January 6, 2026 – Board of Public Works – Video & Transcript
January 6, 2026 - Board of Public Works
I want to call the meeting to order and read the required information.
The location for this meeting may be recorded, and if recorded, it will be made available to the public on WACAM as soon as possible after the meeting.
The public will be excluded from executive sessions pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 2025.
The meeting will be conducted in person and or via remote access, remote access in our case, in accordance with the applicable law.
If this meeting has remote only access, no in-person attendance by members of the public will be permitted.
If this meeting has remote access, one may watch or participate remotely with the meeting that can be found at,
and then there's a link for Wayland Mass public body meeting information, virtual, in-person, and hybrid.
When required by law or allowed by the chair, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so
at the meeting location, in-person, or remote as applicable.
Public comments shall be limited to two minutes per person.
Okay, the agenda has been sent out.
We'll start with any opening remarks and roll call.
Let's do a roll call.
Mike Spelman?
Here.
Mike Wagenbauer?
Here.
Judy?
Shoot.
Judy, I have to say you something.
Here.
Can you hear me?
Okay.
Yes.
And is Ed here?
Yes.
Okay.
Very good.
Thank you, Ed.
And I am here.
I cannot show my face, but.
Okay.
As long as we can hear your beautiful voice, we're all set.
Yeah.
Okay.
Any opening remarks by anybody?
Just a note, Tom, I see in the packet that we have an old version of the Warren article. I know there was a plug-in that we'd asked you to add. I'm not sure if you were able to do that. Yeah. So the, I think the version that, the version that was in the packet was the one that we had on Friday when the packet was put together, the one that you sent out Sunday was not, the packet was not amended. So, yeah. So we'll, we'll want to, you know, put that one up, obviously up on the screen tonight. And identify what the, what the differences are. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. I just wanted to ask you if you had sent out an updated version, because I only sent, the version I sent was only to you and I copied Judy just to add in those items requested before it went out. Has it, it hasn't gone out to the board yet? So I did not forward that to the board, no. Okay. Okay. So we'll have to go through the, on the screen and then make sure we get it posted out there. Okay. All right. Anything else in terms of remarks? All right. Any announcements?
Okay. Moving right along. Robbie, do we have anybody with their hand up for public comment? I see nobody with their hand raised. Okay. Very good. So we go, again, this is limited to the warrant in terms of the agenda. Plus, you know, the, uh, concerns, the, uh, minute, the agenda has the, uh, approval of the December 16th minutes. Those haven't gone out yet. So those will have to be pushed off to the next meeting. Correct. Okay. So let's talk, if you can put up on the screen then.
Do you have an updated version, Tom? Or I, yeah, I think I can do that. Bear with me one minute. I should be able to do that. Uh, share.
Yep. There it is.
Can we get that any larger by chance?
Um, single page, maybe. And of course, the, the zoom, the screen share icons are covering my entire, uh, bar here at the top. Let's see. How do I do this? Let's see if I can drag these things. Yep.
You want the, you don't, you want to make this larger? Well, it's, well, we'll just, you'll have to read us any of the changes where they're at, because I'm too old to be able to read that small over print, even with my bifocals.
Okay. Uh, any change in the, uh, one, two, and three section? We'll go paragraph by paragraph. And if anybody has a change that they want, please, uh, signify that. Uh, okay. In the background, first, first paragraph, second paragraph. I think one thing that should be, uh, okay. They've got, uh, this one has the line spacing corrected. That's good. Where is the first, anybody have any changes on the first page they want?
George, I think this is going to be tough because we didn't get this out to the board, this version to the board to review, uh, prior to this meeting. Well, I thought you said there were just a couple of changes from what you sent out on Friday.
Cause everybody has the one that went out on Friday. So this is only changes between Friday and Sunday.
Yeah. Okay. Those, those were only Tom's changes. The ones that went out on Friday. Okay. One more question. Did you have major changes between the Friday and this, between this version and what you, you are proposing?
Uh, they were, I can't say they were major in terms of content, but in terms of wording, um, uh, there's, there's some, some differences that, um, clarify or reorder. Um, so it, it would be hard for us to edit.
Well, the problem is we've got to turn this in. I mean, I, I wish that if you didn't get a copy from Tom, you would have sent it out today to the board. George, it's a challenging time of year. It's the second day of the year. And tell me about it. Okay. That, that doesn't help us. Uh, I'm trying to think what we can do. Uh, I can, well, can you, uh, the version we've worked on Tom, because maybe just read it out loud or something again, it's yeah. You really have to talk about what the changes are section by section, reading it to somebody is not going to do it. Um, can you send it out via email now so we can all get it? Tom, why don't we, uh, I can send out. Oh yeah. Tom, you can send out the version you have that I can share on my screen and Tom, maybe you can just tell me which paragraphs, uh, that I can highlight and we can go through those paragraphs because I changed essentially only the paragraphs, um, around the areas you had added content. Um, yeah, so let me, um, it's going to take me a second to, to, I'm going to, I'm going to stop sharing for one thing. Okay. Or then, yeah. Yeah, and in George, if you, uh, or someone, if you can look at the packet, tell me which paragraph to go to, um, I'll, I'll share what was changed there on screen. Well, just, just walk us through sections. Cause there's, uh, you know, I've got some very minor questions, but.
Okay. So Tom, I guess you'll take notes on what needs to change since I'll be sharing my screen and mine's not the latest version. Well, yours is the latest version, right? Okay. So what I sent it to Tom to, to add some items in before we sent it out. So what, what I, what I have here that I can share is the version that I, um, sent out that would, it would have been comparable to what's out there on Friday. My, uh, edits are in red. So I can, yeah, can you just, can you, uh, based on the edits in red and let, let me just say the only, the only items I had asked Tom to clarify where these highlights here, um, an estimated cost for replacing the current systems. Not, uh, not including any PFAS updates. So these highlighted items here on the screen, those are the only changes we had requested of Tom after we had gone through these. So I have that information. Okay, but before we get to that, can you just tell me the first paragraph where you had made changes in red, and I'll just highlight the new paragraph. Yeah, I can. So background information. Mm-hmm. I added in second sentence, allowable per and polyfluoroalkyl PFAS thresholds became more stringent in 2020, going from 70 parts per trillion to 20 parts per trillion. New regulations will cause that threshold to again be lowered to four parts per trillion in 2031. That's what I added. Okay, and so the updated paragraph is what's highlighted here. Okay, well, I'm trying to see. I can blow it up even more. No, that's okay. I'm just trying to see where it is in the, okay. It's the second, I'm sorry, it's the first paragraph starting with the second sentence. Okay, but that's something that is in the one that's in the packet. So everybody has seen that. No, it's reworded. That's what I'm saying. Anything that's in the packet for the most part has been reworded. So Carol had just recommended we add some background. This is some background on the regulations. Well, that, that wording is what was is in the packet. Yeah, that's word for word what is in the packet in red. Yeah. So that what I, what I put in red, Mike, is in Friday's packet. So the only, the only difference that I know of Friday and perhaps Sunday, I know you had sent me something Sunday evening that had those highlighted yellow. Okay. Which I've been working on. So perhaps the one in the packet is actually much more recent than, than you thought. Yeah. Okay. All right. So you highlighted in red the, the areas where I had changed the wording. Right. And if anybody's looking at the one in the packet, you can tell that difference in the, in the printout. Cause it's a little different font. And I can, I can, it only take me a moment. If you wanted to make this official, I can read my four changes, my four additions, just to make sure that it's in the, you know, in your version that you're looking at right now. Okay. Well, we'll just point them out as we go through, cause you should be able to see them because of the font difference. Okay. Okay. So what has happened now, you have moved, uh, some spaces that weren't there before they're now in there. Okay. And, uh, the next change is in the, with support. Yeah. So, um, the last sentence of that paragraph. The MWRA emergency connection currently in place can only be activated upon receiving, upon receiving an emergency declaration from mass DEP and is not permitted to be a regular source of water. Right. Not an emergency source. Right. Yeah. So I guess that should be upon receiving, not received. This is receipt upon receipt. Oh, of an emergency. Yeah. So this is the updated language. Okay. So I'm not sure what's in the packet. That is what's in the packet. This, this right here? Yeah. Oh, good. Okay. So then you're right. The only difference between what's in the packet and the current version is the- The yellow. The yellow highlighted area down there. Okay. Let's go down there so quickly. Okay. Go to the top of the next page, which I have, anybody have anything on that page? I start where, where it talks about through 2023 to 2025. The last updated 12-31-2025, correct? Or should that be like 1-2-2026 or something? Mm-hmm. Just, I'm trying to find the, okay, that's there at the 2023 mission. Okay. You see on that line where it says through 2023 and 25? Mm-hmm. I think you're saying that, and I agree, that should say something more like, instead of and, through 2023 to 2025, or is it just the two meetings? It's because of those two meetings, or that's where the appropriations were made in those two meetings. Okay. So it should be then, instead of through, because I think it was a sequence of time. Maybe it should say at. Okay. Between? So at the 2023 and 2025 town meeting. No. Meetings. Plural. Yep. That doesn't make sense either, but. Yeah. Because it says at those two meetings, appropriations coupled. Yeah. The, it's the, the noun is town meeting appropriations, not town meeting. So, um, we'll have to adjust that a little bit. At the 2023 and 2025 annual town meetings. Well, we didn't say the, the appropriations. Appropriations were made that coupled with the American risk rescue act funding. So appropriations were made. Um. Could you just substitute the word through with the, the 2023 and 2025 town meeting appropriations coupled with American Bubba. Yeah. Works for me. Yeah. Good. Judy. That's good. Okay. Don't fall asleep. I see you yawning. Come on. Okay. Uh, the next change that was highlighted is the section of such upon approval. Mm hmm. So that, that was in there. Okay. From the prior time. Then, uh, I've won two sources that two paragraphs that says dual source. Yeah. Uh, the third line should read for up to 100% of demand if required instead of as required. Oh, yeah. I think they mean the same thing, but I'm fine with either. Yeah. If is clear. Yeah. I would go with if. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Next paragraph. I had anybody have any other questions before we go to the next paragraph. Just confirming Tom, you're making these edits in your version, correct? I can. I'm, I'm making notes. I mean, if you're able to do it live, if you've got that, or is that just a PDF you're showing? No, no. I just don't have the latest version you do. Okay. Right. Because you've updated this section here. Yep. Yep. So I, I am making notes of all of this. Okay. So you're just changing through to the. Yep. As to if. As to if. Yep. Okay. In the next section. Wait, wait, wait. So it says last updated down there as a footer 12, 31, 20, 25. Yeah. You know, this was a footer that was, I think the, um, footer for the template. I updated it. I updated that. Um, but it, it previously said like 2022 or something like that, or 2020. So. I can, I can change to one, six, 26. Sounds good. Okay. Where we say the additional, that paragraph. Yep. Uh, where it says has been receiving stopgap repairs. Should we say expensive? And then can we specify the dollar amount in 26. That we're spent. We spent to date. If we have that. Um. I would. Yeah. I would put something like this in parentheses. Um. Hmm. 476. Okay. And. And. 20, 25. Alone. Something. Like this, Tom. Yep. Yep. Well, there's a 475 include. Uh. George. That's just a placeholder for Tom. Okay. So that's not the correct amount. Correct. I don't know what that would be. Yeah. All right. So yeah. Tom, we'll have to fill in that amount. Just so it doesn't pop up. And I guess the question is. If we say 25. That people will think calendar. Or last year. Versus, you know, giving the time. You know, January to June. Or whatever it is. Or. June to December. Something like that. But yeah. If you want to. If you want to. Continue with what you're doing, Mike. Because I'm taking notes. And I'll have you at the end of the meeting tonight. Send me what you're doing. And between the two of those. I'll make certain. I know I've. I've made the changes. Okay. Just. We have to be careful with dates. When you say like physical 25. Because remember, this is going to be. Being read in what? April. The town meeting. Yeah. So that'll. What Mike is referencing. I'm actually going to say it's FY 26. Well, but again, you have to. You're going to have to give a time sequence. Because this will be read three months later. And you may have other expenses. So I would say like. Blank to blank. Because if you just give the physical year. They don't know through what month. Because when this is actually going to be published. I think if we give a significant number there. That will. Accomplish what you're looking to accomplish. I don't think people are going to look in. And measure up timing. And all that. Just be careful. Because again. I would say fiscal year 25 to date. That they won't know to date is what. I just be careful. Because if we then have in our. In our discussion. A different number. When you're making the spiel. You're going to confuse people. So that's why it should be like. You know six. First six months of 25. Or whatever that case may be. Thank you. Got it. Okay. Anybody have a change on the. Where's the PFAS related. Comment you have. You want to make. This here. So as a side note. The estimated cost. To replace the deteriorating water infrastructure systems. Currently in place. Including pumps. And the existing non PFAS related treatment systems. Is estimated to range between X and Y. But without. I understand what you're trying to get to. But without the PFAS cost. Mm-hmm. What. You know what. You're going to give somebody the impression. That that's an alternative. So the point. The point. The point. Judy brought this up. Was to. Say that. If we don't. Move forward with this. There's still going to be a cost. To upgrade. All of our existing systems. Let's say. The regulations go away. And. All of a sudden. There are no regulations. That we have to comply with. Even in that case. We're going to have to replace. Most of our. Existing systems. And there's a cost to that. I agree. But I don't think. Because it's in a floodplain. And has. Limited. Area. Scope. Okay. That it's going to imply. That there is an alternative. To do a non PFAS. Yeah. And I would. I would. You know. Agree with that. Is that. You know. I have the figures. I can offer them. But I think. If we put something like that. And we have to be very clear. That. It is. It's not an option. You know. I have no indicators. That the regulations. Are going to. Are not going to change. You know. This administration has been in. It's. It's been a year. Not talking about changing. Or. You know. Relieving anybody. Of the four parts. Per trillion. So I would be really concerned. About. Having a reader. Think. That. There's an alternative. To what we're proposing. And because of the land. And property restrictions. There is not. So. Well. The. There is. If there are no. PFAS. That there's no. PFAS equipment. That's the point. But I. Kind of agree with that. Judy. Are you okay. If we. Delete. This. In the article. Keep it. As backup. If folks. Come with the argument. So. Let me. Let me. Just try to explain. My thinking. So. I went to some party. And talked about. Long-term. Water supply. Some folks who are saying. Oh. You shouldn't worry about. This. Because. The PFAS regulations. Are going away. And I said. First off. I doubt that. And second off. Do you really want to. Take that. Health risk. But even. That aside. All of our facilities. Are at the end. Of a. Of their useful life. Is my understanding. And. And therefore. To upgrade. No matter what. So. I'm trying. To let people know. That it's not like. We're doing this. Just for PFAS. We're. We're doing this. Because of PFAS. And. We need to upgrade. Does. Does that make sense. It. It does. I understand. What you're saying. I mean. We. We are very tuned in. To this regulatory process. And. I would say. To that person. You were standing next to. Those regulations. Are not going to be relieved. If it. Goes away. We have zero. Things to do. We. We have. A lot of things. That still need to be done. And. I don't know. How to express that. Succinctly. Maybe. Just because. Go ahead George. I. I said. One of the things. We might say is. While the. Current. Plants. They're going to be closed. Do not have sufficient. Space. To. Address the PFAS. And equipment upgraded. The car. The estimated cost. Just. To. Replace. The equipment. Absent. PFAS. Is. X. Which. Would then have to. Have. Well. You can't. Because there's not even any room on the. On the spot to do. To do. PFAS there. I guess in theory. You could. Take. And pipe. To. Happy Hollow. PFAS. Treatment center. Which was an alternative. That we looked at. That was not. Practical. Or feasible. Yeah. I. I just think. We're. People are going to get latched on to it. A number is an alternative. And that's my fear. I second that. Yeah. I was going to say. Mike Spelman. You wanted to say something. Oh. I. If I was at that party. I would have said. Just because the regulations go away. And the PFAS is gone. Right. And do you. Really want your kids. Drinking that. You know. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Yeah. Do we. Do we. Do we really want to produce that. Yeah. Okay. I'm okay. Okay. So we'll. We'll just. We'll go. We'll have it. In our pocket. Because Tom. You can share on your screen. Probably what. What you had filled in the blanks with. But. We'll have that in our pocket. Just as a note. If we need it. But. Yeah. We don't want to sidetrack folks. Thinking that's an option. Yeah. And if asked at the town meeting. We can always say that. The cost to replace that equipment. Is X. But that's wasted money. Because. It doesn't provide you clean drinking water. Exactly. Yeah. We can ship you brown water. If you like. From some of the municipalities around us. All right. Are there any other changes. That anyone would like to make. If not. Then I'll. Ask Tom. Just to. At least we can look at those figures. So we know what they are. Yeah. In essence. What I can verbally. If you wanted to scroll. What was it. Oh, between. Yeah. Between X. And Y. It's between 16. 20 million. 