That would make that number much more acceptable to the deal are. So we'll have to keep you in the loop. but that's that's what we're looking at. We've got to convince them that we are not smoking some funny cigarettes and that that is a doable item to be done. Tom. is that agree. agreed questions.
Okay. next one is the financing of the alternatives for Massachusetts MWRA connection. you should have received a discussion sheet. We're asked and to come to the Select Board combined meeting on August. on September 2. with a recommendation. They are also looking for FinCom to have their recommendation. which we hope will be consistent with ours. for them to review and to make a decision. As you may remember. if we want it. if it's going to be funded through real estate taxes. that would be a Select Board decision. If it's to be funded just through water rates. That's our decision. and then the board is not doesn't have. I guess. a say in that matter. So that's where we're at. I put together just a little sheet trying to give us some discussion points. It I hope everybody has had a chance to read that went out late today. I apologize for that. That's my fault. But basically. we've talked about five different types of funding. One. obviously is the water rates based on usage. Second would be real estate taxes. The third would be some type of a meter charge similar to our base charge that we charge today. and it would be a special charge that goes to each water meter. So for example. we could say that everybody that has a water meter will be assessed X dollars. We currently started with $60 is what we have today. I then. and then there could be some combination. They're not all one or the other. Tom Holder: I tried to. I've shared the screen for you George. if Thank you folks. Could see it up on there? Yep. George Uveges: Okay. I tried to come up with some considerations of what we are looking at in terms of things that have to be considered. And this includes some of the. what I'll say. misunderstandings that were talked about at the Select Board meeting yesterday. The fern first is just a review of our current water rate for tier four versus tier one. The comment from this in the Select Board was that they didn't want a small user to be paying more than a high user are the same because of the use of the water. So that lays out the difference in the rates between tier one to tier four. And remember that you go through each tier so that if you're in a tier four. you pay your first at tier one rates in the second group at tier two. next one at tier three. and whatever is over and above the 80 100 cubic feet at the high rate. And you can notice there's a significant spread there of almost three to one. I also did a back of the envelope calculation of what it cost us to produce water in 25 and it's basically about $11 and change. and that's about $8 in operating cost and $3 in debt service. as a comparison to what we are charging the municipal outdoor rate is at tier one cost. regardless of how much water they use. So again. as we have to look at rates. obviously we'll have to look at how we do all these we can't just. in my opinion. hit everything to tier four rate or go with the same increase. because that spread we become very large. Commercial rates are the same. except that the uses is adjusted for quarterly versus semi annual billing. Water Users are charged $60 per year base charge and a 7.50 PFAS surcharge. And if once we get to the point of having to set the rates coming up. we'd have to take a look at that. And again. we can mix and match. So for example. we might increase the water user charge. base charge. so spread out the cost more. versus just building it into the rates. If we do that or a portion thereof. um. uh. the debt service cost for the dual source project begins at 19. I'm sorry. fiscal 29 and is estimated to be $2.1 million per year. The key there is the start date. and you'll see as we get to the recommendations. If you remember. there was a discussion. I refer to it as section 100 Mike's recent memo talks about different sections of section 59 of the code. But the one is. if you go through and you take and take it to the voters in the 26 Annual Meeting 427 and do is a tax exempt that would be permanent. The other thing they could do is invoke another section of 59 that lets the board decide on an annual basis whether or not they should cover some of that water rate with real estate taxes. And that would give us some additional time. or the board sufficient significant time to make that call. The other point is they talked about. you know. the volume impact. Remind people that the cost of the dual source solution is not impacted by volume any volume changes related to use of the water flow through the operating expenses and will be reflected in the water rate. taking care of the concern about the high versus low user somewhat the debt service cost reflect the cost of providing infrastructure to supply the town water. In addition. dual source provides backup for any supply issues between the town wells and the MWRA water system. we still have people that are saying. well. can't we just do 100% MWRA? We seem to forget that that doesn't give you any backup. Hopefully. some of you had a chance to listen to that meeting from yesterday. The next item for the Select Board to consider is that the water system is other projects that need to be financed by water rates. such as the second water tank. the new pump station. new water mains and other normal capital expenditures. Estimated debt service for these items will increase water rates by about 32% over the next five years. And. The increase in new debt service starts in fiscal 27 estimated 1.1 million. growing to 1.5 million in physical 31 before it begins to decrease. This is partially offset by the debt service on existing debt. As it's paid down. goes down. the water rate increases to finance a dual source project and other anticipated cost. including the other capital items mentioned above. would be 74% over the next five years. That increase would need to be reflected in budget expenses for town departments such as the school boards and general town usage. which again means that that portion would have real estate tax expense anyways. because it has to be paid for by real estate expense. real estate taxes. because it's a town expense. And then the other point. I think Judy made at one point. is that the impact of such a water rate increase could have an impact on water usage. possibly requiring even a higher rate as the decrease. the demand goes down because of the high rates. the operating cost for the production of water is largely fixed and is not significantly decreased as the volume decreases. So that section is designed to kind of put in context some of the things that the Select Board needs to consider and fix. some of the thought processes that we heard. I heard in the meeting yesterday. before we go to a potential recommendation and have others add to what they think. any questions or thoughts On the considerations trying to set the playing field. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: Do I do have a question? Sure. Remind me why it's 74% over the next five years and not over 20? George Uveges: Well. because that's when it the payments are over 20. But the rate increase happens over those five years. It's not that it's a year six it goes down. I'm sorry. Say that. It's not that in year six it goes down. It's just that that the rate builds over those five year periods. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: I see. and it stays up. There is what you're saying. right? Gotcha. Thank you. George Uveges: No problem. Sorry. that's not clear. Anybody else? Mike. Ed. Michael Spelman: I'm good. Very nice work. George. George Uveges: thank you. You think? Do you think that that lays out the playing field of what we have to deal with?
Judy Haun-Ping Ling: I think it's really good. It it might help visual people. If you there were some charts or something versus old words.
