Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the August 12th, 2025 meeting of the Cadam Select Board. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the
meeting, please notify the chair. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting
law. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 3A section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Select Board is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately address the proceedings as provided for in the
order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 158-945-4410. conference ID 203386491 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the
posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072. Despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible.
The first order of business is to ensure quorum. Miss Davis present. Mr. Dykins present. Mr. Matters present. Mr. Smith present. And the chair is present. I wish to note that we have to complete this meeting no later than 6:30 because in this same
room the annual summer town meeting needs to set up. That will be at 7:00. First item of business is public announcements and agenda item requests. The chair has several, but I'm going to turn to my colleagues in the board if any. Okay. First, um, next week on the 19th,
uh, there are a couple of agenda items that might be of interest. First, there is a request by a citizen, Mr. Levit, to, um, discuss legal aspects related to CH to um, chapter 40B projects and we will have um, town council present for
that who will make some introductory remarks. Secondly, at the request of board member Smith, there will be an item for policy to discuss policy directives uh relative to the main street project. Uh town council will be
present if there are any questions. Um secondly, also at that same meeting, there is a discussion of the uh residential tax exemption which uh is available under Massachusetts general laws at the request of select board member Smith. uh
that will um um we will we will uh have present uh the director of assessing uh Dale Kelly as well. And lastly uh the tax assistance committee which was recently created by the select board pursuant to town meeting vote. Uh we are
still um entertaining applications. We have several uh but the deadline for submitting an application online or in person is this Friday a August 15th. With that, um, I'm going to turn to the to public. Are there any public
announcements or agenda item requests? Seeing none, we will now, uh, take the second item on the agenda, which is a public hearing to consider amendments to the water water rules and regulations, article 6.15.B.2 two fines and to consider implementing
updated water rates no sooner than the start of the second summer quarter of 2025 for households with irrigation systems but without a separate irrigation meter to be built based on the on an estimated usage split of 80% of total water consumption build at the
higher irrigation rate and 20% at the standard household rate once the town has the capability to implement such billing and we will take votes if motions are made um I'm going to turn to our town. I will open the public hearing. I'm going to turn to the county clerk to read the hearing notice, which
is pretty long. Mr. Smith, town of Chadam Select Board public hearing notice. Notice is hereby given that the Chattam Select Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 12th, 2025 at 5:00 PM in the large
meeting room, the town hall annex 261 George Ryder Road to consider amendments to the water rules and regulations article uh article yeah currently stated as on or after June 1st, 2020.
Number one, in the case of a first violation, a written warning to the property owner of record by certified mail return receipt requested. Number two, in the case of a second violation after seven days have elapsed following
a written warning, a fine of $100. Three, in the case of a third violation after seven days have elapsed following a second violation, a fine of $200. Four,
in the case of a fourth or more violations after 7 days have elapsed following a third violation shall result in disconnection of the irrigation system water meter to be amended to read as follows. on or
after January 1st, 2021. For all irrigation systems that are non compliant after this date, a written warning to the property owner of record shall be sent prior to the imposition of any fines. Such letter shall set forth
the requirement that the process for installation of a second meter as prescribed the water by the water department commenced within 30 days from the date of the letter and completed within 90 days following the
commencement process. In the event that a property owner fails to comply with the foregoing requirements, either commencement of the process or installation of the meter, a fine of $300
may be imposed for each day of non-compliance. In addition to a monetary fund fines, I'm sorry, the department by and through the select board may initiate suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to
enforce the requirements of this bylaw. Such suit may include, but not limited to a request for an immediate disconnection of any irrigation system and to consider implementing updated
water rates no sooner than the start of the second summer quarter of 2025 for households with irrigation systems but without a separate irrigation meter to be buil based on the estimate usage split. 80% of the total water consumption build at the higher
irrigation rate and 20% at the standard household rate. Once the town has the capacity to implement such billing, all interested parties are encouraged to participate in person or remotely via the link in the posted agenda. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I'm going to call
upon the director of public works, Rob Philly, to present the issues. There are two. One has to do with increased fines and the other has to do with a um change in the water rates basically
because of a of a split between household use and irrigation use. And I do want to acknowledge the presence of um the chair of the water and sewer advisory committee who has to weave at 5:30. So in I might call upon him after you speak, Mr. Philly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the obviously this public hearing so Rob Fley, director of public works. This public hearing is to consider the two distinct issues related to irrigation. The first one or part one are amendments to the water rules and regulations
regarding fines and what changes need to occur to make those fines more effective. Part two is to consider implementing updated water rates for households with irrigation systems but without a separate irrigation meter. Based on an estimated 8020 usage split,
