Board of Public Works Meeting April 30, 2026

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the meeting of April 30th, 2026 for the Dartmouth Public Board of Public Works.

This meeting is uh being recorded. Uh it's held virtually.

Uh first order of business is to take a roll call. Mr. Leel here.

Mr. Gier.

Mr. Almy, the chair is here. We have uh all members present and accounted for it.

Uh first order of business is to approve and accept the warrants.

Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve and accept the warrants for bills payable period ending April 13, April 21, and April 27th.

I have a motion by Mr. Label. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Mr. Gier. All in favor, Mr.

Leel.

I.

Mr. Gier, yes.

Chair votes I. Motion is passed. Next item is to approve and accept payrolls.

Motion to approve and accept the payrolls for week ending April 11, 18, and 25 of 2026.

I have a motion by Mr. Label. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Mr. Gier. Mr. Label, how do you vote?

I.

Mr. Gier, I. Chair votes I. Item is uh approved unanimously. Uh we'll move on to old business. Uh Tim A Sherbrook.

Okay. Unfortunately, uh so this is we had planned to discuss conditions for the Sherbrook 40B project this morning.

Um unfortunately special council uh last minute was not able to attend this morning. Um we also don't have the conditions. We expected them earlier this week. We don't have the general conditions but I did meet with uh special counsel and the planning director yesterday to discuss uh condition draft conditions from the peerreview consultant for uh wetlands and civil uh as well as uh traffic

engineering and we are waiting for scant uh report for the sewer and and water.

Um, you know, this was this was delayed as as the the developer uh wanted to wait till after um post approval of the project to move forward with the additional design and information for the water and sewer connections. While we thought this was unreasonable as you know that we are high highly concerned with the with the capacity of the infrastructure in OSport road as well as a treatment facility. So

they did submit um a a letter memorandum of their proposed uh sewer and water demands. Um, but that that was submitted to the portal on April 9th and to me on April 13th, which we forwarded on the 14th to Stantech. So, they haven't had much time to review and and and uh all the all the uh infrastructure and and the impacts on the in infrastructure. So, we're waiting for that and hopefully we'll have that

towards the end of the week. But we did receive additional news that Ken Scully who we work with uh at Stantech uh has left Stantech is no longer with Stantech. So we have a meeting uh this afternoon with Stantech to uh discuss u any outstanding items and to move forward with uh with this project. the uh they are they are fully aware of of of the project and understanding of what we need. So

Tim, could you give us some information on the uh hearing schedule and what what other deadlines we have?

Sure, we have a hearing scheduled for for this evening. this evening was to go over any outstanding items uh specifically waivers um waiver requests which this this project does not have a large number of waiver requests. Um most of them are zoning related and there was one uh condition uh waiver that they requested to do with storm water regulations which which was basically um to do with with uh tree uh showing

the specific trees on the plan which our regulations require them to show any any trees um with a a trunk of 10 in or larger on on the property and they requested a waiver to only show Is that Uh Tim, you're you're breaking up. Could you repeat that, please?

Yeah. So they they requested a waiver from storm water regulations that the the regulations require um to that on a on a development site all all trees of 10 in or larger trunk diameter be shown on the site on the entire site. and they requested a waiver to only show uh the trees of of diameter of 10 in or larger along the frontage of the site which they've shown on the on their

existing condition plants. But we we also requested that they show any any trees of this uh tenences or larger along the east property line that abuts the residential property as well.

Board members, any questions? Uh Tim, so a little a little background information and if you're going to meet with Stantech this afternoon, um the the system or sewer uh main that they're going to be tying into, is this the same sewer main as the one that um is uh covering Delta Avenue, Sharon Avenue, and um Snowberry Drive and then Alden Avenue and um Lucy Little Road.

Tim, you're breaking up again.

Rob, is did did that uh break up come across on your screen also? Uh yeah, he's he's showing some kind of a technical problem.

Okay. I thought it was me at first.

No.

Um community media. Uh can you tell us what's going on with Tim?

I think that's on his end.

Okay. I I think he has a bad connection.

Sandy is uh how how's your connection?

Could you uh could you drop in and so we can check you and see if it's Tim's office or it's the building.

Looks like it might be the building.

Yeah, might be the building.

I'll call over quick, guys. Derek.

All right. Thanks, Derek.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, Cody. We're having a technical difficulty with uh Tim Barber's connection, so we're not quite sure where we're going to go here.

Okay, no worries. If it makes you feel any better, I for some reason it says we can't turn on our camera. Oh, there it is.

Okay. And Sandy, I've got a I've got you. And your image is quite clear, so it must be Tim's office.

It is. I was just down his office. He's trying to reboot right now.

Okay.

But he might come down here.

You're going to let him in that end of the building, huh?

I think so.

I know in the past he's mentioned that he's had to unplug his computer and unplug his camera and then reboot. So that's probably what's happening. I'm sure Sandy can confirm.

I'm reminded of the old saying to heir is to human. Uh, but it takes a computer to really make a mess of things.

just texted me that he said he's rebooting.

Okay. Um

while we're waiting. Uh Cody, this doesn't look weird to me. Doesn't need to be it.

Yes. Good morning.

Good morning. Um we have on the uh agenda capital planning discussion. Were you going to give a presentation?

Brief. Yeah, Rob. I have um essentially the presentation that we've given uh to the select board and finance committee.

We're going to take out the general fund uh portion and go over the uh particularly the water and sewer portion.

Okay.

Hi Tim, can you hear us? All right.

Yeah, sorry about that. I had to reboot my computer. I it just completely froze up and wouldn't let me do anything.

Yeah, you're still I'm still seeing every once in a while a flash of uh of error in your picture.

Yes, it's lining out.

It could be a connection here. I'm not sure.

Okay.

Uh we were going over uh Sherbet Sherbrook uh 40B conditions and you were talking about the uh timing of hearings.

Yes. So tonight uh there is a hearing at 6 p.m. at town hall for the Sherbrook.

Um basically uh mainly to go over all outstanding conditions. Uh uh we went over with special counsel the draft conditions for wetlands civil um and traffic uh yesterday. Um we don't have a copy of the general conditions yet. Um and then I I will be meeting with Windtech later today to go over anything that they have to report um on their findings. the the closing hearing is currently

scheduled for um May 12th, which is a a Tuesday, May 12th at at town hall as well. Um so that's planned for a closing hearing. Um we we received the the data from from the Sher developers to move forward with sewer and water review on April 13th. So, we haven't had much time to to finalize our review with with the consultant uh with the peerreview consultant. So, we'll be working with

them to to expedite that as well.

Board members, any comments or questions?

Yes. Um Tim, the two neighborhoods that I'm concerned about are Sharon Avenue, Dalter Avenue, Snowberry Drive, and then Alton Avenue, and Lucy Little. uh the Sherbrook uh development plans on tying into the same main that those neighborhoods rely upon.

Yes. Yeah. So, the there's a fourth main in Old Westport Road that was installed by the developers of the Cedars of Assisted Living um along with their private pump station. uh that goes all along in front of this the the developing property um all the way to Morton Avenue in front of UMass Dartmouth. Um we have two neighborhoods that we installed sewer which is the Sharon Delta A Snowberry Lane. Uh we

installed a pump station that also pumps into that fourth main as well as Lucy Little Road and and Alden Avenue area.