George Uveges: we can try and do that. I've just one of the things I wanted to do is keep it short for the Select Board. yep. and for the public. and not have it run into three or four pages. and then people have a habit of losing themselves in it. Yep. you're right. I would. actually. I was hoping to keep it to one page. but I couldn't quite do that. But we might be able to. We had some charts and exhibits that we've handed out before we can always attach people feel that that would be helpful. Okay. recommendation. my thought is I'm very concerned about first of all. let me say this. the key to this is to come up with a recommendation that everybody can agree to number one and number two that will be passed at the town meeting. Last thing we want to do is get through this and have it voted down at the town meeting. Because if it's exempt debt. if you remember. that requires a two thirds approval. Okay. different than if it's water rates. and it's in our budget. and that only requires an approval by one vote. So big difference. I'm concerned that if people hear a 79% rate increase. because the question will come up that they're going to say. oh god. that's huge and well. I prefer a 2% real estate taxes. because that's a smaller number. even though it happens to be the same. And we also recognize that the taxpayer or the water user are the same people. And so there's no perfect answer to this question is. how do we want to try and work it? And if you remember in our questions and answers that we sent out. there was some discussion about the favorable treatment at least short term and maybe long term. depending on what happens with the state and local taxes. and where you are in terms of the economic scale. in terms of what you're paying otherwise. but if you were smaller. retired. Hired person. the real estate taxes might actually be reduced for you. because you get a tax deduction for it. assuming that it can put you into a spot where your deductions are greater than your standard deduction. So there's a lot of suppositions. That's why I didn't put anything in there. but it is a factor that people may bring up. So my thought process is to put it into real estate taxes. and there are two ways to do that. One is to a exempt debt vote. which requires the two thirds vote. and then it's fixed forever in terms of that payment schedule over the 20 years is being paid by real estate taxes. The second is. there is a provision. and we need counsel on the second to help us walk through this that they talked about being very complex yesterday and not often used where the board of selectmen can on an annual basis. or basically it stays the same unless they vote to change it. to take some of those water rates and go through and pay those with real estate taxes instead of through water rates. And that does not require a town meeting vote. We just have to get the fee approved as to water rates. and then they can come in later and set that and that gives them some time. But what it does is it puts us at risk. because you don't know three. four or five years down the road. who's going to be on that Select Board. what other projects may come up that they need. want to free up some of that money to do something else. So that's a risk that could force it back on the water rate users that you don't have. if it's exempt debt from day one. But that decision is really a Select Board decision. we can't that they're the ones that make the decision on whether or not to finance it and how to finance it. So that's what we're going to be talking about on the second questions. alternatives.
Judy Haun-Ping Ling: So George. question here. would it be helpful. after your recommendations. to make it clear that 74% water rate increase results in a. I'm guessing here. approximately $400 per household increase in water rates and a 2.3% increase in real estate taxes would have a similar dollar increase on your medium house. So that one way or the other to 74% looks like a a shocker of a number. and 2.3 does not. but we're really talking about four to $500 per household per year. Does that help people understand? George Uveges: I know how I can get I know how I know that the real estate taxes are approximately $100 million so 2 million is 2% or 2.3 whatever. I don't know the impact on the I don't know that we have an average water bill. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: We do. I asked for it from Sarah. I can't remember her last name. and I think Tom. you also received that. and it was approximately just water. not the not the $60 a year. and not the 7.5% PFAS. but just water was approximately $400 a year. So that's why I'm saying it's like. So we're really telling people. your $400 water bill goes up to 700 because of this. and your real estate taxes go up to. I don't know. $18.300 because of this. the dollar increase per household is approximately. needs to be approximately x in order to meet that $2.3 million payback per years. is my guess. and so I don't have George Uveges: a problem with that. but that number doesn't sound right to me for The water usage because I live in a condo. and. you know. we don't water outside or anything. and my water bill is higher than that. and there's only two of us. So Tom. have you scrub that number? Tom Holder: Yeah. I mean. what Judy's describing was provided by Sarah. and it's my recollection that that that was accurate. We can give you the background it was. you know. you know how that. how that number was derived. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: or another way of of of explaining this is saying there's. and again. I'm. I'm using round numbers here. There's 5000 households in Wayland. all use water and. Up these 5000 households in order to meet the two point. let's say $2.3 million that means it's $410 a year. And so one way or the other. we have to come up with that money to pay the infrastructure. Yeah. George Uveges: but that. if we just look. you know. our our water revenue is over $4 million 5000 households would be an average of $800 I wonder if she gave you the average semi annual billing.
Judy Haun-Ping Ling: So the number she gave me. just to be exact. was $198 for every six months for FY 24 so I'm just rounding it up to 200 George Uveges: Yeah. but that it. if that would. that would not get us anywhere close to the $4 million of water Billings. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: So that was the median number. I apologize if I wasn't clear. It was the medium number. So half are paying less than that. and half are paying more. My neighbor across the street pays $2.000 because it's crazy and he wants to water his lawn like like a mad man. but. well. he's George Uveges: saving money this year. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: Yeah. But anyway. so something like that might help people understand whether we put in the water rates or we put it in real estate taxes. There are some considerations for those who are high income and can benefit from salt or not. And there is. there is a fairness issue. If you are a huge water user and you're paying the same amount that your non huge water user neighbor is paying. George Uveges: Well. that was. that was one of the the challenges by the board of selectmen. But they forget that the there is a progressive charge. and that high user is paying for that water already. so it would go up. But. you know. again. there's already a schedule or scale that hopefully controls some of that. But okay. Tom. if you could get me that information. let me scrub that down. and maybe we can do a medium and an average.
Judy Haun-Ping Ling: No. but I mean. you're right. average would be 800 Yeah. or a little more. yep. something around so just to. just to have people have an idea of how much money we're talking about. because when you start talking about 73% increase. they think their water bills are going From 200 to 800 and it's. it's not true. Yeah.
George Uveges: Tom. The other thing is. can we get the amount of water billings to the town?
Judy Haun-Ping Ling: Right? They were charging at 6.21 instead of maybe 11. since that's their operating cost. Well. George Uveges: that's only the outdoor watering. it. But I'm not sure the USM I assume pay based on meter charge.
Tom Holder: All school accounts pay the municipal rate. Oh. is that right? Yeah. all town buildings pay that. George Uveges: Oh. so it's not just. even though we just call it the outdoor watering rate. Tom Holder: Yeah. it's a municipal the municipal rate is issued to municipal accounts. Okay. yep. George Uveges: And so can we get the total volume of Billings for like fiscal 25 Yeah. Tom Holder: we would be able to search for that. Yes.
George Uveges: Do we how long ago that was put in. I assume. to facilitate the town. or what I meant. that's a huge discount. And because I know the schools. for example. have to be a high user. Tom Holder: yeah. I can. I can recollect the vote being taken. and I'm trying to. I'm sure if Mike wegebauer were here. he would remember the logic. you know. that supported that. George Uveges: okay? And I don't want to use that as a threat saying. you know. if you do that. we're going to make you pay full vote. But I think when we get back to saying water rates again. I think we really have to look at that discount.
because that you're really then hurting the average water user.