uh the goal for both proposed revisions is to ensure fairness, promote water conservation, and support responsible use of the town's water resources. Uh part one, fines. Uh current fines are established in the town's water department rules and regulations are
under article six. All registered irrigation systems connected to town water were to have an irrigation meter installed no later than January 1st, 2022nd or be subject to fines. This is the existing language uh in the rules and regs. Uh the first step is a
written warning uh summarized you know it was just read into record but I'll just do a brief summarization. Um, first step is a written warning by certified mail. And if you're out of compliance after seven days, uh, a fine of $100 can be imposed. After another
seven days, an additional $200 fine can be imposed. Uh, then one thing I'd like to note in step four, it allows for the disconnection of the irrigation system water meter. But as we know, the s the issue here is non-compliance by not having an irrigation meter. So this is a
misleading step as there could be no way to disconnect a meter that doesn't exist in the first place. Um the process is drawn out over several weeks and requires town staff to track escalating fines based on the timing of the original notification and in step
four is unattainable. So the existing language will result in fines of no more than $300. Uh the water meter application alone is $200. So, combined with plumbing costs and the property owner paying the lower household water
usage rates uh will not provide enough of a financial incentive for those out of compliance to come into compliance. So, paying the $300 fine will actually be a cost savings uh which leaves us with no other avenue for enforcement.
So on July 14th, 2025, the Cadam Water and Sewer Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed revisions to article six, section 15B III, and voted unanimously to approve the revisions shown here. You'll notice we condensed the process
from four steps to three steps and tried to simplify the process somewhat. Here in the first step, we are still providing a written warning, although not by certified mail, and that was cleared through town council. uh which allows for 30 days to begin the process of ali applying for a second meter, then
having the work completed within the next 90 days. If the property owner has already applied for the second meter, then we can go straight to the 90-day compliance requirement once we send that warning letter. In step two, we can impose a $300 a day
fine for non-compliance. This would be either for the 30-day window being missed or the 90-day window being missed. Uh then in step three, it allows for more rigorous enforcements through legal action. This language with the increased fines should provide enough incentive to bring folks into
compliance. If we are still unsuccessful, we still have means identified to take legal action. So that's part one. This is part two. Uh water rates. So in addition to imposing fines which can be implemented within the first 30, 90 or 120 days depending
on the status of the registration, there are steps we can implement immediately to level the playing field on irrigation use. With town council support, we have established an average split between household water usage and irrigation usage. That way we can change we can charge those properties a higher rate
based on historic usage patterns. So we analyzed uh usage in the summer of 2024 um from the 803 customers who have separate irrigation meters to determine the average consumption patterns. A
simple average showed that irrigation counted for 103 units or 79% of water usage and household use for 28 units or 21%. So that's 79% of their water usage was for irrigation purposes only. 21% of their water usage was for for household
use. This was the entire summer, so both summer billable quarters were included to ensure a fair and equitable comparison. Uh trimmed means were also calculated. 10% trim mean is when we remove the lowest 10% of users and the
highest 10% of users. So that's the lowest and highest 80 users were eliminated from the equation. The 10% trim mean resulted in 88 units or 80% of for irrigation and 22 units or 20% for household use.
We did the same with the 20% trim mean. Um so we reduced the top and bottom 160 users. The 20% trim mean shown 84 units or 80% for irrigation and 21 units or 20% for household use. So based on this analysis
which was pretty consistent throughout the usage split of 80% irrigation and 20% household was recommended to the water and sewer advisory committee which they approved unanimously at their July 21st meeting. So what are the fiscal impacts? Um it's
not as much about revenue as it is towards fairness and equitability. But without financial impacts to those out of compliance, it will be difficult to encourage household without a second meter to install one. Through fines and increased rates, we will help promote
fairness, equity, and more responsible water use. Sure, we may generate some additional revenue through increased rates, but how much remains to be seen, especially when fines are considered. We have explored Vadar and we are confident we can implement the higher rates beginning with the first month of the
second summer quarter which is bill that starts in September. Uh so it is uh respectfully recommended that the select board endorse both the updated rules and regulation language uh regarding fines and the 8020 split. Uh both of these measures once enacted will
help promote fairness, water conservation, and all users contributing equitably to the town's water system. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fely. Before I turn to the board, I just wanted to um state for the record because it's you stated it here, it's in the slide, and also it's
in your memo. The goal here is to ensure fairness, promote water conservation, and support responsible use of the town's water resources. and we have um consulted with town council in the preparation of the language the amendment language that's being
proposed. Um I do want to note um two minor um amendments to the language I think in paragraph one. I know that's not on the board but there is a verb when we when we come to um a motion I'm going to
insert the the word be commenced. It's in the fourth line of the proposed um amendment paragraph one and also paragraph three I just noticed this is a reference to the bylaw and purpose is to enforce the requirements of this bylaw.