We have the junior pump station that also pumps into that fourth main. So, uh we do have concerns with capacity impacts on all three of those pump stations and the force main as well as our our north station which is our largest station uh you know along the pass river um that you know that these flows will impact that station as well.

So, so this, you know, this development has a lot of critical concerns. Um, so, you know, they they they need to be thoroughly thorough thoroughly reviewed and, uh, and and we need to analyze those findings to to know exactly what these flows are going to do to our our system. And the private pump station, you know, we we don't want to impact their station. That station actually has

had some some door overflows with some failures. So, you know, it's it's deeply concerning.

So, my my concern, Tim, is that those two neighborhoods were sewed about 20 years ago. Uh, and in fact, those neighborhoods paid in total through betterments the full cost of sewing those neighborhoods.

And for those for the purpose of them getting municipal sewer because of issues of non-compliance to title 5 and the standards have gotten more stringent.

They've operated under the premise that you know that was going to be funded fully by them for the purposes of getting them on municipal sewer. And I'm concerned and I would like to see that our consultants are able to assure those folks in those neighborhoods that are not tied in that in fact they will still be able to tie into that uh those systems that they paid for. Um I think

they've been paying betterments. Many of them have been paying their betterment over the 20-year period that the law allows with interest. And I think we have a responsibility to see that in fact uh they are able to follow through.

They may not some would say well how why haven't they hooked in yet? Well the reason is they're paying substantial betterments and maybe financially they can't afford it until the betterment's been paid up. So I I want an answer to that before I take a a vote on anything to do with allowing them to get into the municipal sewer system.

I agree. Those are our concerns as well, Mike. Thank you for for stating that.

Um, you know, we we've had this concern on other projects as well. Um, basically, you know, as these projects that were not, um, originally part of our wastewater and sewer master plan, uh, come in and take all the all this capacity. You know what happens to people who have have paid Benediments or currently paying Benediments that you know what happens to the capacity when they're ready to connect. you know, if

if they are on were on a newer septic when when we did install sewer um you know, they they would have had, you know, at least 20 years uh to for the life of that septic to before they connect and uh you know, like like you said, the financial constraints with the bed itself plus the the fees to connect in the in with the town fees and and contractor fees.

It's it you know it is expensive and and uh you know closing that capacity to them where they've paid towards that infrastructure. I don't know it's concerning.

Yep. Thank you.

Ron, do you have any comments?

No, I I just uh I I agree with Mike and in how we're assessing this. Um you know, there should be considered last on a totem poll. they haven't been paying.

This has been in the ground for 20 years. It's been promised to the existing people who are paying. Um, you know, and does their proposal, uh, you know, meet their capabilities as well as the future needs of the developer. You know, how that gets approved by us is is going to be, you know, how they answer those questions.

you know, is there going to be capacity for the people who have been there for 20 years, right, that are paying betterments?

Tim, I have um a different kind of question or comment.

This is the second project where I get the strong feeling that the developer is jamming the town on schedule. And I understand that we're working under uh a set of regulations that's supposed to encourage the development of uh affordable housing. But this business about getting uh given a a lot of technical data and having only a a few weeks to evaluate a complex and longstanding sewer system and the um the area

surrounding it and the obligations that the town has that uh Mr. Mr. Leel and Mr. Gier just discussed it. This is I I find it very hard to accept and I don't know what can be done about it, but um at some point maybe you have to make a case for a very expensive sewer upgrade to deal to um serve this project. Uh and see what happens.

Um I think in this case the um it seems the technical and historical facts are pretty straightforward and um I can't imagine that on appeal that this is the kind of uh kind of subject that the state would uh have not side with the town on. I mean after all the title five regulations are of special interest to the state in this region and uh that's why these sewers were put in in sized.

Um okay that's all I have to say. Y and uh thank you. Um do we need to have another hearing to look at these conditions if you if you'd like to discuss them uh once I once I get receive the conditions I can forward them and uh you know the like I said the next the next hearing is scheduled for the 12th of May. Um, so we do have um we have next week or the

Monday before.

Um, are there any subsequent hearing scheduled or is that a hard decision date?

That's a hard Well, that's not a hard decision date. That is for for the zoning board and the developer. They've set this date as the final hearing. So after that hearing um if it does close on the 12th they will no longer be able to hear um any comments from the applicants or or or other agencies.

And Tim, what do you what sense do you get from the applicant uh as to their openness to uh a substantial upgrade to the sewer collection system if necessary?

We haven't really gotten that that far be be due to the fact that we received this information for this tour review uh only a couple weeks ago um or a week and a half ago. Uh we really haven't had that discussion. We're waiting for recommendations from fant on any upgrades that that would be needed to uh allow that them to discharge into the sewer system.

Um and then we would discuss that further. Um so no I I I hope I I'll have some additional information after my meeting with Santex this afternoon. Um but that's all I have.

Yeah. Do the calculations support this?

I mean how many people have are tied in?

How many people can tie in? And with this new development, does does it does it indicate that the capacity is going to be burned?

Yeah. So, as far as the pump station infrastructure localized in that area that Santech is is reviewing that, evaluating that based on the the data that the developer has submitted, the applicant has submitted. Um and they they also do a review of of the impacts to the wastewater treatment facility. Um so you know once we have that report we'll have a better understanding.

So we don't we don't have those those numbers yet.

Yeah. Well I I agree with the chair. I mean this seems like we're being pushed into a corner because they want to get ahead of the curve.

Correct.

And you know what recourse what recourse do we have? If public works says no, then can they proceed without the permits that they need from us?

Ultimately relies on on the zoning board decision.

If I may, Mr. chair. Um the the you know if there were something uh like that where the board uh refu you know denied the interconnection essentially is what you're saying. Um they could appeal um to to the zoning board of appeals. Um and then the housing appeals committee could weigh in which is the essential judiciary body for comprehensive permit appeals. Um and and and I would recommend that if you have an

opportunity, you you look at the housing appeals committee's website and their decisions, they tend not to be on the side of municipalities. Um and and essentially if that that committee rules against the municipality, you can challenge them in court. Um but again, it it's an uphill battle that the the state is it's a pro-ousing um agenda right now. The housing appeals committee is appointed by the governor. Um and

and I think, you know, physically if there if there isn't capacity, you know, we need to we we need need to make that known um as soon as possible and and what recommendations for any any upgrades or mitigation that would be needed. Um, you know, that could be, you know, that could potentially be on the town to to finance as well to fund.

Okay, Tim, when you get some feedback from um the consultant Stantech, could you uh contact the board members about a a hearing uh from for the public works board next week possibly? Y, you know, I I I would also recommend um that, you know, that we request uh an extension to to if if Stante's not able to get this get their evaluation completed uh this week, uh possibly request a an extension for this project

to the developer uh to where we can get that evaluation completed uh in a reasonable time frame. and and and then have allow us to evaluate that as well.

Uh I suggest you uh draft that extension and document it with both history and technical information regarding the uh potential capacity problems with the existing collection system.

Um, and I think the zoning board of appeals town administrator uh should be copied as well as the uh well I guess the request would go to the zoning board and the applicant.