They're subsidizing it.
Okay? So anybody have something other than that recommendation that they would like to have us discuss? Unknown: Well. I think. I think I I'm really favored to be. To. you know. get all the cost from waterway. because whoever using the water should pay for it. And also. if the water rate is higher. then encourage people saving the water. So we may cut. cut some of the use down. But if he could put. if you put a part of it into the estate tax. really. not. not really fair to some of the people. you know. I personally. doesn't matter either way. And I think we should consider the fairness. you know. somebody have a big house. that means they have to use a pay for water. And George Uveges: understand my thoughts. yeah. and there's a lot of merit to that. One of the challenges is that the dual source does not really provide volume of water. It's just like your road or school system. It provides the access to people. And then the other thing is. because the way our cost structure is. a lot of those costs are fixed. so that when you drop volume. your revenue drops faster because your net revenue drops faster because your costs don't go down very much. So the more efficiency we have. the bigger problem we create for ourselves. Because the water usage cost is principally fixed. It's like 75% fixed. So I think Judy had made the comment that she was concerned to become a self fulfilling prophecy. We push down the the wire usage. then we have to raise the rates tomorrow. push it down more.
Judy Haun-Ping Ling: George. I have a question. I i heard most of the Select Board Meeting discussion yesterday. and one of the things that occurred to me is that if we. if we try to split the financing. like some of it go through wire racing. some of it goes through taxes. that it might actually end up being very confusing to most people. and you actually end up with the worst of both worlds. where people think there's something Unknown: murky going on. and I think it's cleaner. whether it's in the water rates or in The taxes. pick one. as long as we're clear about the end result is we have to have two point X million dollars to pay back. Second. George Uveges: there's going to be a ton of communication on this. because I'm sure that everybody will have their own opinion based on their usage. And there's a lot of merit to the water rate. and it's a lot cleaner. But again. the issue is. if you've got certain people and you're going to have to redistribute how you do some of that cost. because you can't take our water rates from 17 to 30 or. I guess 25 plus. that you're going to have to spread that back down some so people that are going to say. Hey. I'm not using anymore. Why would I have this big jump? And the other problem. we've got all these other capital items that we have to finance that get built into the rates. Our rates are going to go up anyways by 34% without this. And so there's no right answer. you know. and Ed's idea of water rates makes it a lot simpler for us. because then the board is not involved. But I have a real concern about getting that approved. especially by. remember. it's by the town meeting vote. and you have a very small percentage of our population there. And remember what happened to the library?
Mike. where do you stand?
Michael Spelman: I think I stand. I'd like to see a hybrid
pasta passed down between water rates and real estate taxes. but I agree with Judy that that's that's going to be some real murky math. unless we can lay it out. You know. parts of the project are funded by by x. and parts of it are funded by y. because I also understand that if we. if we jack the water rates up to reflect these things this. you know. people might. might really start conserving. Water. and then. so they could save some money. And then. you know. then. then. then we're in a pickle with trying to fund this thing. But I also feel for the real estate. you know. some of the larger land loaner owners. you know. they're going to be. they're going to be eating a fair portion of this. well. not a fair portion of this. They're going to be. they're going to be paying quite a bit. You a bit. Yeah. Unknown: so there. George Uveges: there is. I said before. there is no good answer. unfortunately. to this. And. you know. I thought we've talked about trying to get a mix. but there. because they're already paying the 34% increase because of the water tower and the water mains and these kinds of things. You know. at what point do you. you know. this extra 40% do you take it up. split it in half. and then it's 50% increase in water rates. I mean that that scares me. And you know people. they are looking to buy a home. and everybody kind of accepts real estate taxes if they find out that their water bill is going to be. you know. two times x versus some place else. I'm not sure what impact that's going to have in terms of the value of our properties. Fair point.
Okay. so. so it sounds like we have three potential recommendations. the one that's listed there. Ed says all in water rates. or Mike said we take part of it and split it between water rates and real estate taxes. and we can fix that second bullet to be. you know. they can decide on what percentage of that cost gets paid by real estate taxes and what gets built into the water rates. Being your answer. yeah.
can I get a poll in terms of out of the three being 100% water rates combination or 100% water rates combination of the real estate taxes for some portion of that cost. and then 100% real estate taxes. Where do people feel? Mike. I'm sorry Tom any feel in terms of what you think is going to be more acceptable.
Tom Holder: You're asking me. George. George Uveges: yes. please. I mean. I. Tom Holder: I think that. you know. what's being called. The hybrid approach. I think. you know. I don't think it would be that difficult to understand. You know. in kind of going where Mike was. was speaking of is that. you know. if you were to. and Mike legebauer mentioned it at a prior meeting that. you know. if you took the cost of the connection. the pipe work. the pump station and assigned that to. say. taxes. and then took the cost of the treatment facility and put that on the rates. I think people would have a pretty good understanding. you know. of what that was If you were able to partition it that way. I mean. I think the public will understand putting it in rates the easiest. They might not like the figures. but I think. you know. through the beginning of the enterprise process. any expenditures spent on the water system has always come from rates. So people understand that. I'm not sure if folks will as clearly understand. you know. the implications of placing it on the tax base. So I But of all the things. I mean. I'm very confident and knowledgeable in a lot of these project details. the financing of it is. I have to admit. my weakest point. So I say all of this. and please understand that this is not my my forte. George Uveges: Some of the research that's been sent to us says that there's a number of towns that pay for a lot of this through real estate taxes. So it's we're not blazing any new ground. Carol. you still here? Yes. what is your thought process without speaking for the board? Carol Martin: Exactly. So Carol Martin. Lake Road tonight. I'll give the title here. chair of the Select Board. Yes. I'm not speaking for the board. We've not made a decision. We're actually waiting for the Board of Public Works recommendation. and I think after that we will ask for. after we hear what that is looking to ask for finance committee recommendation. but for very complicated. Uh. question. but the bottom line is. I think Judy's hit it on the head. We're going to pay it one way or the other in FY 29 we have to come up with $2.1 million um. fortunately. we now have to do it for FY 27 and we don't have to do it for FY 28 so perhaps we have. in my mind. a little bit of time to still work out the formula. I think the key point for all of us is to get this through Tom meeting as simply as possible. I sincerely doubt you know that there's going to be much pushback. I think there's incredible support. as evidenced by our prior to request at Tom meeting. two. three requests. We've had a Tom meeting regarding this project. But I also think that it's we over complicate things. it just regenerates some can. Can generate some confusion. So I would go for the a kiss. solution myself. George Uveges: Confusion ends up with a no vote. Carol Martin: Not necessarily. I don't I we're going to this is going to pass to us. No. George Uveges: no. I'm just saying. if you confuse people. they're going to more likely vote no. Then yes. Well. Carol Martin: if we confuse them. there's going to be more dialog and more discussion that happens on the Tom meeting floor. which means and we may end up having to have a couple forums. like we did last year. we had a forum. which I think helped clear up an awful lot George Uveges: communications. Is going to be the key. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Carl. any idea in terms of the where the FinCom committee is?