I think it's enforce the requirements of this regulation. I think that's probably the correct language. Anyway, um I don't have any comments at this time. Anything from the board to Mr. Fail comments or questions? Mr. Smith? Sure. Um,
yeah, I noticed the the bylaw, so I'm glad you made that correction, Dean. The other thing, um, it it references, uh, the the regulation certified mail return receipt requested.
Um, is that still the method of choice? Do you because it's it's not last known address. So, we I consulted with town council on that. um considering it would be over $7,000 to send out certified letters to
700 residents and he said people can just refuse to sign anyway so the letter gets returned and we still have to track them down. He said a regular stamped USPS letter would suffice. Okay. Yep. Agreed. And um on number three uh Jill or Rob it's um on the last
we're referencing the suit. Such suit may include but not limited to um I'm sorry number two uh may be in may be imposed for each day of non-compliance it I'm trying to think of an instance
where it wouldn't be right so who's make who's making that decision and should it be may or shall will be that our intent is to enforce it however if there are extenduating circumstances
beyond the property owner's control, say we run out of meters and they're backorded or if there's um they have a a licensed plumber scheduled but you know there's a shortage of those. So there we say we may we intend to but there may be some
reasons we may not. Okay. So can can I just interject? So, is there relief uh from some for someone with some kind of extenduating hardship um in that they can come to the Department of Public Works or they they come to the the water and sewer commissioners, us the select board, we
can wave um a fine, I guess. Is that the way this would work? I guess I'd rather not open up that door unless we need to. My personal opinion, I'm comfortable with the word may. But go ahead, Stuart. You had something. Um that's fine. I just want to make sure
we're all clear on that. In addition to any monetary fines, the department by and through its select board may initiate the suit. So are we initiating this suit or is it
going to be the town manager the rob? It would be us. We would have to sign off on I assume Rob and the town manager would come to us and say this is a recalcitrant case. We recommend we file the lawsuit. Thank you. Uh I would just point out the $300 fine is per DM if the town wants that's
$2,100 a week. That's a $100,000 a year. Someone was really problematic. Mr. Dykens, you were next. And I think Mr. Davis is I just just a couple comments. I'm very much in favor of tightening up the the fines and also the 8020 split I think makes a lot of sense. I think the data
behind it is is compelling. So I I would agree with it for the the amendment if we read to be amended to read as follows. on or after January 1st. I think we need to have a date of like 812 or 8. It has to be a prospective date rather than we're not we're not going to enforce these regulations going back to
January. I think the reason that's in there is that this is taken out of the existing regulations and it was as of January 1, 2020 when the separate meter requirement was put in place. I thought it was 22 or 18. Do you recall? I I just don't think that's the right
date. If we're going to amend the fines and and um it's as of going forward, it's prospective. Then we can't go we're not going to go back to January 1st of 2020. I I don't know. I'm not troubled by it, but because it's in there, but
Okay. And I have some I have some basic questions I have to ask. The first of which is um I'm a I'm a taxpayer homeowner in town and I um I'm going to put in an air irrigation system pro, you know, prospectively tomorrow and I'm
going to use public water. Um, don't I have to go pull a permit? Do I pull a permit in in somewhere in town? You do, but no new irrigation systems are allowed to be connected to municipal water after January 1st, 2021.
Gotcha. So, prior to 21, do we have a list of all those folks that pulled a permit that have public water? Yes. Okay, good. So, so that's that's a place to start. I mean, in terms of scoff laws. So, are we able to identify those folks around public water that do not have a meter? Are we able to do that?