20 million. And. The caveat to that. So that does not include PFAS. And that does not include. Replacing any wells. Some wells. At some locations. Are you know. Are 10 years old. So they. But what. I was looking at. Or. Looking to provide tonight. Was you know. This is a 25 to 50 year solution. That we're providing. We're asking for funding for. If this is a 25 to 50 year. You know. Alternative. We would be replacing wells. And. When you replace the wells. That figure doubles. So it would be 32 to 40 million. And what. What's the MWRA connection cost. 22. So what we could say. Is it is. As expensive. To. Replace the equipment in these two. Plants. Without. Including the PFAS treatment cost. As the MWRA connection. That's accurate. That's accurate. But I'm with you. I'm still. I don't want to open up that. Line of argument. Oh I'm not saying. We should put it in there. Okay. That was just a. Oh shit. That's a lot of money. Kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Cool. Yeah. Well said. That's a technical term. By the way. One used by the water division. Regularly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Bell trucks tonight. Yes. They're on their way in right now. Yeah. Okay. So I think. Did anyone else have any other. Updates here. And I would say that. We did share a draft with Carol and she. She had very positive things to say about where we're at with this. Okay. Okay. This isn't the final result anyway. But. Yeah. Carl. You still there somewhere. Yes. I am. From the finance side. You okay with this. And the arguments in favor and against. Um. Without committing yourself. I'm just asking if there's. Something you'd like to find. Comment on. No. I honestly have not read the document yet. Um. I've. Going through this last year. Not with your. Not with your group. But I. Went through. Multiple. Multiple drafts of. Articles. Before they're really ready. So. Um. I. I haven't. Really committed myself even to reading it yet. That said. Listening to this. And reading through the things that you're. Describing. It seems like it's an awfully good shape to me. Good. We appreciate that. But I'm sure you and. Uh. Pam. And your. Group of cohorts. Will. Will have a. Fine-tuned. Red pen. In your hand. Which we will exercise with. With discretion. And with your. Permission. Hey. Have been. Okay. Uh. Okay. All right. So. Between Tom. If you and Mike. Just agree. On those final wording changes. Can I get a motion to accept. This warrant. For submission. As modified. So moved. Mike. Second. First. Can I get a second. Yeah. Judy seconds. Roll call vote. Uh. Mike. Weimar. Aye. Mike Spelman. Aye. Is that a yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Judy Lynn. Yes. Uh. Ed. F. And George. Yes. So it's. Five zero zero. Okay. Uh. Just. Just. Just. Administrative. It sounds like I now have the latest version Tom that I can send to you. Um. Update. Update being. Uh. Uh. Required being that. Um. The fiscal year 25. Figure. Figure. Yeah. And I'm gonna use. Five. I mean I can. But. FY 26. Has been the expensive year. So. Right. I would be. Yeah. Okay. Good point. Okay. So. I'll. I'll just highlight the. Figure that needs to be updated for fiscal year 26. And it's a compromise. Can we just say the first six months of fiscal 26. Um. Yeah. I'm fine with that. First half. First. Either one. Yeah. Well. One thing. Can we point out. That. We. Don't have enough water to supply ourselves. So we have to connect into MWI anyway. Doesn't matter the water quality issue or not. Well. I think what. Um. What some people are thinking that is not the case. Or Tom. And per our understanding is that. The regulations might be lifted and. Uh. We could continue using our other locations or other. Locations without PFAS treatment. It's not the case, but. Um. And we don't expect. At all that that's going to be the case, but. Um. Um. That's what we were discussing. I understand what you're saying. And I'm trying. I'm just looking at the arguments in favor. Maybe the. Uh. What arguments in favor. The third one says. Additionally. The advancement of dual source water system will address the challenges. Of the town supplying the necessary water. And is currently. Experience. Which is compounded by. The currently experiencing. Deterioration of the aging treatment and production equipment. Somehow work the fact that. You know. Supply. Sufficient supply is an issue. I. I think it's there. But we can add to it. If you want. You see where I'm looking. I. Do. Yeah. Additionally, the advancement of this dual source system will address the challenges the town is currently experiencing with the deterioration of the aging treatment and production equipment. About the town's local water sources. I was wondering whether Ed was. Referencing the fact that. You. Your happy hollow can't produce. The town's entire demand during. You know. High demand periods and that we. That connecting to the MW or maybe I was misunderstanding him because I think. Okay. I. Yeah. I think that's what he's saying. But I. But I think we're. We've said that already. Right. We can't. Have we not said that. This is the best post cost effective option available, which allows the town to continue providing safe, regulatory, compliant, putable water via our existing infrastructure, particularly as an MWRA only system is not an option due to the Interbasin Transfer Act. Full requirement states here that. We can tap into MWRA as a secondary source for up to 100% of water demand. I either would just point out. Our own source were not adequate to meet maximum day plus fire. So something. To point out. To admit it. We don't have adequate water source. Well. I mean, I think we do. Currently. But we won't under the new regulations. Right. It requires a dual source. But I think what Ed's referring to is the fact that we have the water rationing or non use. So if I said the dual source option, which is required to meet. I'm not sure that changing that's going to be a little tricky. I understand what you're saying, Ed, and I'm trying to figure out how to fit that in here somehow. But inadequate production, instead of just production, water production, inadequate water production. How about if in the first paragraph where it says arguments in favor. The most effective available, which will allow the town to provide. Continue providing sufficient. Oh. Well, right now when people say we, we can't. To meet, meet demand and continue to provide safe regulatory. Because really what I think what Ed is talking about is demand. Right. Mm hmm. Under future regulations. Does this mean people. Does this. Will a dual source mean we will no longer have water bans in the summer? We will still be under the same or similar conservation protocols that we are faced with right now. So we, we make, we would be not because of drought situation, but because of needing to meet water accountability and gallon per capita per day consumption patterns. Okay. Because I don't want people to think that we do this and we never have water bans in the summer. Yeah. That's a good point. It is. And yeah, we've been talking a lot about that because you know, there was at one point we're thinking we could sell all kinds of water, but that's not the case. We're going to still have, you know, very stringent water conservation measures. And because of that, maybe we should just stay away from that whole thing about this quantity of the water. Yeah. Might be viewed as misleading. I tried. I tried this. This is the best, most cost effective option available, which allows the town to continue to meet 100% of demand and provide safe regulatory compliant. So I just added to meet 100% of demand in this argument and favor section. It's accurate. Should you move continue down? So say allows the town to meet 100% of demand and continue to provide. Yeah. So you have to add and continue. Yeah. Yeah. I think that does it. Yeah. Which allows the town to continue to provide safe. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. We already voted and approved this, so I'll take those as a friendly amendment. Please. Should we? I don't know if we have to revote. That's just a wording change. No, I don't think so. And more will be coming. We expect. So, okay. I'll update this, send it to you, Tom, just to cover this section here. And I had it in the first half of fiscal year 26 alone. So we'll just need this figure here. I will insert that. I will send it in to the town manager's office. I'll copy the membership so you'll see it go in. Great. Okay. Next item on the agenda is, and we're actually four minutes ahead. Any board member concerns? Question? Yep. Someone asked me if, you know, at the transfer station, I think one of the buildings has sand piled up there for the town use, I assume. Are townspeople allowed to take some of that if they need it? They would come to 66 River Road. We have a pile of sand there for residents. Okay. Yep. So just bring, bring a five gallon pail and there's a shovel there. So they're welcome to do that. We have people regularly come in to do that. All right. Thank you. But do it, do it at the DPW facility. Okay. During working hours. Right. When the gates open. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I have one concern. Don, or Tom, have you and Don figured out a time for that tree hearing? So that's actually Joe. Oh, is that Joe? Sorry. That's Joe's thing. Yeah. I'll let him comment on that. Well, I'd like to pass it off to Don, but I saw your last email to Annette, and I believe she responded today saying February 9th would be ideal. So I wasn't sure on the time. I'd have to go back and look at the email. I know she's been back and forth with you on this, George. So, well, I can't, I can't, I don't like, I can't commit you guys. Cause you, we had to move it from the date for a scheduling issue. So is a February 9th work for you and Tom, first of all, because we won't even consider it if it doesn't. And it's six o'clock. It works for me. Yep. So it's good. Good for staff. Yep. That's a Monday. He's the lead on this. Yes. I just need to get it in the paper. So that's, I just need the solid date so I can get it in the newspaper. All right. Can I get a poll of the members? Can you make February six? I don't know if I can make it all out. Ninth. Right. February 9th. Ninth. February 9th at six. Yeah. So it's a Monday. Monday night. It's not the Superbowl. Is it? That would be Sunday. All right. Well, we know what your priorities are. It should be fairly quick. I had already sent the planning board the, the, the pictures and everything. I want to say over 30 days ago, and they had no comments. So it's just a matter of sending it to you. And I think shade trees, we only have a handful. I want to say it's under 10. So, so total it's, it's probably under 40 total. Can we do it without a meeting if everybody agrees? Mm hmm. I wish. All right. February. Nice. Uh, Judy. Yes. No. Yes. Okay. Spellman. Yes. Ed. Uh, I shouldn't be able to. Okay. And, uh, yeah, I think I should be able to make it. All right. So, uh, Joe, will you let her know that we're on for the ninth? I will let her know. Okay. Okay. And copy the rest of us. So we don't forget. So I think we'd be on at six o'clock with her. We'll plan that for, we'll say 15 or 20 minutes. And then the shade tree hearing is just our board. And that should only take about 10 minutes. Okay. And, uh, I think there's something else that's going on that day, if I remember right. Is that the date for the, uh, FinCom? FinCom is meaning that at that time, seven, seven o'clock. Yes. That night. Okay. Uh, we'll have to talk, uh, later about who needs to be there from our group. I'm not sure anybody does, because isn't that basically a participants workshop? That's January 28th. Okay. Um, I, we don't have anything specifically. We don't have an agenda for the ninth yet. So we'll be working on that. All right. So we're not anxious to come. So just keep that in mind. Understood. Okay. Chairman going to send us a notes about the time and the meeting place. Well, the meeting place will be zoom. And, uh, yeah, we can, Joe will copy everybody on the, on the setup of the date. Okay. Confirmation from Annette. I will send the, uh, the tree packet out to you. Okay. With a reminder of the date and the time. Correct. Okay. Thanks. All right. So, uh, meeting upcoming meeting dates is our January 20th, February 24th, which is later than normal because of the holiday the week before. And