Carl Barnes: Hi all. Carl Barnes. Vice Chair of the FinCom. and the answer that is no. But I will also speak for myself and not for the committee. and tell you that three months ago. four months ago. I thought the right answer was to put it all in the water rates. And I for one. have been convinced that that's that George's proposal is the right one today. And I think I I'm having. I'm having trouble coming up with logic. a logical way of the of a hybrid approach. you know. like what you put in one bucket. what you put in the other. Now. if there is such. if there is one great. but I might be a little bit more concerned than Carol seems to be about passing a town meeting. And so I think keeping it very simple is. is the way to I would want to
George Uveges: go the the other issue is that if it's passed at one level. if things in terms of overrides and the total real estate tax bill gets tough. I can see It being reversed portion or all. because that's a select board's ability if you do the where they come through and decide how much to be paid out of real estate taxes. So there is a risk there that we all have to be aware of. Okay. so we have three proposals. One is water rates. Second is real estate taxes. and a third being a hybrid of it being split. and probably Tom's comment about the between the MWRA and the happy hollow as an example. but not necessary. Or that over time. they can shift some of it. So can we get a straw comment or vote in terms of where people are on this? Ed. you want to start. yeah.
Unknown: which are the three
Ed? George Uveges: Are you thinking or are you not ready?
Unknown: Well? I either way. you know. whatever that we. we decided if. if I'm based on my my stop. I'll be all for the I'll put everything on the rate. But okay. I'm doesn't bother me either way. So. Okay? Judy.
Judy Haun-Ping Ling: I would. I would vote for real estate tax only because I worry we don't collect enough money from water due to variety of things. and then we're in trouble. George Uveges: Okay. Mike. Michael Spelman: I'd like a hybrid. Maybe we can break it up so that. you know. the buildings or physical assets can be. you know. fall under real estate taxes because they're capital improvements to the town. Okay?
George Uveges: A good. We got a nice. even split here. All three votes have won. Guess in my mind. if I understand it right. Carol. that decision of tax exempt versus the hybrid or whatever would be actually a board of selectmen recommendation. I'm sorry. they're the ones that would make a decision. So if we list the two as we have here with some additional commentary as suggested. do you think that would suffice for them? We went out of real estate taxes. but they'd have to decide on how much 100% or some portion thereof. for example. split between the two major projects.
Would that be acceptable. you think. to the Select Board. or they blame us for just kicking the can down the road? Carol Martin: I think that the board needs to present the recommendation that you have come to as a committee. That doesn't mean that after we have a discussion on the second. you might not go back and have you know. as more information is available and more discussion takes place. that you might not change or tweak your your recommendation. I think that the hybrid IT to Tom's point is. if you were able to split that into just me. me speaking. by the way. just me personally. if you were to split along the lines where you know you have the capital at you know. the assets and being requested to be funded through the real estate. and then the the other parts of the project going through the water rates. that seemed to make a nice split if you went that route. So. but basically. I think what you're saying is that you're pretty much in agreement that you feel you would like to request from the Select Board. if I heard you correctly. some support through the general fund. and that you're asking the Select Board to take on some portion thereof. So we probably would then come back and say. what percent or dollar amount are you thinking? That's probably a better question. I mean. I know the chair. I think that's what that chair would ask you. George Uveges: Okay. if we came back. let me just work off of that and went to that five. 9c or whatever it is that Mike sent out. where the Select Board will make a decision that we would advise. we would recommend that that approach be used versus going for a vote for tax exempt for the whole period. and that while they could be reexamined in 29 we would recommend that 100% of the rate be subsidized by real estate taxes. recognizing that at that point in time. the Select Board may decide to split it. because it's really Select Board decision. At that point. Carol Martin: it is. um. we revised the questions. and the first one was. who makes the decision. and we haven't sent it out yet. We're going to revise it. call and send it to you for your meeting for next week. But the first question now. who makes the responsibility? Has responsibility making the decision. and it is the Select Board. with input from the town administrator. the finance director and town council. And of course. then we would seek recommendations before we got to that point. from Finance Committee. and obviously for the Public Works making the ask. So that's you're right. I mean. we don't really need to have this. George Uveges: Well. you want you. you've asked us to have it to you by September 2. for September 2. right? So I think Carol Martin: you need to have some recommendation that you want to put forth. whether it's the you're asking for the full amount. or. you know. you're going to split it out. or what you're going to do. Well. by going. we'll help the Finance Committee as well when they have the discussion. George Uveges: Well. if we. Do the 50 9c or whatever it is. where the Select Board decides what percentage we can recommend that it be 100% recognizing that it's their preview. preview or preview. to set that percentage true. Carol Martin: Okay. there was we want to base it on some facts. you see. so we would. we'd say. you know. 100% is what the 35 million and then. so we probably need some dollar amounts attached to that percent. George Uveges: Well. my guess is that you're probably not actually going to do it based on some kind of reasonable split. But what you think you can afford in the real estate taxes. Carol Martin: that certainly. in my opinion. would be a consideration. yep. because we are looking at operating overrides and a few other things. but this is a big project that needs to be funded. and that is very much on our
proverbial radar screen. George Uveges: Okay. all right. let me do this. I would like a motion to recommend to select board that we use the whatever it is. 50 9c where they set the percentage to be subsidized.
Yeah. 5920 1c authorize the board to vote to add water and sewer debt service cost to levy or levy ceiling for the life of the debt. as long as they don't reduce it. And make that our recommendation. and then we can. I will change this up somewhat to mirror that. I'll have Tom send it out for your comments. Back to Tom only not to me. so we can finalize it. Major changes. I've got to get the town Billings and add the average water rate increase versus tax. Can I get a motion to that effect? Judy Haun-Ping Ling: So moved. George Uveges: second. seconded. all right. Judy makes the motion and Mike. seconds. I second. okay. Can we get a vote now? Get a roll call vote? Ed. yes or no. yeah. yes. Judy. yes. Mike. yes. George. yes. Okay. so that's finished. and then I'll get this out tomorrow. If you could get it put together. get comments back to Tom. if you have. if I missed something. and Tom can get? Can you give me that information? Tomorrow? Tom Holder: I will strive to do that.