The ones that have registered previously, yes, we can. And then after the ones that had after those that had registered pre previously, how are we going to identify those folks who are now on public water and have irrigation systems that are not registered that are not don't have a
separate meter, excuse me. So, we just contracted with an outside consultant that can use artificial intelligence to help us track those numbers down and um they've already started working on that. Oh, excellent. Okay. So, that that that answers my question. Okay. Um I had the may will be on pose for each day of
non-compliance. I understand there needs to be a little wiggle room. If I if I let you know that within 30 days of receiving the letter that I'm I'm on it, I'm going to hire a plumber yet I can't get a plumber for 120 days. We might be able to say, "Okay, as long as you got the plumber
schedule and they're coming, bing bang boom." We We want to see motivation. We want to see the effort. Okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. I I Mr. Davis, I think my mind was on effort, too, about the notification that, oh, I've got a plumber coming and I, you know, I'm just waiting and I'm just waiting.
I'm just waiting. I mean, what's our strategy around the idea that somebody could be waiting for a plumber for a year and a half? I mean, yeah, that may be unrealistic. Yeah. I mean, do but do we have a plan or or some sort of like um uh you know
to speak to that? I I mean I guess a letter that indicates that they're being fined on a daily basis would probably and they continue to be fined is as they do go through. So So but I thought it was that if you had you were intending to and you showed that you were doing
that that the fines may stop. Correct. But but we have to hold people accountable as well. They can't just, you know, kick the can down the road. I understand that, but we have to have a plan, though, Rob. I'm just wondering what that plan would look like. She's on. I'm on.
She's on. Um, I was just wondering what that plan would look like. That's all. Is that something we should throw back to the water and sewer folks and just say, can you put that plan together? Hold on. Okay.
Yeah, I'd like to hear Jeff come back. test. Okay, we're back. Shireen, I'm going I'm going to defer like to call on Mr. Colby because he has to leave shortly. Jeff, do you have anything you'd like to say as chair of the Water and Sewer
Advisory Committee? Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Jeff Colby, chair of the water and sewer advisory committee. Just want to echo what the DPW director said when our committee looked at this and we did look at this over several meetings. We just saw it as being an equity issue. We've got people that are doing the right thing with the
second meter and the irrigation. And both of these steps combined help uh move people in the right direction. First with the fines and then ultimately with the water rates with the 80% on irriation 20 on the domestic usage really I think provides that motivation
and levels the playing field. So that's the the way our committee looked at it and uh as the DPW director said uh we supported these unanimously both of these efforts. So thank you. Thank you Miss Davis. Uh thank you. I I I'm just going to
recap my question to Rob that um I I or to you Mr. Chair that we just refer um you know that you're talking about some sort of an internal policy which I think the DPW department could could develop and present to the water and sewer committee for ratification.
Correct. to to accommodate cases of extenduating. Exactly. Um but I do want to say just briefly that um I I'm I'm in favor of what what what um you guys have recommended and uh I just leave it at that for now. Mr. Matters.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um first ask um Jeff for clarification on a comment you made. I want to make sure I'm asking my question properly. On or after January 1, 2020, are you suggesting it being a later date? Yes. Okay. I'm not an attorney, so I'm going to stare and be tread carefully. If we
had a later date, wouldn't we not be capturing those systems that were put in on or after that that date? I think we want to keep that initial date standard so we can capture all the irrigation systems that have been installed or since that point moving forward. If we
move the date too far out, we're almost excluding them from this process. That's my my my nickel assessment on that for starters. Here's my comment on it as I think about this. The reason why I think that date should stay January 1, 2020
because it's it corroborates that those who did not hook up comply are in are not are in non-compliance. And if we if we um change the date to today, we're sort of wiping that non-compliance out. Now, it
may be that we're not going to go back. I'm not proposing we go back after people, but I just want them to comply going forward. I'm reluctant to change the date. Um certainly without advice of town council, but I don't think it should be changed. Okay. Uh two other points I just want to
bring up. I do think the the records have respectfully do have some holes in it because I I kne I learned firsthand because I remember when we started talking about having extra rates for irrigation systems and everything and I know COVID hit, whatever, but I said, you know, heck, I'm not paying for more
water. um a the higher rate and b it's it's foolish to be treating your lawn with you know putting water in your lawn that is treated. It's whatever. So I personally put an irrigation well in years ago and several months after the fact I was in the board of health
office. They had no record of it. So I provided everything to them at that point. But I'm sure there's other people out there that do not have their systems recorded um that have gone off the town system. And then my question to Rob is
if you have an irrigation system on the town water supply, you're required to have a bafflow device. The bafflow devices is inspected annually. There's a fee in charge with everything. So we know is is the amount of backflow
devices that we inspect annually matching up to the number of irrigation systems that we believe are in the in our database or is there a disconnect of that of those numbers? largely they agree. I think there are a few anomalies that we're still trying to track down. Okay. Because that's a great opportunity