Absolutely.

Yeah. Okay. make sure that the admin town administrators copied and um and you'll work with with us about the need for u a uh hearing special hearing for Sherbrook.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman, uh one one other comment. Um, these questions and comments are certainly paralleling uh the same concerns we've had on different locations. Um, I think it's also appropriate that we would ask Stantech in their evaluation and their final report to us whether or not these locations need to look at the issue of their own on-site package treatment facilities. I know this has happened in

other communities where they don't have capacity. Um what we're looking at in the CWMP review is because of capacity uh issues we have concern about. I think we need to get to the point where maybe some of these locations deal with their own situation um rather than burdening, you know, the community as a whole.

All right. Any other comments, board members?

All right. I'd like to take um the capital planning discussion out of order since um the town administrator and town collector have been very patient waiting for us in this hearing. So, um Tim, do you want to introduce this and uh our speakers?

Yes. town administrator Cody Hadad and uh finance director Gary Carrero are here to discuss and present long range capital planning our presentation.

Thanks Tim. Uh good morning Cody had time administrator as Tim said joined by Gary Carrero director of budget and finance. Um what what this really is meant to do I have a brief presentation that we'll go over. Um it it takes into account a lot of the projects that the long-term capital uh planning committee has been working on particularly in regards to uh water and sewer and you know as you all know some of those

capital needs that are both short-term and long-term um but they're significant in in um Mike you just mentioned the CWMP right really kicking off the greater um overall project of what are we going to do with the the wastewater treatment plant. So, we we're getting into it. As much as we say long term, we we have some projects that are probably in the forefront in speaking with Tim

and Sandy. Um, and so we wanted to to get it out there to start to show you what what that may look like as we show impacts on rates. Now, when we get into this, you'll notice this this only is for the capital projects when we talk about rate impact. So the rates that we're going to show the increases don't take into account any sort of operational right the year-to-year

things that we need to keep up with.

This is just the fund essentially the debt for what we anticipate for capital projects. So I'm going to share my screen and start the presentation. Let's see.

Sure.

Okay. Can everyone see this?

Yeah, looks good.

All right. Good.

So uh these are the projects that we have essentially identified working with the team um within the next you know 20 to 30 years. Obviously most um in the forefront you have two projects that essentially we're we're thinking we're going to pursue borrowing for next year which is um infrastructure upgrades and water. This is primarily made up of the uh Route 6 water main. As you know, the

project from Masto will be finally um taking place and it makes sense for the town to to replace that um water man there. There may be a few other projects that we need to throw in. Um there's some maintenance on the uh several of our um water tanks that Tim can certainly um opine on. And so when we first did this, we did it at 2 and a half million, but it it probably will be

closer to that 5 to 8 million um for kind of immediate needs. And then we talk about wastewater treatment plant upgrades. Um this is primarily the aerration project. So as you all are likely aware the aation project is fully designed. We have a small grant um I think $250,000 to begin that construction. It's valued at close to 7 million. Uh and so you know whether whatever we do with the wastewater

treatment plant, this is a good project for us to do now. Um it's only going to become more expensive. it's going to help us with um you know a lot of the things going on over there. So it makes sense to undergo this project in the near term and then uh as we get into you know 2029 2030 we have general uh water treatment upgrades. Tim I'm sure has spoken about these across the board. Um

the water treat the wastewater treatment plant as a as kind of the culmination of the CWMP we're estimating at $50 million right now. I mean as you all know that's a wide range right? It depends on what is determined there. Keep in mind if we move forward with the aeration project now that essentially reduces the the full cost of whatever we do in the future. Uh and then we have just general

infrastructure needs um for $20 million.

Uh that you know that could include things like we're talking about the sourcing study uh trying to be to decrease our reliance on outside sources. So that could include things like that. You'll notice the rate at 2%.

Um the reason for that is it and that could change. Um there is the uh state the clean water trust right through the state. Um and depending on we could either get a 2% or a 0% rate. Uh once we get that to CWMP um and some other factors and we probably will qualify for a 0% rate which is excellent. um we are we have to apply essentially to become part of that

program and then you have to get accepted and then they fund um certain projects and so the um applications will be opening up here in the next couple of months we'll be working with the DPW team to um submit at least the aerasion project we think that that has a pretty good uh chance of of qualifying and getting accepted the um general water infrastructure upgrades um in the m the

tank maintenance that may be something that we just have to conventionally borrow. Uh so that may go up to like a three 3.5% rate. Good news is is um you know the town is AAA has a AAA bond rating. Um you know as we as we look at revenues and expenses within all of our enterprise funds obviously we had a um a challenging year last year we'll say but I think uh we're we're doing pretty well

this year. The rate increases have done exactly what we anticipated.

good thing.

So, what what does that mean for the water enterprise fund? Um, essentially what you see is based on that debt schedule, here's what your annual debt service payments would be. Um, right?

So, so starting in 27 with the first round of projects, your debt service payment would be 278,000.

Then you go up to 29, your annual payment would be around 1.4 million.

2035 you're at almost 2 million. Yeah.

2027 infrastructure drops off because we propose a 10-year bond for that. Uh so your debt service payment drops down and then as things drop off obviously your debt service payment decreases. But what you see is is what what does that mean for the rate right at the time? So we projected out what what your total rate revenue would be by year um to cover the debt service payment. And so obviously

immediately you would need about a 4% rate increase just to cover the debt service, right? So, I want to make that known. This is on in addition to any other increase that we need to keep up with operational costs to pay our um more short-term capital projects, right?

The things that we that we pay out of retained earnings. So, um 4%, you know, you you see 15% which is concerning.

What I'll say is is, you know, we need to build that in year-over-year. So, we shouldn't be waiting until 2029 or 2030 when we actually borrow to to build in a 15% rate increase. Over the next several years, as we um review your rates and and our team will be recommending rate increases to to the board and working with the administration, we will build in a small number each year. So essentially when 2030

comes, right, and we we take out additional debt, we're not saying, okay, on top of a 8% increase to increase to keep up with operation, we also need a 15.1 increase to pay for our debt.

That's the last thing we want. And so that's why we're we're trying to take a proactive approach with this um and make sure that we're prepared. We ran the same scenario for the uh sewer enterprise fund. Obviously, what you see is it's much more significant because you have 50 a $50 million wastewater treatment plant proposed. You know, we did 2031 2032. Um that makes your debt

service skyrocket, right? It's almost $3 million a year. And then when you when you provide those um additional infrastructure upgrades, you're up to you peak at around $3.5 million a year debt service payments. Um I'll note, right, we use the 2% interest rate. So if if we end up getting a 0% rate, the debt service, you know, it drop it definitely drops off a little bit. Um and which is helpful and vice versa. If

we're not able to secure funds through the Clean Water Trust and we have to conventionally borrow, we could be a little bit higher than 2%. Um but what you see is right the the first round of borrowing alone would require an 11% rate increase. If we were to again, and this is if we wait, this is if we do not build anything in, which we do not plan

to do. um you can see four for you know 32% and then 4 and a.5% and so but that's why it's imperative that we start to build in um these these increases so when we need to take on additional debt it's already built in um to to what the budget can afford. So that's it. It's high level um really just wanted to start the conversation make sure that the board of public works was aware and

um open it up to questions.