George Uveges: That's best I'm going to get. So I'll accept that. Carol Martin: I like that answer. Mr. Chair. yes. Thank you. Before you go off this topic with the holiday and what have you. the deadline for the Select Board packet. I'm guessing. is probably next Wednesday. So the because the packet and the Select Board will probably go out Thursday. but I believe we usually ask for stuff Wednesday. and you need to send that to Jailyn Bratica. so George Uveges: as Tom said. I'll do my best. Carol Martin: You'll miss the packet. It won't work. Won't be too good. George Uveges: Tell me you've never had a supplemental packet. Carol Martin: not for something this Unknown: big. Oh yes. you did anyway. Carol Martin: And Tom probably can confirm with with Jailyn. but I think it's next Wednesday. Okay?
George Uveges: We'll do what we can till I get that information and we got to give my board some time to look at it and come back. Okay. because we can always just deliver it at the meeting. I don't have to supply it in advance. I correct. No. okay. next. next agenda item is the update on the State Revolving Fund loan program and where we stand in terms of the project evaluation form. Samil. Tom Holder: yeah. so the PEF. the project evaluation form that was submitted on time. was a July 25 deadline on that. So that is in we made that deadline. So this project will be considered for the SRF loan. I know there's been a lot of talk. a lot of questions about. you know. what are the terms and conditions of an SRF loan? They're generally a 20 year term. We know that because this project is a result of achieving PFAS mitigation. that we are eligible for a zero interest loan on this the question was asked the. That if we wanted to have a term that was longer than 20 years. what would the interest rate be? And I was. I. you know. I asked my SRF contact. and he said it would not be zero. It would be something higher than zero. But he wasn't able to give me a definitive answer. What I'm working on doing is having that gentleman. guy named Greg Devine. and have him attend one of our meetings. whether it be a joint meeting on September 2. if it's allowable. and I can get him to join us for a 10 Minute. you know. and include that in our conversation. Great. If that's not doable. I could have him attend another meeting. you know. the Board of Public Works. and we can ask him these questions. and he can respond directly to us. So that's my intent is. so that decision makers can hear directly from him. and I'll obviously pass along the questions ahead of time. so he can come prepared. But that's my intent.
George Uveges: Okay. do we know when they're going to come back to us with an acceptance and all the details? Tom Holder: It's not till later in the fall. They actually come out with what they call an intended use plan. an IUP. and the projects are then named on that and then in March. So that would be March of 26 they come out with a formal list. and there's. there's no reason to believe that we would not be accepted on that list. What we're doing falls right within the spirit of the Sloan program. And I. you know. I spoke to Greg Devine. you know about the scale. the magnitude of the figure. and he was not concerned. George Uveges: Okay. that cuts it up pretty close to the town meeting. though. town meeting. Carol is in April. Unknown: May 4. No. thank you. George Uveges: Okay. so it gives us a little bit of time. just in case we have to work around something. Okay. Questions by anybody here? Carol Martin: Tom. excuse me. Mr. Chair is one George Uveges: second. Tom. could you quit screen sharing please? Tom Holder: Oh. sure. yeah.
Carol Martin: Go ahead. Carol. I'm sorry. a little off the wall question. Mr. Chair. is it possible to have like a split on the loan? In other words. you borrow so much at 0% for 20 years and then you borrow a longer term. there's a interest rate on it. Tom Holder: I could ask that question. yeah. Carol Martin: yeah. yeah. Because I mean obviously paying interest costs us more. spreading it over more year multiple years reduces our annual commitment. George Uveges: That would depend on the interest rate. right? Exactly? So I'm just curious. yeah. especially if the by they would charge you the interest rate on the total loan amount. not just what you split. which is probably most likely. Carol Martin: right. That's why I'm asking these questions. and Tom feel free to invite him for the second. Tom Holder: Oh. okay. if Thank you. If I can send Carol Martin: a note to Jailyn and myself that so we will get it on the agenda. Great. great. George Uveges: Thank you. Okay. anybody have anything else on this before we move on? Okay? Ami. project. Tom Holder: Yeah. So the update on this is that as of a week ago. we were 86% through the project. and we're measuring that by the number of meters installed. the number of transmitters installed. So we. out of the. you know. 5100 meters that we have in projects entirety is 4473 have been installed and are sending a signal. So it was reported to us that it was expected that we would receive. you know. substantial completion by September. October. with complete project date. by the end of the calendar year. So we're. we're working toward achieving that goal. If the analogy can be used that. you know. at the beginning of a project. middle project. the meters that are the easiest to install. the employments that are the easiest to make. are the ones that are done. There are always those households that it's been difficult to schedule appointments with. So as we get down towards the the latter part of the project. It may take a little bit more to secure appointments and get this work completed. but every town does this. and every town completes projects. so we will get there as well. George Uveges: And Tom and I have had a discussion. The meters are one. Part of the process. the software is the second part. And that's what he and I have been talking about in terms of when. when that software is going to be up and running to a provide the benefits that we've told people. and B to allow me to get to quarterly billing. Because. again. that is a nice revenue boost. It's a one time. but it brings revenue forward. So can you speak to that at all? Tom. Tom Holder: yeah. I mean. I can say that we're having conversations with the vendor. because now that we're. you know. nearing the completion of the project. we're now able to tackle some of the software issues. components of the project. we're committed to having customer portals where each of the customers are able to sign into a dashboard and be able to see all of their information. We will have alarms set up that notify us of high usage. high consumption. so that we're able to reach out to customers and let them know that they have a. you know. likely have a leak things along that. those lines. And then the quarterly billing. well. you know. we need to convert to that from our current semi annual process. So we will be doing that. And. you know. I was. I was saying. as far as the quarterly billing. I think a practical goal would be to roll that out January one of 26 but I do understand that the sooner that we can do this. the sooner that we get that initial revenue and the cash flow. so to speak. So we'll work to do it as quick as we can. But I and just knowing how. you know. it's been putting these things together and getting them to work that it may indeed be the first or the third. third quarter of fiscal 26 George Uveges: Yeah. early in the third quarter is not terrible. but past. you know. past the first month or so of the third quarter. starts to reduce the amount of benefit you're going to get from the quarterly Billings. So January one. If we can keep that as a target. I think that would be the best. And as you can tell. Tom and I have had this conversation several times. Okay? Any questions on that?