for us to hit each property and say, "Hey, you got to take action because we know the backflow devices installed and you know we that it's our it's our entrance point to to the property. So there are some private contractors that inspect backflow devices and there are
some residents that refuse to allow us access to their house. Okay. Thank you. Stuart, you had another question or comment. Yeah, I just uh well, I guess a comment that um I think Jeff has a point
that the additional $100 fine to $300 and the uh possibility of a suit, those are new portions, I don't think we'd be able to enforce that retroactively. you could do the up to $200 because that was
in the old regs, but it may it may be worthy of a town council review and you know, however we want to pursue that, but I think that that is problematic. I I agree with that that imposing or adopting that presents an issue in terms
of retroactive enforcement, but I'm not I don't know if anyone is proposing retroactive enforcement. That's all I'm that's that's my point. You're you're You're questioning the that paragraph. Yeah. Well, the additional $100 I mean I'm in support of both of them obviously
from here from henceforth moving forward is one thing and up to $200 for the old fines retroactively but uh I'm not maybe he didn't catch that or Yeah, I I didn't communicate with him but Rob didn't um wasn't this language
prepared by town council? It was. And if I recollect accurately, I believe the date he was leaving the dates the same, but I would have to I can't swear to it. Okay. Well, we'll deal with it when we have a motion. Mr. Story, did you have anything more because Corey has a question?
Not at the moment. Wouldn't it be just as simple, again, I'm treading lightly because I'm not an attorney. on sentence two, you know, in the event the property owner fails to comply with the foregone requirements on or after a date a current date is set. You know, these are the steps forward.
That would probably Yes, we could do that in both paragraphs. That would be better. Okay, let's remember that when we uh vote on this. Okay, any more comments or questions from the board? Okay, thank you, Rob. I'm now going to open it up for public comment. Anyone in the
audience here in person wish to speak? Yes. I'm going to encourage folks because of the time limitations, I'm not going to require it, but I'm going to encourage folks to try to keep to three minutes if possible. Yeah. Um I just wanted to say first addressing
the I think Mr. Dykins, you were saying something about the plumbing permits. Um and like what's the reality like are people still able to pull plumbing permits with an irrigation system? Um, like you know, say last week someone wanted to install an irrigation system
and they were pulling a permit from the town. According to the town in the building department, you can still pull a plumbing permit because that's why they put the section on there that says, you know, is this does this involve the connection or disconnection of an
irrigation system? And the water department was verified of that according to the building department. Okay. So, just something to think about. I I I don't know if you stated your name for the record. Anna Smith. Sorry. Thank you. We've seen you before, but thank you.
Um, so I'm going to be a little brutal in what I'm saying, so I apologize, but I think it's needed. Um, so I want to say start off by saying that I like many wish that the town would act with the same sense of urgency when it comes to non-compliant irrigation systems at it
as it did back in June when the water and sewer department was going to be entering the year in a deficit. Frankly, I think the fines from folks that are non-compliant would have covered that deficit. But I hope the town can learn from this misstep going forward and consider how the burden of higher rates should have been placed on those using
tens of thousands of gallons of treated water and in some cases hundreds of thousands of gallons per summer on their lawns without an irrigation meter. But instead, it was placed on local businesses and people that are already barely surviving with the high cost of living here. And that will continue to be the case unless this continues to be
brought up every single meeting until this issue is 100% resolved with today's discussion. Once again surrounding homes with irrigation systems that are not complying with the town water rules and regulations. I feel it's important to once again bring up the conversation of the homes with irrigation systems that
are in an entirely different category which is not even having their irrigation system registered in the first place because after all they do fall directly into this conversation. Um, recently through a public records request, I received the list of registered irrigation systems which
identifies if the second meter has been paid for and if it's actually been installed. Additionally, I received the winter and summer water use periods for 2024. It didn't take much time at all before I was able to compile a list of residents who have abnormally high water usage in the summer, which is a list of
over 400 households. By the way, this isn't even including the homes that have pools that are al supposed to also supposed to have a separate meter. You know, homes that have pools that might not have an irrigation system. Um, I did remove the addresses that have had wells drilled over the past year. Um, this
method could easily be the starting point for relevant parties in the town if they are truly interested in going after people that have unregistered irrigation systems. It's obviously not perfect. There could be some people with leaks or abnormally high water usage in their house, whatever. Obviously, the AI
company has been the company that uses AI has been hired, but I don't really think that it takes a rocket scientist or this company to find out who in our small town is using um irrigation systems unregistered, but
I was able to do it in one night compiling a few lists with a list of the 400 that you could easily go from there. You can also cross reference it with the backflow list because the town has to keep a inventory of all backflow