Board members any questions? Um, one one question, Cody, uh, those rate increases, does it take into consideration any previous debt retirement that may be melding into that schedule?

Uh, we did look at the retirement of debt uh, for the for the for us taking on the debt over the next several years.

We didn't have anything that would retire um and and allow for significant um fluctuations in the budget to be able to take from that current debt to others.

But later on in the desk, I know we do have we do have debt fall off.

Um I looking at those increases when you combine, you know, a household that has both water and sewer, we're looking at dramatic increases for a relatively small portion of what some of the infrastructure needs are over the next 20 years for both those systems. It begs the question, are we in a position that we maybe need to start to look strongly at developing a different type or tier

of rate structure that deals with residential versus commercial rental apartments? Uh, such heavy uses as the university and other big uses.

A it's a great point. Um, it's a conversation that myself and Mr. Barber actually just had either this week or last week. Um, and I think what you will see in our team's recommended rates uh for 27 is is the beginning of just that um to start to take that into account.

Thank you, Mr. Leel. Any questions?

No, it's uh sort of been through this once before.

I'm kind of like disappointed I have to go through it again. Uh that's uh is there any debt service forgiveness being considered you know with through the uh is it the clean water trust now uh with us was the the revolving fund the state revolving fund but um has anyone spoken to the state about that Cody?

uh my team on on sewer projects.

We have not yet. Uh we're planning to really engage conversations with them in the next in the coming months when the when the application opens again to see what you know get get their thoughts on you know what do they think we would qualify for. Um and keep in mind we have some big projects coming up with the wastewater treatment plant and um you know what what they think our best course of action is is

I think Ron one of the factors is that uh state representative Chris Marky and other other legislators are recognizing that these infrastructure improvements are tremendous uh burden upon the rate payers and take is a good example what the city of New Bedford is paying now for remediation of all these combined sewer overflows.

Um it's starting to burden very very heavy on the rateayers and uh some relief needs to be done in that regard.

Um, if you get a chance, take a look at what Chris and other legislators are proposing. It's specifically addressing what you just brought up, Ron, that um, this is a financial burden, especially when you think about individuals that are on a fixed income, uh, social security or, you know, things like that.

Um, on two fronts, you get increases in a double digit along with whatever other expense increases they have. and it's of great concern.

Yeah. No, this is going to be rate shock and and that's why I'm shaking my head.

I'm saying, geez, I can't believe I'm going through this again, you know, and it's going to be tough for a lot of people. And, you know, we've got to get everybody, you know, to support, you know, issues like that with debt service, forgiveness, uh, uh, you know, whatever we can do to get rates to stabilize. But this is this is nothing but it's going to go up and up and up

and uh it it's not going to be easy.

We've also uh you know mentioned this to the legislature as as well as you know the multi-residential housing coming into town also, you know, puts a big impact in on this as well. and and you know when we're requesting or or you know applying for grants or looking at bond bills you know some of that you know geared towards towards housing uh and infrastructure for housing you know

and I I think that you know that's a a great avenue to continue to research I know the like the Ellswick and uh Route 6 pump stations we did we were awarded a housing grant for that those upgrades based on that the impact of the preserve 40b on on that infrastructure.

So hopefully that can continue and uh we can we can have more funding for those projects and take it and take them off the rateayers.

Yep. Yeah. I have a related question. Uh Tim and Cody, getting grants is a good way to soften the cost of these capital projects. But how much of the actual costs associated with upgrading our systems, existing systems can be shifted to the developer in 40b projects?

you know, um if you can show the direct impact, we can certainly have a a request. Um the the the the guidance um is essentially, you know, that that they're they're rateayers, too, right? That that's essentially what what we've been told um from our legal team is they're they're rateayers, too. anything um that you know that they're paying their portion essentially is what we've been advised.

So we um we certainly try to have those conversations and I know this is a vague answer. It's vague for a reason. You know publicly don't want to necessarily um expose our potential bargaining position um with these with developers.

But um we certainly try and we recognize this. Um, we we tried this with the preserve, right, Tim? And and I think we got $250,000.

300.

Yeah. So, $300,000, which, you know, hey, that's that's good, but it's costing us um, you know, all said and done, probably four or five million.

Yeah. And the the cost to the town are for uh these capital projects are are uh front-loaded. And if you're going to try and recoup those costs from the devel developer projects as rateayers, then you're you're losing money. You're losing a lot of money because of the timing. So anyway, I that's my comment and I'll leave it at that and trust that the town will do its very best to uh protect the existing rateayers.

Oh, absolutely. Yep. I mean, the point is is like I said to to start this conversation, make you aware. Um the good news, if there is good news of of all of this is, you know, your enterprise funds are now running um the way that they should be financially. We we just did a thorough analysis and as you recall, go back, you know, eight months, we weren't in a good spot. Um if

we continued to operate the way we were, we we weren't going to have enterprise funds pretty soon. And so, um, based on the revised rates that the board approved, um, and the way the revenue is coming in, we're we're doing kind of exactly how we projected it to, which is good.

Okay, board members, any other questions? Um, one one of the things that the town did uh on some of the early 40bs back in the early 2000s is that they have a requirement for a financial review that the developer needs to present to the zoning board of appeals. Um, when we used uh Mark Babowski when he was on the other side of the table representing municipalities, those reviews would be sent to a woman

down in Dubberry who did them for a number of Massachusetts communities. And the town was able to see, you know, what was the the revenues that they were expecting to receive, how they were paying off their debt service for their construction, and whether or not there is room in there to up the financial um, you know, bonus to the town. U, I don't know if that's still done. I don't know

if the consultant that you use has somebody that does that, but it was beneficial back when we did three or four 40bs back in the early 2000s.

Okay.

Anything else?

Okay. Thank you, Cody. Thank you, Gary.

Um, yeah. Thank you, Cody and Gary. We we may ask tough questions of you guys, but we do appreciate the work you do.

Yep. Absolutely. That's what they care for and we'll uh we'll be back probably next month to to present some rates for the fiscal 27.

All right.

Thanks, Tim.

Thanks.

Okay, board. Uh we'll go back to our agenda. Old business B tree bylaw. Tim.

So, the Dmitri bylaw has been submitted for final review uh for the spring annual town meeting. A mockup version with some grammatical corrections, added language, and note of concern has been submitted to the town administrator. Um, regarding the bylaw, I I submitted those.

The just to brief those section 3.2 two, paragraph 2, I had added in other local town lands there. Um, section 4.2.2 I added, you know, all application fees and hearing notices shall be paid for by the applicant. So, we don't want the the town or the DBW uh being burdened with with costs um for for any any tree work applied for by uh applicant. And then section 5.2 to I stated some concerns uh with setback trees

you know uh the language that put you know perpetual maintenance of setback trees on the DPW and setback trees would be you know within 20 ft of the rightway on private property. Um, so you know, I I have concerns with, you know, our tree crews and staff working on on private property to maintain any trees that could be, you know, close to a residence or, you know, or any of their their

their property that could be damaged.

Other than that, I think that I think the bylaw looks pretty good.