Unknown: No. Good job. Tom. okay. thank you. Okay. George Uveges: And Carl. that should also help you FinCom as they look at some of the things that we're trying to do to get that revenue pull forward. Yep. appreciate that. Okay. transfer station. evaluation. Everybody got a copy of the request for RFQ. Request for. quote. if you remember. we've got money that was left from the Select Board in order to be able to have the money to cover this. and so everybody. hopefully has had a chance to review it. I've got some questions that I'm sure you do too. So I was going to go section by section. That's all right with people? Yep. Okay. so everybody have that in front of them? Do we need to put it
Tom Holder: up. All right. I'm going to defer to Joe. because I didn't. I don't have this in my local server here. I think Joe would be able to do that. and I can enable Joe to i
Oh. he started beautiful. There we are. George Uveges: There's no way we can make that bigger. huh?
Joe Doucette: Not that I'm aware. Well. you know what? I'll try. How's that? Tom Holder: There we go. Just scroll the mouse. just like you're doing. Okay.
George Uveges: introduction. Anybody have questions or changes to the introduction? Okay. I have one I would add to that. and I would add at the end of that last sentence. something that says. like. and how town wide trash pickup can be interfaced with the town's transfer station. Because I think. you know. a lot of people are very tied to the transfer station. and I think as much inner connection of the project with the improvements in the transfer station and the funding would be helpful. You okay with that? Joe. yep. yep. yep. making notes. Okay. Background section. Anybody have anything?
I'm sorry I can't hear whoever that is. I
Tom Holder: think that might have just been background. Joe Doucette: Okay. might be in the ski anywhere else. Okay. George Uveges: one thing I have on that second page. the first section. it talks about that you perform service. single stream recycling at all municipal buildings. parks and athletics fields. performed every Wednesday. Do we build for this. or do they build based on what we collect? How is that built?
Joe Doucette: To best my knowledge. we not bill we. at one point. discussed it. It wasn't a substantial amount of money. I think we figured out a ton and tonnage. and it really wasn't enough for us to really get concerned over George Uveges: well. but the tonnage is not as much as the fact that you're using the transfer station people to do the collection Joe Doucette: correct. But we also made an agreement when we used capital Carol Martin: transfer station thing. Now they've gone through the topics we need. so this actually saves me a call to you tomorrow. I can tell you what they're going to recommend George Uveges: tomorrow. Darryl. we're here. You're listening.
okay? Tom Holder: And some of these things just to mention. right? A year or so ago. we were asked to try to quantify. put a price. a cost. to some of the services that we provided town wide. and this was one of the items. I don't have it in front of me. but we actually did have a cost. you know. associated with providing that Wednesday service. George Uveges: Okay? I would. and this say the service is performed every Wednesday. but when staff at Town Packer truck at no cost to the town. okay. But I think is. you know. we're going to go back with the with Carl's group. about the $50.000 supplement we have. And I know that we in the package last time we had a list of all the services that we performed that we don't bill for. And again. I think we need to keep that out in front of people. Okay? And at the bottom of that section two. I would add another bullet point that says how the two services can support each other. I
Good for you. Does anybody have anything else to section two.
right? Section three. let's. let's talk about that. Carol. can you mute yourself. please? Something Carol Martin: I don't know you're telling me what you Tom. You might have Tom Holder: to let me give her a ring. Hang on one second. What? Here we go. George Uveges: Okay. Anybody have any changes to section three? Excuse me. Were you looking for me? No. you you were drowning us out. Oh. okay. anybody have changes to section three? I've got one under the recommendations. I would add recommend how the existing transfer station and related options can be best utilized.
Joe. can you live with that? Judy Haun-Ping Ling: Yeah. absolutely. George. I have a question. Yes. we recently heard about grants or reducing operating costs using solar panels or something like that. Maybe also recommend on the recommendations to see if there's grants such as that that we could apply George Uveges: for. Well. the only problem with the transportation. if you remember. like meeting or two meetings back the town does not allow ground based solar panels. so that only only on roof. is what you're saying. Yeah. that's what my understanding. Now. I think if. if we want to look at that. I wouldn't be using these folks. but Joe should talk to the solar committee and see if there's anything that we could do to subsidize or use panels. because I made the thought process of putting in a large solar field and taking that revenue to partially subsidize the trans. Station. and I was told. nice thought. no can do I have no problem in revisiting that.
especially if there's some grants available. right or or the town may just want to change that requirement for vacant land. whether it be here or the route 20 landfill Judy Haun-Ping Ling: is that? Is that a requirement something from the Conservation Commission who issues that? George Uveges: I have no idea. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: Yeah. maybe we can petition to have it change. Tom Holder: So ask that question one more time. Judy. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: it sounds like the town does not allow land or ground based solar panels. so we can't have a solar farm. for example. and take that revenue stream. So it's like kind of weird that we have. I don't know why. Why are we not? George Uveges: I think it's because they don't want to see those spring up across the town. Tom Holder: Well. we did have a presentation made. I don't know. Time goes by so quickly. Nine months ago. Abby chute was on with Mike Faia. and I think that they had tie and bond. Was the engineer that they had. and they came before the Board of Public Works. and we're talking about ground based solar. it would likely be limited on the transfer stations that the landfill that's there. And I think. I think the board. you know. requested of them to to come back at some point. or whatever. with some more information. There was a bunch of questions that were asked. So I do know that they've solicited tie and bond. to do more work and to provide some information to them. So I I expect them to be coming back at some point to this board with more answers to to the questions. George Uveges: Can we push them on that squeaky wheel gets the grease. otherwise you don't hear anything. Tom Holder: How do I say I can strive to do that?
George Uveges: I didn't say you're going to be successful. I said we could try. Tom Holder: Yeah. I think that they are very interested in advancing that project as well. So. but I'll reach out to Abby chute. Okay. George Uveges: anybody have any other changes on this no. okay. can I have a motion to accept the request for qualification and have Tom send it out? So move. Judy. move Second. Seconded. Mike. second. all right. Ed. yes. Mike. yes. Judy. yes. George. yes. I'm sorry. I gotta be very specific with the roll call so I don't get in trouble again. Tom Holder: I just want to take a moment to give credit to Joe. He's He's taken us on. and it's not something that we're we're all that familiar with. So I just want to give Joe a shout out that he put this together. and it's. it's turning out quite nice. George Uveges: Thank you. Thank you. Joe. No problem. First show we when. when this does go out. would you please copy the board?