devices. So, um, and then just to finish it up with the town having at least one major hotel, as well as residents that are on or have been on our various committees and commissions that have not even paid for their second meter, not installed their second meter, or flat out don't even have their irrigation
system registered, then I'll have to be blunt here and say it's obvious that true water conservation probably isn't a priority for many in the town. How are you going to the select board ensure that the town and more
specifically DPW is actively monitoring around town and through their water usage data to identify residents that don't even have their irrigation system registered in the first place. And obviously we know the company's going to do that. But again, this is something that needs to be brought up as this has been going on for years and you know
we're just catching up on it now. But I think it's a lot easier than I don't know why we have to hire a company to do this. But anyway, thank you, Mr. Philly. I just want to address one
point that was brought up with respect to the recent increase in the water rates. If all these folks whom we're now going to go after to make sure they hook up had been paying, would
would that have produced enough revenue to to account for the full increase because your committee, the water and sewer committee went through all of this, correct? And I question whether do we know roughly what
I'd say with the debt service the way it's increasing uh every year with the well development that it would have taken some of the sting out of it but we still would have had to raise rates. Okay. Thank you. Uh any other public comments? I'm going to turn to the um folks on the screen at this point. I
think Elaine Gibbs, you were first one up there. I think that's you. Yes. Thank you. Do I agree with everything that Hannah Smith said? I kind of hear you, Elaine. Can you hear me now? Yes.
Okay. I'm sorry. Uh I agree with any everything that Hannah Smith said. Um I I think that um I I did I got a notification four years ago uh to either and the and the at that time they said
you can save money if you put your irrigation system on and by putting in a meter and I said I don't care about paying the higher rates and I put in a well at considerable expense because I got the notification that I had to do it. We couldn't use treated water. Uh so
fast forward um I would disagree that it's a small universe of 400 600 people. We have 8,200 properties commercial and residential in Chadam. If you take half of those, they probably have irrigation
systems of some kind. If you take half of those, I bet they're not registered. So they have to be found out. Um I I I believe that they're dead beats. You know, it is we were told what we had to
do. They're ignoring it. I think any may should be made into shell. You will do it. I think retroactive fines. You've been writing these nice letters to them for two or three years now and they haven't complied. So as far back as you can go retroactively, that would be a
negotiating tool. Um, so I believe that there could easily be 1500 unregistered uh property owners out there that we don't even know about. And I don't think that you can use the excuse that they can't get somebody to do it. All all the
properties that go before the ZBA, new construction, renovations, they all get people out to do all kinds of work. half of my neighbors around here have had uh those people coming in and putting in water lines and all kinds of things. So,
that's not an excuse. Um they can they can get people to do the work. So, I would hope that uh you're really strict on this. I I we don't even know what our rates are going to be. Uh I assume this most recent bill we got didn't include the new rates. So, will we when will we
be seeing them? In the fall. I just received my bill with the new rates. These are the new rates. Yeah, I compared it to last year and I just received a bill I think this past week. So then I can use them because mine my
rates are going up from $44 a year to 1,18. That's 175% increase. And I only use uh on an average of I I use something like uh $200 worth of water. I
use four units and that's the lowest possible rate, one to 10 units and I use four. So I am paying $993 more for the same amount of water usage and and I'm doing that because of all
the people who have not paid. And so I would hope you really make sure that you get whatever technology you need to identify these people and make them pay and follow through on it because this is really unfair to the people who followed the regulations, followed the law, and
are not using treated water to irrigate their lawns. Thank you. Thank you, Nicole Stern. Yes, Nicole Stern here. Good evening. I'm here to ask you that you not move forward with the amendments to the water
rules and regulations that are in front of you. They are weak. They have no teeth and they are a continuation of the attitude over the past three and a half years in enforcing our current regulations which as you know require
irrigation systems that are using town water to install a second meter. The offenders have been the ones in control for three and a half long years. Some of you have agreed that action need
to be taken immediately, but the language of what is proposed will only delay the process further. the property owners who have not complied with this mandate to install a separate meter for irrigation systems that use town water,
a mandate that goes back to January 1st, 2022, have, as I said, controlled the process. I hope you will take back control and do so immediately by sending out a warning
letter providing a 30-day window for the offender to come into compliance by registering their irrigation system according to the water department's procedure, completing and submitting the necessary forms and fees, and scheduling
a plumber to install a second meter for the irrigation system. Otherwise, they are facing a $300 fine for each day of non-compliance beginning on the 31st day after the date
of the warning letter. That should get their attention and turn complacency into action so they do not have to pay a $300 daily fine. And it should put town officials back in control again.