then February 9th. Okay. Any topics that recently anticipated by anybody? It was just one thing I wanted to mention more of anticipation of our meeting on January 20th. 20th. This is the only article, this MWRA or long-term water supply connections. The only article we're actually, you know, submitting, but another one of interest to us is article E, which is the enterprise, uh, article. So I just want the group to be thinking ahead that at the January 20th meeting, um, if we are going to include language with the use of retained earnings, um, in the article, we should be thinking about making that decision. Likely at the 20th, we might have time, you know, at the February meeting, but I, I, I would certainly want to put it on the agenda, uh, that we're going to contemplate that. I can get out information prior, obviously, that will give you a sense of what FY 27. You've seen the operating budget. We've seen what the debt service is going to look like. We've spoken a little bit about, you know, what, uh, what we want to have, uh, relative to retained earnings for FY 27. Um, but just as a, as a point, be thinking about making that kind of a decision at the January meeting, the January 20th, just so I can, with folks that are writing up those warrant articles are going to want that information for all those three, you know, we've got the transfer station wastewater and water. Right. We also have at that meeting, the update for the six months in terms of water. So we can see where we think we're going to, where are, where we think we're going to end up in terms of, if we're going to use any retained earnings for this fiscal year, they could have an impact. Yep. We'll have, we'll have that year to date report. Right. And then we'll argue one way or the other, but I think we also should keep in mind the, uh, select board comments that you guys got at your last meeting about their concerns. And their threat to take over the water commissioners. So let's keep that in mind. Yeah. I think to keep it simple, we just continue to match the, um, the cost line that that's kind of is kind of a placeholder. That was the original. But your, your motion says that part of that cost structure would be against retained earnings, not rates. That's the challenge. That's what started a lot of the brouhaha that's going on. Well, the, the contingency cost, which is not really a real cost until it becomes one. Yeah. So. It's something to think about for the 20th. Yeah. Just, just pointing that that's, that's the concern that we've, we've had, uh, expressed to us. Okay. Anybody have anything else? Thank you for that, Tom. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Um, I got, I got one thing. Yeah. Under board member concerns, I guess. Um, it's regarding Sherman bridge and, uh, you know, all the, um, the community members that have reached out to us. Um, it's, it's, it's hard to follow it all along because our, all of our inboxes are getting stuffed with, um, individual emails from everybody. And it's not, seems like they, they don't have a lot of, uh, focus on what they, what they want. Um, other than the bridge to repair it in the exact, exact way that it, that it is now. Um, but I think I'd like to see them come together with a more unified voice. Um, and then also to understand that there's some of the, some of the things that are just unrealistic, like a two and a half ton limit on that bridge. I have just a regular pickup truck, not a big one. And it weighs, it weighs three ton empty with nothing in it. It's just, well, just me sitting in, it weighs three ton. So I think some of these expectations are unreasonable and I'd love to see if they could focus things into actual, so we can work with them. Yeah. That's all I have to say. Yeah. No, that's a good point. And I don't know if you saw the email. I remember who, uh, from one of the Sherman bridge people that basically took them to task about some of the things that they're saying that just are not right. Yeah. I thought that was a great email. Very great email. Um, so, but we can, we can chat with that. And, you know, the biggest problem and talking to Tom is number one, they're consuming a huge amount of Tom's, uh, time while there's a number of other projects that, you know, are significantly, uh, more, uh, expensive to the town. Let me put it that way. Um, and, you know, a lot of the, there's half truths or wishes and, you know, the whole thing about the affidavit. That's really the road versus the bridge. Yeah. So at some point we're going to have to, you know, have a thing that says, okay, here's the real facts, you know, and maybe if we could just have a review, a short review of, okay, what is the design at this point? And what are some of the asks that have been asked, you know, like no steel guardrails? Well, yeah, that's, that's not an alternative, but maybe we can mask it. Something like that. So what you're suggesting, George and Mike is actually what we're working on currently is, um, kind of compiling where we're at, what the current design is, what we've been able to accommodate, what we can't accommodate and why that is. Um, and, and have that in one concise update, put that up on the project page. We'll email that, uh, uh, the distribution list that we currently have of all the interested parties. Um, and I think that that's going to be something the town manager is going to be a part of, uh, the select board, I think is going to be a part of, um, so that is being heard. It's recognized as a need and we're, we're working to, to have something developed very, very shortly. It'd be an open. Thanks Tom. Like we've had before. Pardon me. Should we have a, uh, forum like, uh, you had before instead of an email and actually meet and greet kind of a thing. You mean, instead of reviewing it at the, at the meeting. Cause I think what Tom is talking about is going through the meeting. I don't know that there's a plan for another forum, especially. Yeah, that we, we don't have a plan, you know, for an additional forum. Um, you know, it's my position. We've, we've heard very loud and clear the desires we've accommodated most of them. Um, so I think we have a very good sense of what people want. Um, we're able to accommodate most of it. We aren't able to accommodate all of it. The reasons that we can't make those accommodations are pretty clear and we can state those as being very clear. So I think we can get that message out without, you know, hosting a, a, a forum. One, one thing I had suggested prior and I, I stand by this is that a working group probably would have offloaded a lot of this work from Tom. If we had some appointees from the neighborhood. I know it, it adds some work and it, it can be a challenge, but, uh, and I think Tom's doing a great job of, of handling all of the input and accommodating it. Um, but, um, that said, we do have talented folks with skill in town that are willing to, um, provide their input and maybe, and their time and act as a buffer or at least a conduit. Um, to assimilate what Mike Spelman is, was, was referencing is that we are hearing from many folks with different ideas and it's not all well coordinated. Um, so, uh, that might've been a way to help coordinate those ideas. Um, and I think when we come across projects like these that are high profile, I think that's some sort of policy, the select board should have in place. If there's going to be some significant, um, change in town where, um, public input is going to be expected, or there may be some other criteria over a certain dollar amount. Um, getting some, uh, type of public input, I think would be helpful upfront. And I know this was kind of a rush because we had to, we had the offer from mass DOT. We had, um, many different reasons we went throughout. We did. Um, but I still think it's best in, in the long run to include the public more collaboratively. And I'm not saying Tom hasn't been collaborative, but as I mentioned that, that forum felt to me like a us versus them kind of set up where we had all of the, the staff and, and, um, folks up front and people lined up with mics at the mic in a long line. Um, it, it just, it just felt, um, uh, not as collaborative. And again, I, I think the way Tom has handled, and I know it's not just you, Tom, but, um, the way the team has handled the input, I think has been great. And we've come up with, um, some plans that implement, I think the most important parts of what the, uh, neighbors have been interested in seeing. So I think we're ending up in a good, good spot. Uh, but I, I, I would promote for working groups. Yep. Yep. I think we just have to be careful, but we're not talking about things that are not topics not recently anticipated because Sherman bridge is not on the agenda. It's a concern for all of us. Yeah. I mean, yeah, go ahead, Mike. No, it's just agreement. I'm sorry. And we did receive about, I don't know how many, uh, messages from, uh, folks in town on that topic, 20, 25, uh, maybe a hundred. Maybe a hundred. Maybe a hundred over the break. And, uh, and, you know, we, we should probably really have mentioned those during open, uh, uh, public comment that, that we have received these large number of messages with regards to Sherman's bridge. Okay. All right. Can I have a, uh, anything else under reason, not reasonably anticipated? Can I have a motion to adjourn? George, I just wanted to say one thing. I know Tom and I discussed earlier, I just wanted to go on record to recognize our staff. Um, they put in a pretty hard three to four weeks. Um, we've had several treating storms. We've had four water breaks. Unfortunately, these things are not coming at ideal times one, even on Christmas morning. Um, so I just wanted to give a shout out to them. They're even in, you know, they're going to be in at eight o'clock tonight, most likely working all night. So it's, it's been, you know, trying four weeks. So I just wanted to give them a shout out. Yeah. We, we appreciate it. And you can tell them that the board doesn't appreciate their hard work. Yeah. I, I, I, I heard a lot of nice comments about, uh, this, the, uh, work that was done over break, you know, at local gatherings. Um, there's, there's a lot of appreciation in town for what you and your staff have done, keeping up with the weather of late. Yeah. Thanks for bringing that up, Joe. I, uh, I was remiss in not mentioning that I meant to, and, and they'd forgotten about it. So I appreciate you bringing that up. No issue. Yeah. Do we do something a little special for them, like a lunch or something in appreciation when they go through this? We have tomorrow. Whoops. Sorry. Good. I'm glad. Can I have a motion? Anything else? Motion to adjourn. So moved. Mike. Can I have a second? Second. Judy. Second. Uh, all in favor roll call vote. Mr. Spellman. Yes. Judy. Yes. Mike. Yes. Ed. George. Yes. Five zero zero to adjourn. Thank you very much.