Um, do you have specific um language for 5.2? too.

I don't I I stated the concerns with that and uh I you know I plan to submit some additional language.

Yeah. I I when I read that I I sort of you know I was thinking setback trees it shouldn't be a town issue. It it it's it's private property.

There's too many liabilities for crews to be walking on people's private properties to maintain something that is considered a shade tree for the town, but it's on private property.

That's correct. Where it's protected uh the trees are protected within that 20 foot area as setback trees and um and they're agreed upon with the with the property owner. I I I believe the maintenance should be shifted to the property owner.

Board members, any other comments?

I think Tim, one of the things you're seeing in these developments that have been done like 20 years ago is the trees were put too close to the roadway.

They get subject to uh salt. they uh lift the sidewalks in locations uh and they become substantial liabilities. I can think of a couple of subdivisions that I cover in my walk and uh I think the mistakes of the past need to be uh remedied and trees the trees look good but they're under you know they're under a lot of stress and you're seeing some varieties like that they put

in the ash you know that are subject to the ash bore that are dying and you folks are having to spend a lot of time uh maintaining or removing those trees.

So something that would help something that would help to remedy that problem would be beneficial.

I think the issue that we're on raises um you know is a legitimate issue. Uh but I certainly think that the trees are nice to are nice to have but we need to think about what is best for their their growth.

Yeah. uh a few years back we met with with the planning director and uh we had and the planning board and and and we revised the regulation for tree locations. So rather than placing trees, street trees between the paved roadway and the sidewalk if sidewalks are there, we we proposed all trees put place back uh about set back two feet from the property line. So behind the sidewalk,

if there's a sidewalk or even if there isn't a sidewalk, set them back two feet off the property line, a rightaway line.

So if there was a sidewalk to to be put in, it wouldn't be impacted or impacting the trees and and you have less impact with with salt and and contaminants from the roadway.

Yeah, that's the way to go. What's the in a in a road layouts, Tim? What's the typical sidewalk width?

Uh typically looking at between four and five feet with curving.

Any other questions, board members?

So that's that's a that's a an actual sidewalk, you know, and then and then the width of the rightway.

Well, the rightway is what I'm talking about.

Yeah, it varies. So if if there's a 50 foot rightway and you know, and our roads typically are recommended at 20 22 to 24 feet. So, so you'd have, you know, in a in a 50 foot rideway, you're going to have 16 feet. So, you have Yeah, you got you got ample opportunity to put a tree off off the road surface away from the issues that that Mike's mentioned about salt and

but what happens is a lot of times in development, uh, developers will request a reduction in the right away with so they'll reduce it down to 40 and typically that's approved. Um, so with a 40 foot in and right away in sidewalk in actual constructed sidewalk on both sides of the road, it it gets really tight.

So if if there's only a sidewalk on one side of the road or no sidewalk proposed, it it allows for, you know, a decent area. So, but if you know, if it's a 40 foot gradeway, you know, it it makes things a lot tighter.

Uh Tim, do you need uh some kind of an approval motion from us or do you want to do that at the next meeting? Do we have because we have time before the uh town meeting, right?

Um yeah, but I know they want all the warrant articles uh completed by the end of next week.

Okay. Well, we don't if you have any recommendations or or additional comments, I can take them and work with uh getting a a final draft.

And then once I get the final draft, I can I can send it to the board. And if we schedule another meeting to discuss a sherbet uh development, we can conditions, we can also uh add.

Okay. So the only um language that you provided in your redline version uh that is not proposed to be final is under section 5.2 two, right?

Yeah. All the other language and and corrections are are proposed to be final. Um, and I'll develop I'll develop some language and discuss with both the tree committee and uh possibly town council to to revise that.

So, it seems to me board members that we could uh approve Tim's suggested changes with the exception of section 5.2 and Tim will bring uh proposed final language for that section back to us.

Right. Does that sound acceptable?

Y.

All right. Uh could I have a motion to that effect?

I would so move the motion as presented.

Okay. U motion by I will second that.

Second by Mr. Label. Uh Mr. Gier, how do you vote?

I vote yes.

Mr. Leel, yes.

Chair votes yes. So Tim, you'll bring back uh specific language for 5.2 to and the rest of your red lines. Uh proposed changes have been approved by the board and it looks like uh before town meeting you should bring a final version back to us so we can uh decide whether to recommend it to the town meeting.

Absolutely.

Okay.

All right. Uh next item is the uh operational study.

So Carly, there's no update. Um, unfortunately, you know, when Cody was there, we could have, uh, mentioned it to him. Um, the, uh, the business manager position that the town administrator had proposed has been advertised. Um, so we're we're looking at that at those candidates and we'll work with human resources to as as they as they schedule interviews and interview candidates for the position.

Um, I know we talked about uh possibly holding off on on the operational study until we have this business manager uh position.

Board members, any questions?

Okay. Uh, next item is uh storm debris planning. Right. So, we're working with the refuge district and the EMA director to reschedule our our meeting that was uh cancelled um to continue the discussions on storm to re planning. But we we did have we attended an an emergency tabletop exercise for a category 2 hurricane uh at the police station this past Tuesday. Uh it was it was really it was really done well. Um

it was attended uh well by most agencies in the town including uh MIMA uh state agencies. Um and uh we did discuss uh you know storm debris management at a category 2 storm you basically mainly looking at natural debris with some smaller amounts of of CNB construction demolition. Um but uh I did I did speak with uh ammer officials after that as well as far as dream debris management plan and working uh

with the state debris management plan which I have a a copy of and I've been I've read through and it it looks pretty good. Um so we'll continue our work with with the district EMA director and uh report back board members. Any questions, Tim? Um, with the significant financial constraints, uh, cities and towns are looking at for fiscal 27, um, it begs the question whether or not

you've heard anything positive back from the state in any kind of financial assistance for the blizzard uh, that we sustained this winter. I know you have significantly over spent your snow and ice removal budget and u associated expenses with that and it'd be nice to see that states given some consideration to give some reimbursement that could be very helpful going into fiscal 27. Yes,

I think with not only state but federal there's been a lot of changes um in the in the recent months um which has I think delaying this process. Uh so you know in speaking with some of the officials at the at the event um you know they say maybe maybe two to three months out okay on hearings.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Hearing no other questions. Uh can we move to new business a uh utility layer license?

We have a utility layer uh license request from Celco Construction Corp.

um of Pemroke Mass. Uh they've been in business for 69 years. I think the current foreman's been in business for 20. Um they have references from Taton Water, uh Bellingham Public Works as well as Pituit Public Works. All good references. Uh they have all their insuranceances and bonds in place and I recommend approval of the utility layout.

I would members any questions?

I would assume the motion to approve the request.

I'll second that. Motion by Mr. Gier, second by Mr. Label. Mr. G, how do you vote?

Yes.

Mr. Leel, yes.

Chair votes yes. Uh, approved unanimously. Next item, uh, utility layer license. Ramos Landscaping.