This should not come as a surprise to them or to the water department. Mr. Fagy promised that his department would use last winter's months to hunt down the offenders. Do we know the true number of property owners who have not
registered their system and have not installed the second meter? Is that to whom the warning letters will go? And how soon can it be sent out? Are all of those not in compliance known to us? I hope so. We have had three and a half
years to track them down. We have had a procedure on record of a warning and fines. Will you please tell me how many fines were assessed since January 1st, 2022 and today, and how much money was
collected as a result of these fines, if any. and most importantly, how different will enforcement be handled going forward? I hope you will want to know the answers to these questions before you vote. The proposed wording provides
30 days to start the process to get a second leader and then allows up to 90 days to complete the job. So, as much as 120 days and the fines don't begin until after that period. The fine should begin immediately. No more warnings for a series of
escalating fines. It's been three and a half years. The amendment language also uses the word nay several times instead of shall. I hope all of the maids will be changed to shall and if exceptions
are needed, they can come to you and you can decide whether they warrant it. Also, you are to consider updated water rates for households with irrigation systems that are not on a second meter. But again, this could be delayed because
it specifically states that it won't happen until the town has the capability to implement such filling. How long might that delay this action? Meanwhile, those who did the right things, registered our system, and installed the
second meter are paying the highest order rate recently increase over 80%. Maybe that rate would be lower if we didn't have to subsidize those who ignore the mandate and continue to pay the standard water rate. Maybe a class
action student is in order because for three and a half years we have been treated excuse me unfairly and inequitably and what is being suggested is to incentivize the offenders not to go
after them to the full extent of the law. Please do not let them have control by avoiding a higher irrigation rates. This decreases the water department's budget and causes our rates to go up.
It's time to get Don't give them another four or longer to do what they should have done three and a half years ago. Yes, honey. All right. Thank you. I would just point out that under the current regulation, it's not a
perm of $300. It's only $200 and $100. That's one one one time. That's the fine. We have no authority under the current regulation to have a running fine every day. I think that information should be out
there. Anyone else lo in the in the room here? Yes, ma'am. Please come. You have to come to the podium and identify yourself. I don't have any prepared comments. My name is Margaret Brolino. Um, we've been on the separate meter since the
beginning. One of the proposed amendments talks about a split rate at 80% 20%. And I think the numbers that were put up there are very compelling. However, there's a caveat there and this
speaks to the urgency of not having done anything before this with respect to going after these scoff laws. The caveat being that we can't do it. We don't have the capability right now of doing the
80% 20% split. So my question is at what point will you have the ability to actually implement this proposed amendment where you are going to charge these people the higher rate
for their irrigation water and I think there should be some urgency about it and if you can't implement a split rate then go to 100% no need to split the rate charge them 100% of for at the
irrigation rate. So that's my comment and question. Maybe someone could I'll try to respond to you. Town council was advised about whether we could do 100% and he said no because it would be arbitrary. We had to have some reasonable basis to increase the rates.
And with respect to your earlier question, Mr. Phley did say his expectation was that we would be able to have the split rates in our program. Did you say September? Yeah, that we can do it immediately, but we we have to finish out the uh the two
two uh twothirds of town have already been built for the summer quarter. So, we would finalize the last third of town and then start the second summer quarter and bill everybody. So, that I hope that's responsive to your question. If you have uh you've spoken, ma'am, ma'am, you've spoken.
Um Mr. DD is on the screen. Did you have your Okay. Did you wish to speak? Please identify yourself. Yes. Yes, sir. Uh Daniel D Pompei uh 350
Pleasant Street. Um I've been a resident for 50 years and uh uh I certainly would agree that that the irrigation's systems and the swimming pools have have gotten out of control.
But I'd also I had some words, but I think some of the earlier speakers uh have said it much better than I can. I don't think we should be punishing everybody who's on the water system
uh by increasing everyone's rates for the for the failures uh of those uh who have uh unregistered uh irrigation systems. Uh it's it's it's really that simple. Uh
I agree my my water bill is is going way up and it's going up because of people who who have although the town has has uh issued instructions and regulations to control these users of the waters.