Tom Holder: What we're going to need to do is as a matter of the review process. there's a selection committee. and it's generally 234. members. We actually create a rating sheet. because some of the terminology that's used is. you know. highly advantageous. moderately advantageous. least advantageous. So you're going to get some firms that are all going to submit their qualifications. and they'll this. this selection committee. small group of folks. or whatever. will actually review the the actual deliverable. you know. the the submittal that they give. we can elect to actually hold interviews. You know. shortlist it. hold interviews. So when this goes out. I'm not sure if you wanted to solicit interest currently with the board members. if there's others in town that you feel that would be. you know. a practical member. but that would be the next step is to create a selection committee. Okay.
George Uveges: I can see everybody's hopping up to volunteer. just like our next topic. just a thought. Do you think Cliff Lewis. with his background. would be helpful for this?
Tom Holder: Yeah. he would certainly be qualified. you know. to make that determination. And I know he generally shows interest in public works issues. so I would have no. no problem with that. I think he would be a fine candidate. George Uveges: right? Do we may need to make that decision now. or is. Add something for a little bit down the road. No. Tom Holder: we could. No. we can. I mean. we're gonna. we're gonna wordsmith this a little bit. It'll take a little bit of time we have to go through the procurement office or whatever to actually. you know. get this thing out. Generally. you give two. three weeks. four weeks for responses. So we could make this a September meeting agenda item to select a George Uveges: committee. Not not nine two. but the later. not Tom Holder: Yeah. the 16th. or whatever. I think. yeah. yep. and George Uveges: Carl. you know. finance committee might want to have somebody party to that. since they are the drivers of the transfer station subsidy. Carl Barnes: I agree. and we'd be happy to happy to be involved. George Uveges: Okay. good. Thank you. All right. anything else on the transfer station?
Joe Doucette: I can update you on the figures if George Uveges: you want. Oh. please do Joe Doucette: so. As of today. full stickers. we're at what's the 1027 year to date? Last year was about 1376 we're down approximately about 25% I have a feeling it's going to follow the same trend and be somewhere between 10 and 15% by the end of the year. but that's where we are currently.
George Uveges: That's too bad. and there was not a significant price increase. especially if you're using a credit card. right. correct? No. okay. but he have any thoughts to that Mike was running a marketing campaign. not Mike Spellman. but Mike wake him our that doesn't seem to have paid much to stem the flow.
Judy Haun-Ping Ling: Maybe around Christmas. have a throw your Christmas tree away. The Tom Holder: schools. the schools do that. We actually. we actually take them. yep. George Uveges: you take them out to a goat farm somewhere. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: Yeah. but do we charge them for it? Tom Holder: We actually. they make it. they make a donation. Jody. yep.
Joe Doucette: they do it. Okay. fundraiser. And we. we kind of assist a little in that. but we do. we do charge them. Okay. all
George Uveges: right. anything else on transfer station? Thank you. Joe. you will all right. Annual Report draft. I asked for volunteers. and everybody's hands disappeared. so I had to do a first draft on this. So please be gentle. I did the best I could. and Mike has. I'm sorry Tom has gone through and added some things where I was not smart enough to know what we did. So hopefully everybody has had a chance to review this. and this is due in the end of September. I wanted to do a first read here. and then our mid September and your report get it approved. So I just like to get comments from anybody or things that you think we should add. We'll go through it quickly. Judy. have any changes? No? Mike. nope. Not at all. Unknown: Ed. no. George Uveges: okay. the only change that I have is that the on page one. the last bullet point. I don't think it should be 5100 we're installed in physical 25 I think it was actually like 3900 or 77% based on your chart? Tom Holder: Yeah. Some were. some were fiscal 25 some are fiscal 26 George Uveges: Well. this says we're installed by. I guess that should be the end of fiscal 25 Tom Holder: Yeah. yeah. So I. I know what the June report showed. George Uveges: 70 77%
Tom Holder: Yeah. So whatever that meter number was. George Uveges: yeah. 30. 3900 roughly. Oh. there we go. Okay. fine. Anything else I can do for you? Tom Holder: You're right on top of things. George Uveges: only because you showed me that someplace else with the Dor. Okay. that's the only change that I have? So please take another look and Tom if your people can go through and see if there's anything that we should add so we can just vote approval. Or do you think we can based on the comments? Do you think we're going to add anything? Should we just go with what we have? Have Tom Holder: it's a strong option. Yeah. George Uveges: Judy. want to vote it tonight. Put it to bed tonight.
Michael Spelman: You guys come forward with it. I'm fine with George Uveges: that. Okay. can I have a motion to accept? So moved? Judy moves second. second. second by Mike. roll call. vote. Ed. you have to speak up. Yes. Okay. Mike. yes. Judy. yes. George. yes. 400. Tom. do we get a reward if we get the first one in.