Yes. So, Ramos Landscaping of Bristol, Rhode Island has applied for a utility layer license. Um, they they have they've been in business for 12 years. Um they have references from Bristol County Water Authority. Uh Bristol Water Pollution Control and H2O Innovation. H2O Innovation is responsible for inspecting utility work in Warren, Rhode Island. Um I know they they're not a municipality, but they uh

I guess I I guess they're hired by the municipality to do all the utility inspections in Warren Island. Um, so I do recommend approval of the utility layer license with that. If if you like an additional municipal records, I can request that from them.

Board members, the only concern I have, Mr. Chairman, is it it kind of annoys me a little bit that you get these references and none of them are dated.

Um, yeah. Yeah. Sometimes we get them dated, sometimes we don't. we can ask for.

Yeah. And and you know, I I think I kind of understand why they do that because you know, it's just an annoyance to get these things. So, you just keep using the same ones forever, right?

But, um you know, if if if it's not a big deal to anybody, I'm okay with it. But I I just think uh they want to work in a town, they should have something uh current that says that they're as good as they are.

All right.

Any other questions?

Members, uh are do you find the current package acceptable or do you need additional references? Here we have a recommendation of the superintendent. Correct.

Yep.

I would make the motion that we approve the request.

Motion by Mr. Gier. Mr. Leel.

I'll second that.

Second by Mr. Leel. How do you vote? Mr.

Gier.

Yes.

Mr. Leel.

Yes.

Chairbo. Yes. Approved.

Um, next is approval of storm water MS4 assistance agreement. Tim, so this is our annual contract uh for MS4 sampling, screening, reporting, GIS mapping and uh you know BMP which is you know storm water uh treatment and and collection um inspectional report and support. Um, this is uh with tie in bond uh for $45,000.

Board members, any questions?

The only You have money to pay it, right?

We do.

Okay.

The only comment I want to make on this is MS4 and the EPA's requirements on this is probably the most secretive misunderstood um provision to the public. And I really think I don't know if these consultants be willing to do it, Tim, but I really think if you did a program with the folks at DCTV and went through what this MS4 is all about and what the implications are and the requirements, it'd be very very

helpful. Um it's it's something that's increasing in responsibility.

um the development of plans required. I mean, you had to do this at the highway yard uh for uh dealing with the storm water management.

Um I can tell you from past experience, the fines that the EPA will will uh put on entities there uh there's no leeway with them. They'll make you pay them.

Um, I just think it's really uh a subject that's not well understood. A lot of entities don't know about it.

They don't know their responsibilities because it's not just the municipality.

It's the private sector that is also required to comply with it. And if you don't, they impose fines on that level.

So, I I certainly would make the motion that we um approve this particular uh appropriation, but I really think there's some information out there to the public in a program would be very helpful.

Yeah, I agree. Um just just by naming it MS4, right? It's it's kind of like what what's MS4 mean? Right.

Sounds like secretive police agency. Yeah.

Right. Exactly. Stormwater police agency.

you know, and we're also, you know, we're also tasked with with now inspecting all DMPs, whether they're private or Yeah.

you know, public and and reporting on them, you know, that they're they're following their their operations and maintenance.

Absolutely, Tim. I agree with uh Mr. Gier very strongly and I think uh the public information piece should have um an element that is asking and answering the questions what can you do what is your responsibility.

Um you know in in the early days of these things it was pick up after your dog but um the way things are going it uh gets to responsible use of uh lawn and garden chemicals and water conservation as well. So it's all tied together and I think it we should take an opportunity to put this out in the public.

Yeah absolutely.

I I also have, you know, additional documents, uh, you know, we're working with Tai and Bond and and as well as, you know, with this with the state on on a lot of lot of tools, tips and and and and you know, conformity with this. So, I think I think we can put something together.

Well, given given the uh interest locally in uh water quality, uh a TV piece would lend itself to outdoor filming.

Uh you know, what is a BMP? What's it what does it discharge look like? Um and you wouldn't have to go very far to find examples. So, you would do this during a rain event.

Uh yeah, in a dry event and show the difference. Yeah. Right.

Okay, board members. Uh, no more questions. I'll take a motion.

I'll make the motion that we approve it.

I'll second that.

Uh, motion by Mr. Gier, second by Mr.

Label. All in favor? Mr. Gier?

Yes.

Mr. Label?

Yes.

Chair votes uh, votes yes. Items approved. Next is uh, industrial wastewater discharge agreement.

Tim, so the board previously approved an on call support uh contract with scant to consult on industrial wastewater discharges. Uh so we're currently working with a company over on Shure uh Sher Works uh who is currently requesting to discharge multiple processes into our our sewer system and and we have contracted with Sante to review uh the sampling analysis and report any recommended treatment prior

to discharge and then continue you know and uh whether it's recommended for quarterly or annual uh sampling. This is funded uh solely through the applicant um through a 53G account. So basically we we we have that on call support contract submitted uh for each individual project. They estimate the cost and then we we provide the applicant with with the the cost and then they fund it but fund a

project and then we use that funding uh throughout the the project.

Board members, any questions?

This is currently for $4,200 this contract.

Yeah, I mean we don't really have an IP program, right? It's very little industrial discharge if any.

Correct. Yeah. There is there are a couple. Yeah.

Oh, there's a couple.

Okay.

Okay.

One is the power plant, you know, up in, you know, up in North Medical.

Okay.

But it's it's it's not, you know, there aren't a lot of them.

Do I have a motion to approve?

I make the motion that we approve.

I'll second that.

Motion by Mr. Gier, second by Mr. Leel.

Uh, Mr. G.

Yes.

Mr. Leel.

Yes.

Uh, chair votes yes. Item is approved.

Next item is E. Approval of peer review services for 813 State Road.

So I you know along the same lines the board previously approved on call support from scant to consult on uh multi-residentidential developments to evaluate proposed uh sewer discharge uh on existing sewer and wastewater infrastructure as well as water demand and impact on our water infrastructure. Uh this this is for 813 State Road which is a it's a 15 unit over 55 development proposed. Um this is

just west of the Ellswick and Route 6 pump stations. Um so you know those stations have been uh designed and to be upgraded for you know the preserve um and and additional uh flows. Um but projects like this weren't you know again weren't part of that design process. So we we would consult with ST stand to evaluate the impacts and confirm that there's enough capacity in the in the infrastructure to

uh allow this project. Uh the the the contract with Santech is $16,000 and this is again funded solely through the project developer applicant through a 53D account.

Board members, any questions?

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve.

So move.

I'll I'll second that motion by Mr. Gier to approve. Second by Mr. Leel. Uh Mr. Gier, how do you vote?

Yes.

Mr. Gier votes yes. Mr. Label, yes.

Mr. Leel votes yes. Chair votes yes.

Item is approved.

Next item F on call construction.

Tim, so this uh on call construction for inspection and the material testing with SW Cole. So, this is similar to the the previous ones where um this is a new agreement. Uh we we we've discussed this with SW Cole who who does a lot of the uh you know quality assurance uh uh tech the materials testing and inspections out in the field when we have projects that are um privately

uh contracted uh to be like an accepted town road or in a subdivision mostly where uh they have to they have to comply with with our paving specifications uh for a super pave and uh most of the time SW coal is contracted for that quality control inspection and material testing and reporting. So you know they they would like to have an on call uh agreement with us for from any of these projects

uh for the support on this these project and we can report that directly with SW goal um in in their um contract there's a there's a list of you know hourly charges. So again, each each project will be estimated independently and then we'll bring them to the board and all agreements shall be uh funded by the project applicant through a 53g account.