Just a note, Tom, I see in the packet that we have an old version of the Warren article. I know there was a plug-in that we'd asked you to add. I'm not sure if you were able to do that. Yeah. So the, I think the version that, the version that was in the packet was the one that we had on Friday when the packet was put together, the one that you sent out Sunday was not, the packet was not amended. So, yeah. So we'll, we'll want to, you know, put that one up, obviously up on the screen tonight. And identify what the, what the differences are. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. I just wanted to ask you if you had sent out an updated version, because I only sent, the version I sent was only to you and I copied Judy just to add in those items requested before it went out. Has it, it hasn't gone out to the board yet? So I did not forward that to the board, no. Okay. Okay. So we'll have to go through the, on the screen and then make sure we get it posted out there. Okay. All right. Anything else in terms of remarks? All right. Any announcements?
Okay. Moving right along. Robbie, do we have anybody with their hand up for public comment? I see nobody with their hand raised. Okay. Very good. So we go, again, this is limited to the warrant in terms of the agenda. Plus, you know, the, uh, concerns, the, uh, minute, the agenda has the, uh, approval of the December 16th minutes. Those haven't gone out yet. So those will have to be pushed off to the next meeting. Correct. Okay. So let's talk, if you can put up on the screen then.
Do you have an updated version, Tom? Or I, yeah, I think I can do that. Bear with me one minute. I should be able to do that. Uh, share.
Yep. There it is.
Can we get that any larger by chance?
Um, single page, maybe. And of course, the, the zoom, the screen share icons are covering my entire, uh, bar here at the top. Let's see. How do I do this? Let's see if I can drag these things. Yep.
You want the, you don't, you want to make this larger? Well, it's, well, we'll just, you'll have to read us any of the changes where they're at, because I'm too old to be able to read that small over print, even with my bifocals.
Okay. Uh, any change in the, uh, one, two, and three section? We'll go paragraph by paragraph. And if anybody has a change that they want, please, uh, signify that. Uh, okay. In the background, first, first paragraph, second paragraph. I think one thing that should be, uh, okay. They've got, uh, this one has the line spacing corrected. That's good. Where is the first, anybody have any changes on the first page they want?
George, I think this is going to be tough because we didn't get this out to the board, this version to the board to review, uh, prior to this meeting. Well, I thought you said there were just a couple of changes from what you sent out on Friday.
Cause everybody has the one that went out on Friday. So this is only changes between Friday and Sunday.
Yeah. Okay. Those, those were only Tom's changes. The ones that went out on Friday. Okay. One more question. Did you have major changes between the Friday and this, between this version and what you, you are proposing?
Uh, they were, I can't say they were major in terms of content, but in terms of wording, um, uh, there's, there's some, some differences that, um, clarify or reorder. Um, so it, it would be hard for us to edit.
Well, the problem is we've got to turn this in. I mean, I, I wish that if you didn't get a copy from Tom, you would have sent it out today to the board. George, it's a challenging time of year. It's the second day of the year. And tell me about it. Okay. That, that doesn't help us. Uh, I'm trying to think what we can do. Uh, I can, well, can you, uh, the version we've worked on Tom, because maybe just read it out loud or something again, it's yeah. You really have to talk about what the changes are section by section, reading it to somebody is not going to do it. Um, can you send it out via email now so we can all get it? Tom, why don't we, uh, I can send out. Oh yeah. Tom, you can send out the version you have that I can share on my screen and Tom, maybe you can just tell me which paragraphs, uh, that I can highlight and we can go through those paragraphs because I changed essentially only the paragraphs, um, around the areas you had added content. Um, yeah, so let me, um, it's going to take me a second to, to, I'm going to, I'm going to stop sharing for one thing. Okay. Or then, yeah. Yeah, and in George, if you, uh, or someone, if you can look at the packet, tell me which paragraph to go to, um, I'll, I'll share what was changed there on screen. Well, just, just walk us through sections. Cause there's, uh, you know, I've got some very minor questions, but.
Okay. So Tom, I guess you'll take notes on what needs to change since I'll be sharing my screen and mine's not the latest version. Well, yours is the latest version, right? Okay. So what I sent it to Tom to, to add some items in before we sent it out. So what, what I, what I have here that I can share is the version that I, um, sent out that would, it would have been comparable to what's out there on Friday. My, uh, edits are in red. So I can, yeah, can you just, can you, uh, based on the edits in red and let, let me just say the only, the only items I had asked Tom to clarify where these highlights here, um, an estimated cost for replacing the current systems. Not, uh, not including any PFAS updates. So these highlighted items here on the screen, those are the only changes we had requested of Tom after we had gone through these. So I have that information. Okay, but before we get to that, can you just tell me the first paragraph where you had made changes in red, and I'll just highlight the new paragraph. Yeah, I can. So background information. Mm-hmm. I added in second sentence, allowable per and polyfluoroalkyl PFAS thresholds became more stringent in 2020, going from 70 parts per trillion to 20 parts per trillion. New regulations will cause that threshold to again be lowered to four parts per trillion in 2031. That's what I added. Okay, and so the updated paragraph is what's highlighted here. Okay, well, I'm trying to see. I can blow it up even more. No, that's okay. I'm just trying to see where it is in the, okay. It's the second, I'm sorry, it's the first paragraph starting with the second sentence. Okay, but that's something that is in the one that's in the packet. So everybody has seen that. No, it's reworded. That's what I'm saying. Anything that's in the packet for the most part has been reworded. So Carol had just recommended we add some background. This is some background on the regulations. Well, that, that wording is what was is in the packet. Yeah, that's word for word what is in the packet in red. Yeah. So that what I, what I put in red, Mike, is in Friday's packet. So the only, the only difference that I know of Friday and perhaps Sunday, I know you had sent me something Sunday evening that had those highlighted yellow. Okay. Which I've been working on. So perhaps the one in the packet is actually much more recent than, than you thought. Yeah. Okay. All right. So you highlighted in red the, the areas where I had changed the wording. Right. And if anybody's looking at the one in the packet, you can tell that difference in the, in the printout. Cause it's a little different font. And I can, I can, it only take me a moment. If you wanted to make this official, I can read my four changes, my four additions, just to make sure that it's in the, you know, in your version that you're looking at right now. Okay. Well, we'll just point them out as we go through, cause you should be able to see them because of the font difference. Okay. Okay. So what has happened now, you have moved, uh, some spaces that weren't there before they're now in there. Okay. And, uh, the next change is in the, with support. Yeah. So, um, the last sentence of that paragraph. The MWRA emergency connection currently in place can only be activated upon receiving, upon receiving an emergency declaration from mass DEP and is not permitted to be a regular source of water. Right. Not an emergency source. Right. Yeah. So I guess that should be upon receiving, not received. This is receipt upon receipt. Oh, of an emergency. Yeah. So this is the updated language. Okay. So I'm not sure what's in the packet. That is what's in the packet. This, this right here? Yeah. Oh, good. Okay. So then you're right. The only difference between what's in the packet and the current version is the- The yellow. The yellow highlighted area down there. Okay. Let's go down there so quickly. Okay. Go to the top of the next page, which I have, anybody have anything on that page? I start where, where it talks about through 2023 to 2025. The last updated 12-31-2025, correct? Or should that be like 1-2-2026 or something? Mm-hmm. Just, I'm trying to find the, okay, that's there at the 2023 mission. Okay. You see on that line where it says through 2023 and 25? Mm-hmm. I think you're saying that, and I agree, that should say something more like, instead of and, through 2023 to 2025, or is it just the two meetings? It's because of those two meetings, or that's where the appropriations were made in those two meetings. Okay. So it should be then, instead of through, because I think it was a sequence of time. Maybe it should say at. Okay. Between? So at the 2023 and 2025 town meeting. No. Meetings. Plural. Yep. That doesn't make sense either, but. Yeah. Because it says at those two meetings, appropriations coupled. Yeah. The, it's the, the noun is town meeting appropriations, not town meeting. So, um, we'll have to adjust that a little bit. At the 2023 and 2025 annual town meetings. Well, we didn't say the, the appropriations. Appropriations were made that coupled with the American risk rescue act funding. So appropriations were made. Um. Could you just substitute the word through with the, the 2023 and 2025 town meeting appropriations coupled with American Bubba. Yeah. Works for me. Yeah. Good. Judy. That's good. Okay. Don't fall asleep. I see you yawning. Come on. Okay. Uh, the next change that was highlighted is the section of such upon approval. Mm hmm. So that, that was in there. Okay. From the prior time. Then, uh, I've won two sources that two paragraphs that says dual source. Yeah. Uh, the third line should read for up to 100% of demand if required instead of as required. Oh, yeah. I think they mean the same thing, but I'm fine with either. Yeah. If is clear. Yeah. I would go with if. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Next paragraph. I had anybody have any other questions before we go to the next paragraph. Just confirming Tom, you're making these edits in your version, correct? I can. I'm, I'm making notes. I mean, if you're able to do it live, if you've got that, or is that just a PDF you're showing? No, no. I just don't have the latest version you do. Okay. Right. Because you've updated this section here. Yep. Yep. So I, I am making notes of all of this. Okay. So you're just changing through to the. Yep. As to if. As to if. Yep. Okay. In the next section. Wait, wait, wait. So it says last updated down there as a footer 12, 31, 20, 25. Yeah. You know, this was a footer that was, I think the, um, footer for the template. I updated it. I updated that. Um, but it, it previously said like 2022 or something like that, or 2020. So. I can, I can change to one, six, 26. Sounds good. Okay. Where we say the additional, that paragraph. Yep. Uh, where it says has been receiving stopgap repairs. Should we say expensive? And then can we specify the dollar amount in 26. That we're spent. We spent to date. If we have that. Um. I would. Yeah. I would put something like this in parentheses. Um. Hmm. 476. Okay. And. And. 20, 25. Alone. Something. Like this, Tom. Yep. Yep. Well, there's a 475 include. Uh. George. That's just a placeholder for Tom. Okay. So that's not the correct amount. Correct. I don't know what that would be. Yeah. All right. So yeah. Tom, we'll have to fill in that amount. Just so it doesn't pop up. And I guess the question is. If we say 25. That people will think calendar. Or last year. Versus, you know, giving the time. You know, January to June. Or whatever it is. Or. June to December. Something like that. But yeah. If you want to. If you want to. Continue with what you're doing, Mike. Because I'm taking notes. And I'll have you at the end of the meeting tonight. Send me what you're doing. And between the two of those. I'll make certain. I know I've. I've made the changes. Okay. Just. We have to be careful with dates. When you say like physical 25. Because remember, this is going to be. Being read in what? April. The town meeting. Yeah. So that'll. What Mike is referencing. I'm actually going to say it's FY 26. Well, but again, you have to. You're going to have to give a time sequence. Because this will be read three months later. And you may have other expenses. So I would say like. Blank to blank. Because if you just give the physical year. They don't know through what month. Because when this is actually going to be published. I think if we give a significant number there. That will. Accomplish what you're looking to accomplish. I don't think people are going to look in. And measure up timing. And all that. Just be careful. Because again. I would say fiscal year 25 to date. That they won't know to date is what. I just be careful. Because if we then have in our. In our discussion. A different number. When you're making the spiel. You're going to confuse people. So that's why it should be like. You know six. First six months of 25. Or whatever that case may be. Thank you. Got it. Okay. Anybody have a change on the. Where's the PFAS related. Comment you have. You want to make. This here. So as a side note. The estimated cost. To replace the deteriorating water infrastructure systems. Currently in place. Including pumps. And the existing non PFAS related treatment systems. Is estimated to range between X and Y. But without. I understand what you're trying to get to. But without the PFAS cost. Mm-hmm. What. You know what. You're going to give somebody the impression. That that's an alternative. So the point. The point. The point. Judy brought this up. Was to. Say that. If we don't. Move forward with this. There's still going to be a cost. To upgrade. All of our existing systems. Let's say. The regulations go away. And. All of a sudden. There are no regulations. That we have to comply with. Even in that case. We're going to have to replace. Most of our. Existing systems. And there's a cost to that. I agree. But I don't think. Because it's in a floodplain. And has. Limited. Area. Scope. Okay. That it's going to imply. That there is an alternative. To do a non PFAS. Yeah. And I would. I would. You know. Agree with that. Is that. You know. I have the figures. I can offer them. But I think. If we put something like that. And we have to be very clear. That. It is. It's not an option. You know. I have no indicators. That the regulations. Are going to. Are not going to change. You know. This administration has been in. It's. It's been a year. Not talking about changing. Or. You know. Relieving anybody. Of the four parts. Per trillion. So I would be really concerned. About. Having a reader. Think. That. There's an alternative. To what we're proposing. And because of the land. And property restrictions. There is not. So. Well. The. There is. If there are no. PFAS. That there's no. PFAS equipment. That's the point. But I. Kind of agree with that. Judy. Are you okay. If we. Delete. This. In the article. Keep it. As backup. If folks. Come with the argument. So. Let me. Let me. Just try to explain. My thinking. So. I went to some party. And talked about. Long-term. Water supply. Some folks who are saying. Oh. You shouldn't worry about. This. Because. The PFAS regulations. Are going away. And I said. First off. I doubt that. And second off. Do you really want to. Take that. Health risk. But even. That aside. All of our facilities. Are at the end. Of a. Of their useful life. Is my understanding. And. And therefore. To upgrade. No matter what. So. I'm trying. To let people know. That it's not like. We're doing this. Just for PFAS. We're. We're doing this. Because of PFAS. And. We need to upgrade. Does. Does that make sense. It. It does. I understand. What you're saying. I mean. We. We are very tuned in. To this regulatory process. And. I would say. To that person. You were standing next to. Those regulations. Are not going to be relieved. If it. Goes away. We have zero. Things to do. We. We have. A lot of things. That still need to be done. And. I don't know. How to express that. Succinctly. Maybe. Just because. Go ahead George. I. I said. One of the things. We might say is. While the. Current. Plants. They're going to be closed. Do not have sufficient. Space. To. Address the PFAS. And equipment upgraded. The car. The estimated cost. Just. To. Replace. The equipment. Absent. PFAS. Is. X. Which. Would then have to. Have. Well. You can't. Because there's not even any room on the. On the spot to do. To do. PFAS there. I guess in theory. You could. Take. And pipe. To. Happy Hollow. PFAS. Treatment center. Which was an alternative. That we looked at. That was not. Practical. Or feasible. Yeah. I. I just think. We're. People are going to get latched on to it. A number is an alternative. And that's my fear. I second that. Yeah. I was going to say. Mike Spelman. You wanted to say something. Oh. I. If I was at that party. I would have said. Just because the regulations go away. And the PFAS is gone. Right. And do you. Really want your kids. Drinking that. You know. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Yeah. Do we. Do we. Do we really want to produce that. Yeah. Okay. I'm okay. Okay. So we'll. We'll just. We'll go. We'll have it. In our pocket. Because Tom. You can share on your screen. Probably what. What you had filled in the blanks with. But. We'll have that in our pocket. Just as a note. If we need it. But. Yeah. We don't want to sidetrack folks. Thinking that's an option. Yeah. And if asked at the town meeting. We can always say that. The cost to replace that equipment. Is X. But that's wasted money. Because. It doesn't provide you clean drinking water. Exactly. Yeah. We can ship you brown water. If you like. From some of the municipalities around us. All right. Are there any other changes. That anyone would like to make. If not. Then I'll. Ask Tom. Just to. At least we can look at those figures. So we know what they are. Yeah. In essence. What I can verbally. If you wanted to scroll. What was it. Oh, between. Yeah. Between X. And Y. It's between 16. 20 million. 20 million. And. The caveat to that. So that does not include PFAS. And that does not include. Replacing any wells. Some wells. At some locations. Are you know. Are 10 years old. So they. But what. I was looking at. Or. Looking to provide tonight. Was you know. This is a 25 to 50 year solution. That we're providing. We're asking for funding for. If this is a 25 to 50 year. You know. Alternative. We would be replacing wells. And. When you replace the wells. That figure doubles. So it would be 32 to 40 million. And what. What's the MWRA connection cost. 22. So what we could say. Is it is. As expensive. To. Replace the equipment in these two. Plants. Without. Including the PFAS treatment cost. As the MWRA connection. That's accurate. That's accurate. But I'm with you. I'm still. I don't want to open up that. Line of argument. Oh I'm not saying. We should put it in there. Okay. That was just a. Oh shit. That's a lot of money. Kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Cool. Yeah. Well said. That's a technical term. By the way. One used by the water division. Regularly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Bell trucks tonight. Yes. They're on their way in right now. Yeah. Okay. So I think. Did anyone else have any other. Updates here. And I would say that. We did share a draft with Carol and she. She had very positive things to say about where we're at with this. Okay. Okay. This isn't the final result anyway. But. Yeah. Carl. You still there somewhere. Yes. I am. From the finance side. You okay with this. And the arguments in favor and against. Um. Without committing yourself. I'm just asking if there's. Something you'd like to find. Comment on. No. I honestly have not read the document yet. Um. I've. Going through this last year. Not with your. Not with your group. But I. Went through. Multiple. Multiple drafts of. Articles. Before they're really ready. So. Um. I. I haven't. Really committed myself even to reading it yet. That said. Listening to this. And reading through the things that you're. Describing. It seems like it's an awfully good shape to me. Good. We appreciate that. But I'm sure you and. Uh. Pam. And your. Group of cohorts. Will. Will have a. Fine-tuned. Red pen. In your hand. Which we will exercise with. With discretion. And with your. Permission. Hey. Have