Tom Holder: you can was I already have ours in? Unknown: Okay. Tom Holder: not really. No. we ours is pretty extensive. so we're still working on it. George Uveges: Yeah. we're a little short on words. By the way. that 77% comes from your August 13 memo. Okay. okay. okay. so that's approved. Okay. next topic. board member concerns. Do we have any board member concerns? Judy. are we in a grout Unknown: we are Judy Haun-Ping Ling: Yes. Is it official now. or is it Tom Holder: like I think Don if he were here and he's he's not here only because he worked the overnight on those two main breaks. and he left. he asked me for a pass. and I gave it to him. but he follows very closely Massachusetts drought management task force. They have periodic updates. and I don't know the status. The last time that we met. things were. we were not in a. in a in a drought. but since that time frame. we monitor. as part of our water management act. we actually monitor river levels. and it's it's demonstrating at some of the lowest that I've ever seen. So I don't know the exact category that we're in. but we are. you know. in a drought. and where we have that restriction. that ban. in place for two reasons. One is as part of our water management act permit we have to implement when that stream gage gets to a particular threshold. But also we were having our equipment was under tremendous strain and trying to keep the tank at an adequate level. And Don had requested at a meeting or two. delegated authority to implement. you know. a full water band. which is what we are currently in. So yes. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: how is our equipment now? Is it still having issues? Tom Holder: Yeah. so the primary problem is at Baldwin pond. and I know I've reported before. we have two membrane skids. two membrane units. and one of which is not operating correctly. Membranes were replaced years ago. They were they were made specifically for us. They no longer make the type of membranes that we use. and so that we are. in essence. operating at about two thirds capacity at Baldwin pond we were anticipating doing a change out on the happy hollow the PFAS treatment system. We're going to be changing the plastic pipe to welded steel. We've deferred that. but even considering that the equipment is requires a lot of attention and requires a lot of effort to keep it so that it's providing. you know. the water that we need. but it's. it's. it needs a lot of attention. I think that's the. probably the most accurate way to categorize it. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: And one last question. George Uveges: well before you go off of that. Judy. I think again. we have to remind people. as we talk about this dual source program. this is the risk that we run if some of this. you know. has more problems. Let's put it that Judy Haun-Ping Ling: way. right. I was just wondering when. when do we have to make the decision as to whether or not we need to purchase emergency water supply from MWRA. like we did last year. Tom Holder: So we can do it instantaneously. And we will do that. you know. if. if something were to happen whereby Baldwin pond happy hollow was not providing adequate. adequate water. we weren't able to keep the tank at a proper level. We were experiencing low pressures. and all of that. we can activate that connection immediately. And then what we do is. if there's time. we notify the DEP. what they do is they actually make an emergency declaration for us. The MWRA. MWRA requires. There's that emergency declaration for us to exercise and activate that plant. but if it's two o'clock in the morning. we'll activate it on our own. and the following morning notify the authorities and get that that that approval. Judy Haun-Ping Ling: Okay. Thank you. Yep. George Uveges: Good questions. Any other concerns like Ed Michael Spelman: just after watching the Select Board meeting from August 4. it did get picked up on a couple bits of maybe misinformation. You know. they were. they were discussing getting maybe a third party to investigate if there was another solution for for this. And in some of their discussions they were. they had. I think they were just brainstorming about whether they could reopen one of the other wells or retrofit one of the other wells. They was a little concerned that they they weren't. and maybe it's not their job. They're not supposed to be educated on some of these things. And maybe we should ever represent representative there with some of their things. I know Carol's our liaison with their but. and then I'm trying to remember the. oh. there's another one where they they were discussing the possibility of just going to 100% MWRA. which is also something we can't do. So I was a little concerned about that. George Uveges: Yeah. Carol and I have had this discussion about this. and you are correct. Unfortunately. I think they either have selective memory or are using things to drive where they want the bus to go. and that is one of the things we will try and correct on September 2. And also in terms of just our general discussion at that meeting. I mean. they were looking for something in writing. but the inner base and Transfer Act spells it out. and Tom and I have talked that the bureaucracy that we have in the state is never going to issue something on question without having it in writing and detailed out so they don't get caught with A Oh. what you said. kind of play. So well. we'll work on that. I mean. we've told them a number of times what the issues are. and it's also in that question and answer that we published. So. I mean. yeah.
what can I tell you. just like this third party review that they're going to be doing or working on. I mean. that's. you know. Carol plum called me. and I said. I can't comment. She said. Don't you think it's a little late that. you know. the horse is out of the barn. And I said. you know. I can't comment. yeah. but I can see where you're coming from. Michael Spelman: Yeah. If that's the Select Board that that's not knowledgeable. we have to do a we have to do a better job at notifying that the everybody else these hard facts that we're coming up against. George Uveges: Yep. And if you remember the discussion we had at the LS town meeting about the dual source. we went through all that also. So. yeah. fair. Okay. But you. you are. you are 100% correct. We have to keep you know I'm going to tell you what I'm going to tell you. I'm going to tell you that. I'm going to tell you what I just told you. Okay. anything any other board member concerns? Okay. minutes. So anybody have each I have one problem with the minutes. But does anybody have any changes that they would like to make before I get into that? None here. no. Ed. no. okay. if you go to page four. okay. the under the transfer station. it says that I asked if these water. these items included encumbrances. And Tom. you advised Yes. but then in subsequent discussions with Brian. principally on the water. but also then transportation carries over. If you remember. encumbrances are normally not part of the expenses. Okay? And yet. here it says that they're advised they do. but I'm not sure that was a correct answer. Where. where it's under transfer station. The last sentence Tom Holder: holder advised sticker sales for June. He commented that these figures don't necessarily capture the full picture.
George Uveges: Yeah. it says you read just ask where these figures. both for water and transfer station included encumbrances.
Unknown: japa. Yeah. Ma. Tom Holder: I could not find this. George. George Uveges: it's it says if board member concerns transfer station evaluation. water fund. transfer station fund revenue versus expenses. Tom Holder: I got you. I got you. Okay. now I see it. yep. Ray. just asked whether these figures both for water in the transfer station included encumbrances. All right. there's. well. there's two possibilities. One is. I did indeed say yes they do. and I had it incorrect. I guess one way or the other. I mean. the minutes are really the purpose of the Minister to reflect what was actually said.
George Uveges: I have no problem just taking that sentence out. Yeah. yeah. Is everybody okay with that?
Unknown: Yes. yeah. George Uveges: misinterpretation. yep. yep. okay. so you can take that out. Got it? We don't need additional confusion. Unknown: All right. agreed. All
George Uveges: right. can I have a motion to accept the minutes. please? So moved. Mike moved second. second. Judy second. Roll call vote. Ed. yes. Mike. yes. Judy. yes. George. yes. pass. 400. okay. Next meeting dates are set. Hopefully everybody Mark goes in your calendar. so if we have a conflict. we can see about moving them or what we can do. All right. topics not reasonably anticipated. Anybody have anything? Tom Holder: I've just got one quick one. I could have done it under announcements. Didn't think of it at the time. But so on Thursday. at noon. we're having our annual. what we call a summer Sizzler. It's a training program. training event whereby we also have refreshments. food. lunch. So any anybody that would be interested in joining us. we'd love to have you there. It's it's at the DEP W facility at 66 River Road. noonish on Thursday. George Uveges: And I've been a couple of these. and it's worthwhile in terms of just being able to be with the people and showing your face. yeah. and showing their we appreciate what they do. because they're a hard working group. Tom Holder: Is that the 21st or 28th 21st this? Yes. two days at noon. Okay. yep. love. love to see you. You Yes. Okay. George Uveges: any other topics? Can I have a motion to adjourn. please? So moved Judy. moved Mike second. Can I roll call vote? Ed. yes. Mike. yes. Judy. yes. George. yes. approved 400. thank you very much. We got you done before your eight o'clock. Mike. Michael Spelman: thank you very much. Appreciate it. George Uveges: All right. April. take care. Michael Spelman: All right. Enjoy the like summer. Bye. Nice. They help. I will.