Have we ever done this before?

Um not through like an on call agreement. Typically uh we require we we acquire this we require that this is done and it's typically on the responsibility of developers to contract uh a company to to report to us that's certified.

Okay.

Tim on um this uh same subject as um Eversource is going and replacing uh old gas mans uh throughout town the town and the you know the community as large. Um are there individuals inspectors on present to see that in fact the compaction on those trenches are being done in lifts proper engineered you know lifts and materials. Um, I see some of this trench settlement and I start to

question whether or not they are doing the proper compaction. Um, you know, and I I wonder what the inspection process is for Eversource.

So, uh, this has been a long long battle. Uh, we've gone back and forth with Eversource and I think the late 90s. Um and it I think the the main uh issue has been you know trench back to compact. Um so we you know we do require on all of our permits removal of all materials and then brought in with with gravel that meets our specifications.

But the inspection and the inspection of compaction uh they they they do not agree with with us inspection inspecting the trench work and and compaction which is why we typically wait as long as we do to reconstruct the road.

you know, we recommended control density fill in in the past and they refused to use it because of uh you know, they can't track gas leaks, you know, because of the density of of the CDF. But yeah, it we've we worked I know at one point we worked for about a year and a half on on an agreement with town council and a source council and that was one of the

big sticking points was was approval and inspection of the compaction.

Tim, this is like da I'm sorry Mike. Go ahead.

What concerns me is that um with the very limited amount of uh repaving funds that you have on an annual basis, I know you tell Eversource to get in there, you know, before uh you do a repaving or you do a road reconstruction. The problem is what so what we would hope that work would be done within a year and they go back and they you know put the final

code on and you know two or three years down the road you still haven't been able to fund the project and you drive down the road and you can see all of the settling going on on the the repatched areas and New Bedford is just as bad. I mean, they appropriated $3 million um three weeks ago for road uh repairs and improvements and Jamie Pont said that would you know that wouldn't even

cover 10% of what he has for road projects and you drive over all of those trenches and it's like it's it's annoying. And when you have a winter like we had, it gets even worse.

It is. last you know last year we didn't get any money towards road so from the town I mean we did get chapter 90 funding we did we did get um some fair share funding from the state and and and ever so cost sharing but we didn't get any any allocation from the town and that you know that really hits our it's our well we got the we got vote maintenance

but we didn't get the uh article money that we asked for for sidewalks right what did we get for road maintenance last year I thought didn't we get any vote maintenance No, not at all.

None.

Okay. How about this year? Were they going to give us anything?

Yeah, they are. There there is a proposal uh uh for uh 600,000. We we requested 1.2 2 million and capital uh improvement committee has recommended 600,000 for a spring annual uh town meeting and then hopefully we'll get the rest in the fall.

Board members, um Mr. Chair, I've got I've got an issue I've got to deal with. Could I have the vice chair take over until I'm able to return?

Sure. Is Is that me?

Yes. Thank you.

Okay.

Um Tim, this is like dja vu for me. Um and what we did is is in my prior job, I was responsible for giving the permits, you know, approved at city council, you know, for the companies to come in and fix their mains.

And I tried to get them to use flowable fill and they said the same thing that they couldn't track the gas leakage.

So what I did is I insisted um that they would be responsible for their trenches in perpetuity.

Now I don't know if that's changed since I've been retired for some time now, but if I called them up and said, "Come fix this trench." They came and fixed it.

Well, they wouldn't get a permit because I was the guy at the city council saying, "Do not approve this permit."

And that's that's exactly how we react as well.

Yeah. Okay. And that's why we started a cost sharing program with them in the mid late 90s because that was the only way to get them to pay the fair share. We doing the whole road and we had control versus just doing an 8 foot patch.

Yeah. Yeah. Because there's some bowls that we we like Tim said, we wait as long as we can in the season to make sure they're settled out because they have no problem and filling the whole trench with sand. And that's why you don't get compaction. They'll fill the whole trench. You turn them back or they'll put eight inches of mix. They think by putting eight inches of mix you're going to they're giving you more.

It's not. It's not. Especially when they can't compact the mix.

Yeah. But but they own they own the trench in perpetuity. And I and and in defense of them, they were pretty good.

If we called them up and said, "Come fix this trench." They would come and fix the trench.

Correct.

And and that's that was the only alternative that I could see at the time. If that's what you're doing, then I you know, I applaud you. So, right.

Yeah. We had we had an issue on Sulkum Road where they were they were actually they were fighting the the repair of of earlier trench from the year prior and we refused to permit any additional work and uh they they finally went out and they repaired the entire train.

Okay. Any any other comments on this?

I make a motion that we approve.

I will second that. All in favor? Mike?

Yes.

Uh the chair votes, vice chair votes yes. The motion passes.

Thank you. Uh what's next? Uh Tim, we have uh committee updates. Does anybody have any committee updates?

I I do not.

No.

Um project updates. So we have uh the connect and protect um project with uh you know reduced connected fees for for sewer connections along the the Butler Brook uh wershed um for for residents who who apply and and meet uh specific parameters. Uh we've had a couple applicants uh recently. Um so this project continues on. I know Mike has worked on this as well and uh and I know it it's slow

going but we have you know we have you know luckily we have a couple takers and uh and getting these project these properties connected that have had you know availability to connect for many years and you know it goes along with with that you know people have paid betterments for a lot of this infrastructure and haven't connected uh you know a lot of times based on you So because of you know funding or their own

financial uh restraints and you know this project allows them to connect now and and hopefully they you know they more of them will will take on this this program and connect you know before all this capacity is taken.

Yeah. Is there is there a a number of how many betterments have been done in the town that people have not connected to? We have been working on a lot of that with the board of health. So basically with their records of of properties there that are still currently on septic and then with our records of all parcels that have been connected. Um, so that's an ongoing project uh that we're working with and

you know once we once we have that I think it would I think we were originally in the in the somewhere in the 300 range.

Really?

Yeah.

Really? And and potentially growing um not growing for properties that are that have paidments and that are are not connected. you know, that number, you know.

So, that's a pretty fir that's a pretty firm number then.

Yeah. Yeah.

So, so they they're working to finalize that number. I think initially they looked at it there was over 400 and then that that's been reduced through all the record research. So, okay.

So, they're working to finalize that report.

Yeah. And I I think we've had this discussion in the past, but the town does not have a bylaw that says if you have a sewer, you have to connect.

No, they don't. The only the only one that they have is is when it's mandated by the board of health. If there's a pro sewer project that's been mandated by the board of health, then they mandate connection based on a specific timeline.

Um, other than that, I know the board of health does um does send letters out to residents uh and property owners that have sewer connections that haven't connected as far as their enforcement. I'm I'm sure it has to do with with their title five septic systems, uh title five inspections, you know.

Does the town have the health department have program where they go out and inspect for title five violations?

The board of health.

Yes, I'm sure they do. I'm not 100%, you know, in, you know, in tune with what their regulation for inspecting title 5, but they do have, you know, they do have a good uh database of properties that that that are on septic systems. And uh I know they do have a program with like I said uh either you know mandating residents connect you know after certain amount of time on a septic.