been. Okay. Uh. Okay. All right. So. Between Tom. If you and Mike. Just agree. On those final wording changes. Can I get a motion to accept. This warrant. For submission. As modified. So moved. Mike. Second. First. Can I get a second. Yeah. Judy seconds. Roll call vote. Uh. Mike. Weimar. Aye. Mike Spelman. Aye. Is that a yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Judy Lynn. Yes. Uh. Ed. F. And George. Yes. So it's. Five zero zero. Okay. Uh. Just. Just. Just. Administrative. It sounds like I now have the latest version Tom that I can send to you. Um. Update. Update being. Uh. Uh. Required being that. Um. The fiscal year 25. Figure. Figure. Yeah. And I'm gonna use. Five. I mean I can. But. FY 26. Has been the expensive year. So. Right. I would be. Yeah. Okay. Good point. Okay. So. I'll. I'll just highlight the. Figure that needs to be updated for fiscal year 26. And it's a compromise. Can we just say the first six months of fiscal 26. Um. Yeah. I'm fine with that. First half. First. Either one. Yeah. Well. One thing. Can we point out. That. We. Don't have enough water to supply ourselves. So we have to connect into MWI anyway. Doesn't matter the water quality issue or not. Well. I think what. Um. What some people are thinking that is not the case. Or Tom. And per our understanding is that. The regulations might be lifted and. Uh. We could continue using our other locations or other. Locations without PFAS treatment. It's not the case, but. Um. And we don't expect. At all that that's going to be the case, but. Um. Um. That's what we were discussing. I understand what you're saying. And I'm trying. I'm just looking at the arguments in favor. Maybe the. Uh. What arguments in favor. The third one says. Additionally. The advancement of dual source water system will address the challenges. Of the town supplying the necessary water. And is currently. Experience. Which is compounded by. The currently experiencing. Deterioration of the aging treatment and production equipment. Somehow work the fact that. You know. Supply. Sufficient supply is an issue. I. I think it's there. But we can add to it. If you want. You see where I'm looking. I. Do. Yeah. Additionally, the advancement of this dual source system will address the challenges the town is currently experiencing with the deterioration of the aging treatment and production equipment. About the town's local water sources. I was wondering whether Ed was. Referencing the fact that. You. Your happy hollow can't produce. The town's entire demand during. You know. High demand periods and that we. That connecting to the MW or maybe I was misunderstanding him because I think. Okay. I. Yeah. I think that's what he's saying. But I. But I think we're. We've said that already. Right. We can't. Have we not said that. This is the best post cost effective option available, which allows the town to continue providing safe, regulatory, compliant, putable water via our existing infrastructure, particularly as an MWRA only system is not an option due to the Interbasin Transfer Act. Full requirement states here that. We can tap into MWRA as a secondary source for up to 100% of water demand. I either would just point out. Our own source were not adequate to meet maximum day plus fire. So something. To point out. To admit it. We don't have adequate water source. Well. I mean, I think we do. Currently. But we won't under the new regulations. Right. It requires a dual source. But I think what Ed's referring to is the fact that we have the water rationing or non use. So if I said the dual source option, which is required to meet. I'm not sure that changing that's going to be a little tricky. I understand what you're saying, Ed, and I'm trying to figure out how to fit that in here somehow. But inadequate production, instead of just production, water production, inadequate water production. How about if in the first paragraph where it says arguments in favor. The most effective available, which will allow the town to provide. Continue providing sufficient. Oh. Well, right now when people say we, we can't. To meet, meet demand and continue to provide safe regulatory. Because really what I think what Ed is talking about is demand. Right. Mm hmm. Under future regulations. Does this mean people. Does this. Will a dual source mean we will no longer have water bans in the summer? We will still be under the same or similar conservation protocols that we are faced with right now. So we, we make, we would be not because of drought situation, but because of needing to meet water accountability and gallon per capita per day consumption patterns. Okay. Because I don't want people to think that we do this and we never have water bans in the summer. Yeah. That's a good point. It is. And yeah, we've been talking a lot about that because you know, there was at one point we're thinking we could sell all kinds of water, but that's not the case. We're going to still have, you know, very stringent water conservation measures. And because of that, maybe we should just stay away from that whole thing about this quantity of the water. Yeah. Might be viewed as misleading. I tried. I tried this. This is the best, most cost effective option available, which allows the town to continue to meet 100% of demand and provide safe regulatory compliant. So I just added to meet 100% of demand in this argument and favor section. It's accurate. Should you move continue down? So say allows the town to meet 100% of demand and continue to provide. Yeah. So you have to add and continue. Yeah. Yeah. I think that does it. Yeah. Which allows the town to continue to provide safe. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. We already voted and approved this, so I'll take those as a friendly amendment. Please. Should we? I don't know if we have to revote. That's just a wording change. No, I don't think so. And more will be coming. We expect. So, okay. I'll update this, send it to you, Tom, just to cover this section here. And I had it in the first half of fiscal year 26 alone. So we'll just need this figure here. I will insert that. I will send it in to the town manager's office. I'll copy the membership so you'll see it go in. Great. Okay. Next item on the agenda is, and we're actually four minutes ahead. Any board member concerns? Question? Yep. Someone asked me if, you know, at the transfer station, I think one of the buildings has sand piled up there for the town use, I assume. Are townspeople allowed to take some of that if they need it? They would come to 66 River Road. We have a pile of sand there for residents. Okay. Yep. So just bring, bring a five gallon pail and there's a shovel there. So they're welcome to do that. We have people regularly come in to do that. All right. Thank you. But do it, do it at the DPW facility. Okay. During working hours. Right. When the gates open. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I have one concern. Don, or Tom, have you and Don figured out a time for that tree hearing? So that's actually Joe. Oh, is that Joe? Sorry. That's Joe's thing. Yeah. I'll let him comment on that. Well, I'd like to pass it off to Don, but I saw your last email to Annette, and I believe she responded today saying February 9th would be ideal. So I wasn't sure on the time. I'd have to go back and look at the email. I know she's been back and forth with you on this, George. So, well, I can't, I can't, I don't like, I can't commit you guys. Cause you, we had to move it from the date for a scheduling issue. So is a February 9th work for you and Tom, first of all, because we won't even consider it if it doesn't. And it's six o'clock. It works for me. Yep. So it's good. Good for staff. Yep. That's a Monday. He's the lead on this. Yes. I just need to get it in the paper. So that's, I just need the solid date so I can get it in the newspaper. All right. Can I get a poll of the members? Can you make February six? I don't know if I can make it all out. Ninth. Right. February 9th. Ninth. February 9th at six. Yeah. So it's a Monday. Monday night. It's not the Superbowl. Is it? That would be Sunday. All right. Well, we know what your priorities are. It should be fairly quick. I had already sent the planning board the, the, the pictures and everything. I want to say over 30 days ago, and they had no comments. So it's just a matter of sending it to you. And I think shade trees, we only have a handful. I want to say it's under 10. So, so total it's, it's probably under 40 total. Can we do it without a meeting if everybody agrees? Mm hmm. I wish. All right. February. Nice. Uh, Judy. Yes. No. Yes. Okay. Spellman. Yes. Ed. Uh, I shouldn't be able to. Okay. And, uh, yeah, I think I should be able to make it. All right. So, uh, Joe, will you let her know that we're on for the ninth? I will let her know. Okay. Okay. And copy the rest of us. So we don't forget. So I think we'd be on at six o'clock with her. We'll plan that for, we'll say 15 or 20 minutes. And then the shade tree hearing is just our board. And that should only take about 10 minutes. Okay. And, uh, I think there's something else that's going on that day, if I remember right. Is that the date for the, uh, FinCom? FinCom is meaning that at that time, seven, seven o'clock. Yes. That night. Okay. Uh, we'll have to talk, uh, later about who needs to be there from our group. I'm not sure anybody does, because isn't that basically a participants workshop? That's January 28th. Okay. Um, I, we don't have anything specifically. We don't have an agenda for the ninth yet. So we'll be working on that. All right. So we're not anxious to come. So just keep that in mind. Understood. Okay. Chairman going to send us a notes about the time and the meeting place. Well, the meeting place will be zoom. And, uh, yeah, we can, Joe will copy everybody on the, on the setup of the date. Okay. Confirmation from Annette. I will send the, uh, the tree packet out to you. Okay. With a reminder of the date and the time. Correct. Okay. Thanks. All right. So, uh, meeting upcoming meeting dates is our January 20th, February 24th, which is later than normal because of the holiday the week before. And then February 9th. Okay. Any topics that recently anticipated by anybody? It was just one thing I wanted to mention more of anticipation of our meeting on January 20th. 20th. This is the only article, this MWRA or long-term water supply connections. The only article we're actually, you know, submitting, but another one of interest to us is article E, which is the enterprise, uh, article. So