The users have not responded. So, I think we should we should focus on the people that are that are truly violating the rules and the regulations and not just simply raise the rate. I mean, raising the rates is a simple way to get the revenue to to recover what may
currently be a financial problem, but the town is in that or the water department is in that financial problem because of the people who have cheated the system. So, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who has not had a chance to speak?
Ma'am, I will, if you'd like to, since you've spoken before, happy to entertain a follow-up question since you seem to have another comment or question. You'd have to go to the podium though, so we could hear you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um,
Kathy has Kathy has the letters. Were those the letters you wanted? You have the letters. Okay. There were several letters, perhaps a half dozen or so that were sent to the select board from various uh folks, some pro, some
some con um um on this subject. Um I don't have them present, but we will enter them into the record. All right, I'm going to bring this back to the board for discussion and possible motion. Mr. Smith. Sure. Thank you. Um I'm wondering a
couple of things, but I'm wondering if we could have uh since we're instituting kind of a newer program, um if maybe on on or about the first week in November, we could have an update on how this is working and see if we're sure
see if we're on the right track or not. Um that would be and maybe at that time um we might have a better handle on um Miss Smith's comments where because I think we're all concerned about that
where we're raising rates, you know, albeit to to offset some costs. Um but are we able to reduce those rates based on people hooking up? I mean, certainly we'll be able to do that. I don't know what the number is. Uh but that may be
something we want to consider. We're going to be bringing in additional revenue. We could estimate that once we get some better numbers and then we could determine whether those rate increases could be reduced in November. You know, I have no problem with that discussion. When when the rates were raised, they
were they were the determination was made on the basis of extremely thorough and detailed set of meetings by the water and sewer committee which they presented to us. We had an outside consultant who showed us demonstrated
the future costs of of maintaining and upgrading the water and sewer system and it was in the course of that that this issue was discovered. Yeah. So it would be a good time to bring back and refresh whether or not we want to do anything. Is that doable Mr. Failey? Yes.
And we'll do that. Uh thank you. And um and to follow up also it says the town has the capability when the town has uh the capability to implement such building and if I missed it I apologize but is there a date I didn't then I must have missed
I think he said well he didn't give us a date certain but I think he Rob do you want to offer some clarification on that that those rates can be um implemented in the September billing cycle which would be the first week of October we send bills out so that's September the
the first month of the second summer quarter. So that's imminent. Yes. More or less. Yes. Great. And um the AI consulting h how much is that expect? What was that contract for? The believe it was $15,000.
$15,000 two. Okay. All right. It it's a question of resources. I mean, they are looking at um not only water usage, they're uh compiling lists and and comparing those with um wells that have been drilled and
registrations and you know a number of different uh avenues that for staff time to try to do that manually would be exhaustive. Okay, thank you. Anyone else at the board?
Anyone want to offer a motion? Well, I'm going to offer a motion. I called this special meeting to deal with this problem. I believe in problem solving. I don't believe in throwing a lot of stuff out. Uh so I'm going to offer a motion that um
the board acting as water and sewer commissioners adopt the recommendations of the staff as as voted by the water and sewer advisory committee. First, um, and I'm going to consolidate these into one motion that I move that the town of Chattam
Water Department Rules and Regulations, Article 6, section 15B2, be amended to include the revised penalty languages outlined in the in italics within this report. And also that effective no sooner than the start of the second summer quarter of 2025, households with irrigation
systems but without a separate irrigation meter be built based on an estimated usage split. 80% of total water consumption build at the higher irrigation rate and 20% at the standard household rate once the town has the capability to implement such building with the modification that in the
second and third second in the first paragraph of the proposed regulation um after the words water department the word B be inserted in the second paragraph
that Um the phrase on or after August 13, 2025, which is tomorrow, yeah, um be inserted after the in the second line after the
parenthes is comma before the words a fine and that in the third paragraph in the second line at the end the word bylaw that the word regulation be substituted for the word bylaw. That's my motion.
Mr. Chair, just a question on number two. Did you want to after the fine of $300 shall be imposed versus May? No, I'm leaving at night. Okay, that's the motion. Is there a second? Second.
Okay. Further discussion at the board. Okay. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. Hi. Mr. Dykins. Hi. Mr. Meadows. I. Mr. Smith. I. And the chair votes I. So these are adopted.
Thank you very much. Thank you to the public. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. Moved and seconded. Call the role. Miss Davis I. Mr. Dikkins. Hi. Mr. Matters. Hi. Mr. Smith. I. And the chair votes I.
Thank you. Good night. Chadam.