Okay. Um Tim just one comment I want to make. Um the EPA has put in significant amount of funds into that program connect to protect with the Buzzes Bay Coalition.

Uh yesterday the EPA uh in their grant funds approved a an additional expanded schedule of contribution from the grant based upon uh income levels um set for our particular area for what they call very low income. Um, and uh, this is going to help even better than the current $5,000 assistance they get under the the Buzzards Bay program. And um, we're hoping that in fact some that have

expressed interest but have don't have the financial means as you mentioned um, will be able to to get connected in those watersheds. So um, that is good news we got yesterday.

That is that is great. Yeah.

Anything else? Mr. Chairman, welcome back.

Thank you. Um, I appreciate your patience.

Uh, Tim, are what what are we on? Five 5790 Westport Road.

Yes. So, um, so we actually we have some good news.

Um you know uh we have the DP has done their completed their inspection of the four log connection at 579 Westport road and we have approval to activate the four log contact pipe system by DP.

So, I know the, you know, Andrew and and Steve and and the whole water water, you know, division over there, you know, Keith and and their crew um along with our engineering staff working uh on, you know, inspections and and testing and sampling um of of all that infrastructure. Uh you know, we worked to expedite that project along with the contractors. And I just want to say that, you know, outstanding effort um

getting this done and uh we're we're all ready to connect and and and and stop moving this, you know, getting the Penelli welds back online. Um the the 579 treatment facility has been shut off um for the for the connections and the inspection. So So they're working to try to get that back online uh for Friday hopefully. Great. Good news.

Good news. Good work. Thank you all. Uh Tim, we're going to get an inevitable question. How much more water can we make now?

Right. So, one second.

Andrew, are you on?

All right. So So let's see.

So back in uh 2020

looks like uh Penelli, you know, the Penelli wells looks like over 15 million gallons per month.

Wow.

Okay. And roughly roughly how much as a percentage of our supplies would that be?

Are we gaining 5% or we gaining 10%. We don't need the number right now, but if you could send that to us because and and by the way, I'd send the uh select board a note that that's back that the system's back on when you get it.

Yeah. Once we get it back online.

Yep. Absolutely.

And throw some numbers at it. Yeah. Yep.

That's very good news.

Very good.

You know, they're finalizing the chemistry um and and and again getting this up and running. So, uh you know, we're we're hopeful that this this gets completed this week and uh we're back online. You know, we've been, you know, for the last, you know, couple weeks we while we've been offline, you know, we've been pumping more from the city of New Bedford. So, uh that that increases

our our expenditures. uh but we're also getting the revenues um with the uh with the increased rates. So, but we you know trying to keep those expenditures as as low as we can. So, getting this online will will help.

Just my curiosity, h how long have they been down, Tim?

Since uh 2020, 2020.

October 2020, I believe.

Wow. Wow.

Yeah. This is very good news. Yeah, absolutely.

So, it'll be uh you know, it'll be a a big uh you know, relief once these we get back on and and uh you know, hopefully we can we can supply a a lot more water, you know, and get back to our below 20% uh reliance on on your bed water.

Any other questions, board members?

Uh Tim, next item, staffing update.

Um in working with um human resources, we have hired an administrative assistant. Uh Kristen About Colola. Uh Kristen's actually scheduled to begin here at the our office on Monday, May 4th. So, we're excited uh to have her on board and uh I'm looking forward to working with her and getting her on boarded and in in the group.

Um we've also filled um we've also advertised or the with the HR director had advertised the business manager position. Um and we will be reviewing applicants to set up those interviews as I mentioned earlier. And uh we've also filled u the vacant water division HML position um which is a CDL uh and maintenance position. And we also plan to advertise the water craftsman position in the near future uh that's

vacant currently in the water division as well.

Any questions, board members?

Okay, Tim, do you have anything else for us?

Um, just want to um add that the ZBA comprehensive permits for the 40B project. Um, I know some of the scheduling has changed and I I mentioned that the Sherbert 40B hearing um is scheduled for tonight. Um but the final hearing is currently scheduled for April uh from May 12th, next Tuesday uh to Tuesday. Uh the next Hawthon 40B meeting is uh has been rescheduled to May 21st at 5:00 p.m. at town hall.

And then the next halfway 40B hearing is scheduled for May also May 21st at 6 p.m. at town hall.

Could you drop us a note with those dates and locations?

Yes.

And also uh if you could annotate uh just a brief um note saying whether the hearing is uh open for public comment, whether and what they might be doing, working on conditions or uh final approval of conditions, anything along those lines.

Yeah, I I can tell you that the the hot on will not be open for public hearings and I I'll in the memo, but the sherbet and the halfway will be open for Okay. All Yeah, just brief. We don't need a lot of detail, but it's just so we have we know what's going on.

Board members, any comments?

Um, one of the things I'd like to bring up is that um, as time bond develops uh, their proposed schedule, their work task and their rates for the various work tasks that they're going to submit off of the uh, request for proposal that they made.

One of the things that I really would like to have them move up in the schedule is the determination of what Ron brought up earlier and that is how many homes are along the infrastructure, municipal sewer infrastructure that are not tied into the system because I I really believe that's one of the biggest factors in proper planning is to know what kind of load increases you're going to receive when those

entities tie in because as title five requirements become more and more stringent and development of septic systems that are title five compliant become more and more costly.

folks are going to be tying into municipal sewer and I think we need to know a finite number of uh how many homes or businesses uh in fact are not tied in. Um I think that kind of information also has a lot of relevance relative to the comments we're going to be are making and will be making on commercial and commercial residential development. So I think the sooner we get that from the consultants the

better. Yeah, absolutely. And we're also, you know, we'll be working on, you know, updating our GIS mapping to include services. Now, historically, it wasn't that wasn't included in any of our GIS mapping. So, we want to include all the all the services to all the properties that are services, but we have that record right on the GIS map.

Did they bring the services to the property lines?

We um back years ago there were a number of projects where they didn't so they they installed wise in the street. So heavy connection to you know a trench a cut road uh disturbance. Um but but for many of the many of the later projects you know we always plan to uh service every every lot and we we we typically do it by zoning. So depending on the

zoning in the area in the in and the lot frontage, we'll we'll service that accordingly.

Just one more quick. Um when you updated that you bring the service to the property line, when the owner ties in, he's responsible for the cost of that of of the the connection from the the home to the to the property line service. Correct.

Yes. Okay. Yeah.

And and Tim, when you when they compile that information, um if they could make clear which of those properties or areas um they've been paying Betterment into and which have not paid it Betterment, that would be helpful, too.

Yeah, that'd be great data. Y Okay. Also if you know if a pro property has a sewer main and doesn't have a service they are responsible for for funding the entire connecting all the way to the main and the street as well and all that work.

Okay any other questions board members hearing none I will entertain a motion to adjurnn.

Moved motion by Mr. G second by Mr. Leel, Mr. G, how do you vote?

Yes.

Mr. Leel, yes.

Chair votes yes. Gentlemen, thank you.

And uh to the professional staff that uh make the time to be present, I appreciate that as well.