I just want the group to be thinking ahead that at the January 20th meeting, um, if we are going to include language with the use of retained earnings, um, in the article, we should be thinking about making that decision. Likely at the 20th, we might have time, you know, at the February meeting, but I, I, I would certainly want to put it on the agenda, uh, that we're going to contemplate that. I can get out information prior, obviously, that will give you a sense of what FY 27. You've seen the operating budget. We've seen what the debt service is going to look like. We've spoken a little bit about, you know, what, uh, what we want to have, uh, relative to retained earnings for FY 27. Um, but just as a, as a point, be thinking about making that kind of a decision at the January meeting, the January 20th, just so I can, with folks that are writing up those warrant articles are going to want that information for all those three, you know, we've got the transfer station wastewater and water. Right. We also have at that meeting, the update for the six months in terms of water. So we can see where we think we're going to, where are, where we think we're going to end up in terms of, if we're going to use any retained earnings for this fiscal year, they could have an impact. Yep. We'll have, we'll have that year to date report. Right. And then we'll argue one way or the other, but I think we also should keep in mind the, uh, select board comments that you guys got at your last meeting about their concerns. And their threat to take over the water commissioners. So let's keep that in mind. Yeah. I think to keep it simple, we just continue to match the, um, the cost line that that's kind of is kind of a placeholder. That was the original. But your, your motion says that part of that cost structure would be against retained earnings, not rates. That's the challenge. That's what started a lot of the brouhaha that's going on. Well, the, the contingency cost, which is not really a real cost until it becomes one. Yeah. So. It's something to think about for the 20th. Yeah. Just, just pointing that that's, that's the concern that we've, we've had, uh, expressed to us. Okay. Anybody have anything else? Thank you for that, Tom. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Um, I got, I got one thing. Yeah. Under board member concerns, I guess. Um, it's regarding Sherman bridge and, uh, you know, all the, um, the community members that have reached out to us. Um, it's, it's, it's hard to follow it all along because our, all of our inboxes are getting stuffed with, um, individual emails from everybody. And it's not, seems like they, they don't have a lot of, uh, focus on what they, what they want. Um, other than the bridge to repair it in the exact, exact way that it, that it is now. Um, but I think I'd like to see them come together with a more unified voice. Um, and then also to understand that there's some of the, some of the things that are just unrealistic, like a two and a half ton limit on that bridge. I have just a regular pickup truck, not a big one. And it weighs, it weighs three ton empty with nothing in it. It's just, well, just me sitting in, it weighs three ton. So I think some of these expectations are unreasonable and I'd love to see if they could focus things into actual, so we can work with them. Yeah. That's all I have to say. Yeah. No, that's a good point. And I don't know if you saw the email. I remember who, uh, from one of the Sherman bridge people that basically took them to task about some of the things that they're saying that just are not right. Yeah. I thought that was a great email. Very great email. Um, so, but we can, we can chat with that. And, you know, the biggest problem and talking to Tom is number one, they're consuming a huge amount of Tom's, uh, time while there's a number of other projects that, you know, are significantly, uh, more, uh, expensive to the town. Let me put it that way. Um, and, you know, a lot of the, there's half truths or wishes and, you know, the whole thing about the affidavit. That's really the road versus the bridge. Yeah. So at some point we're going to have to, you know, have a thing that says, okay, here's the real facts, you know, and maybe if we could just have a review, a short review of, okay, what is the design at this point? And what are some of the asks that have been asked, you know, like no steel guardrails? Well, yeah, that's, that's not an alternative, but maybe we can mask it. Something like that. So what you're suggesting, George and Mike is actually what we're working on currently is, um, kind of compiling where we're at, what the current design is, what we've been able to accommodate, what we can't accommodate and why that is. Um, and, and have that in one concise update, put that up on the project page. We'll email that, uh, uh, the distribution list that we currently have of all the interested parties. Um, and I think that that's going to be something the town manager is going to be a part of, uh, the select board, I think is going to be a part of, um, so that is being heard. It's recognized as a need and we're, we're working to, to have something developed very, very shortly. It'd be an open. Thanks Tom. Like we've had before. Pardon me. Should we have a, uh, forum like, uh, you had before instead of an email and actually meet and greet kind of a thing. You mean, instead of reviewing it at the, at the meeting. Cause I think what Tom is talking about is going through the meeting. I don't know that there's a plan for another forum, especially. Yeah, that we, we don't have a plan, you know, for an additional forum. Um, you know, it's my position. We've, we've heard very loud and clear the desires we've accommodated most of them. Um, so I think we have a very good sense of what people want. Um, we're able to accommodate most of it. We aren't able to accommodate all of it. The reasons that we can't make those accommodations are pretty clear and we can state those as being very clear. So I think we can get that message out without, you know, hosting a, a, a forum. One, one thing I had suggested prior and I, I stand by this is that a working group probably would have offloaded a lot of this work from Tom. If we had some appointees from the neighborhood. I know it, it adds some work and it, it can be a challenge, but, uh, and I think Tom's doing a great job of, of handling all of the input and accommodating it. Um, but, um, that said, we do have talented folks with skill in town that are willing to, um, provide their input and maybe, and their time and act as a buffer or at least a conduit. Um, to assimilate what Mike Spelman is, was, was referencing is that we are hearing from many folks with different ideas and it's not all well coordinated. Um, so, uh, that might've been a way to help coordinate those ideas. Um, and I think when we come across projects like these that are high profile, I think that's some sort of policy, the select board should have in place. If there's going to be some significant, um, change in town where, um, public input is going to be expected, or there may be some other criteria over a certain dollar amount. Um, getting some, uh, type of public input, I think would be helpful upfront. And I know this was kind of a rush because we had to, we had the offer from mass DOT. We had, um, many different reasons we went throughout. We did. Um, but I still think it's best in, in the long run to include the public more collaboratively. And I'm not saying Tom hasn't been collaborative, but as I mentioned that, that forum felt to me like a us versus them kind of set up where we had all of the, the staff and, and, um, folks up front and people lined up with mics at the mic in a long line. Um, it, it just, it just felt, um, uh, not as collaborative. And again, I, I think the way Tom has handled, and I know it's not just you, Tom, but, um, the way the team has handled the input, I think has been great. And we've come up with, um, some plans that implement, I think the most important parts of what the, uh, neighbors have been interested in seeing. So I think we're ending up in a good, good spot. Uh, but I, I, I would promote for working groups. Yep. Yep. I think we just have to be careful, but we're not talking about things that are not topics not recently anticipated because Sherman bridge is not on the agenda. It's a concern for all of us. Yeah. I mean, yeah, go ahead, Mike. No, it's just agreement. I'm sorry. And we did receive about, I don't know how many, uh, messages from, uh, folks in town on that topic, 20, 25, uh, maybe a hundred. Maybe a hundred. Maybe a hundred over the break. And, uh, and, you know, we, we should probably really have mentioned those during open, uh, uh, public comment that, that we have received these large number of messages with regards to Sherman's bridge. Okay. All right. Can I have a, uh, anything else under reason, not reasonably anticipated? Can I have a motion to adjourn? George, I just wanted to say one thing. I know Tom and I discussed earlier, I just wanted to go on record to recognize our staff. Um, they put in a pretty hard three to four weeks. Um, we've had several treating storms. We've had four water breaks. Unfortunately, these things are not coming at ideal times one, even on Christmas morning. Um, so I just wanted to give a shout out to them. They're even in, you know, they're going to be in at eight o'clock tonight, most likely working all night. So it's, it's been, you know, trying four weeks. So I just wanted to give them a shout out. Yeah. We, we appreciate it. And you can tell them that the board doesn't appreciate their hard work. Yeah. I, I, I, I heard a lot of nice comments about, uh, this, the, uh, work that was done over break, you know, at local gatherings. Um, there's, there's a lot of appreciation in town for what you and your staff have done, keeping up with the weather of late. Yeah. Thanks for bringing that up, Joe. I, uh, I was remiss in not mentioning that I meant to, and, and they'd forgotten about it. So I appreciate you bringing that up. No issue. Yeah. Do we do something a little special for them, like a lunch or something in appreciation when they go through this? We have tomorrow. Whoops. Sorry. Good. I'm glad. Can I have a motion? Anything else? Motion to adjourn. So moved. Mike. Can I have a second? Second. Judy. Second. Uh, all in favor roll call vote. Mr. Spellman. Yes. Judy. Yes. Mike. Yes. Ed. George. Yes. Five zero zero to adjourn. Thank you very much.