Heat. Heat. that Amy LOL gave to the select board. Um, it's a thing that's been around for a little bit. Uh, but it's it's a way to develop some
financing. So, what is it? It's a special revenue fund and it can be appropriated for maintenance, improvements, and investments to municipal wastewater and drinking water and storm water infrastructure.
The source of the revenue is a property tax sir charge of up to 3% that is assessed on each parcel of taxable real estate in the community. It is not subject to the levy limitations of proposition 2 and a half.
town median appropriations required to spend from the fund. So, we still would have to, you know, go in every year and say this is the project we want to spend the money. And it's set up similar to those of you that have worked around the community preservation act funding. You know, the money's collected, then it has
to be agreed to go out. So why are why are we asking the select board to consider this is to provide funding to implement wastewater management uh on projects that will improve water quality in the p town's ponds and the estuaries
the outfall for treated wastewater account additional phases of sewer expansion um future treatment facilities. So, uh, the annual debt service costs on our best sort of financial model that Amy's
been putting together for a while now says that the cost for wastewater projects might average from 3 to 7 million per year from 20 to 30 to 2050. So, in other words, as the outfall is coming online and we're putting in more sewers or adding other things, um, we're
projecting three to 7 million per year. Um I think everybody's aware of the wastewater management plan, wershed management plans. So up until now the town has had the approach of funding wastewater projects
via retiring debt. Um that means that you know the time between projects has been not a couple of years but has been several years. Um, there are other demands on the town's funding resources, whether that's the
police station, schools, and something needs to give someplace in order for us to come up with watershed plans and know that there is some viable mechanism that funds will be available on a continuing basis.
So setting up a whiff will provide a consistent source of funding for the needed wastewater management projects and leave more funds available for other town priorities. How much revenue would be generated by a
whiff? So uh in FY26 the base the prior year levy limit was 119 in some numbers 120 and then for 27 the number is now 124.
Town can raise taxes by up to 2 and a.5% under proposition 2 and a half. That raises another $3 million and new growth gets added in there. So if you come down to the very bottom right hand corner, if the whiff revenue
was set up at 1% that would generate a million3 2% 2 million five and a 3% 3 million8. How do you establish a whiff? town meeting would need to vote to accept the provisions of Mass General Law Chapter
40 section 39M which was enacted a few years back and approve the amount of the wastewater infra infrastructure up of up to 3%. Now, MASHP is the our neighbor and MASHP, I think two years ago, went
through an exercise. Um, they shuffled some monies around between um a couple of other funds and they they adopted a 2% and I had a chance to speak to one of the selectmen about that process. They said, you know, people needed to understand what it was, what
it was for, and how to work it. couple of times people have said how's MASHB affording to do the projects that they've sort of taken on. One of them is that they they were an early adopter of the whiff approach. So, uh I believe it requires a
two-thirds vote. I don't have that fact in front of me, but I would imagine it would. And then you'd have to prove the the whiff at the at the ballot. Um, so similar to a a an override that we already had to go through or funding for some projects.
So MASHP is at 2%, Sandwich is at 2%. Dennis is at 3%. Barnable is uh probably a little bit ahead of us in looking at the whiff uh and and and moving it through their town government
uh and getting accepted. Um, so if anybody wants to get more background information on this, I'm looking at Ed because Ed likes to look things up. Uh, so I don't have a lot to offer in this
because this this was Amy's presentation, but I but it directly affects what we're doing. Um, plus we get on TV, so I wanted to put it out there. We're going to start at the far right hand end first. >> No, Tom. Tom, stand up.
>> Yeah. Um, so do you think it's appropriate already this evening to ask for our endorsement of this idea? >> Oh, thank you. Um, so Amy did this presentation. >> He didn't he didn't prompt me to do that. >> A Amy did this presentation to the selectman, >> right?
>> The selectman said they were going to bring it up for discussion. >> I don't know if it's the next meeting or or at a future meeting. Um, let me let me circle back with Amy, >> okay? >> And find out the timetable for us to >> because I mean it wouldn't be seen as
piling on if I mean this is such a clear-cut thing with so many obvious advantages in terms of long-term planning and a bunch of other things that >> you know, but let's see what other people think. >> Yeah, I did I didn't put it on the agenda as as something for a a vote.
>> Um Kristen will make sure that it's on the next agenda for for a vote. Stephen, >> um I I agree with Tom on that and I don't see any disadvantage to approving it early unless this is some sort of political campaign thing where you have
to hit the right part of the news cycle. >> No, we've we've we've got we've got costs coming our way for um >> waste water, wershed planning and everything else. >> And I think I understand all the numbers you presented. I have a question about a number you didn't present and that's the
spending side of it. The costs if if some sewer project cost just to keep the math simple say $100 million and you were saying the debt you can cover three million of debt service.
What interest rate are you assuming for the debt? And or is this one of these is it zero? Is it one of these interest free loans? >> So, we've been working within a financing model uh for a while now that
says we get an SRF loans at 0%. That seems to be in place. We've been getting roughly 20% from the Cape Island fund uh towards project costs as well. Okay. >> So you don't have to spend the money in
the year. So if we implement it over the next year >> debt service is return repaying capital. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So ju just like just like the Cape Island fund collects uh a percentage on
um lodging. Okay. And then they disperse that out to projects which are just help to reduce the overall capital cost the town of the project. This fund would operate in a similar fashion that as revenue is collected in any given year,
it goes in the fund. If there's more money in the pot, you can take out what you need. You have to go to town median and say, "We've accumulated $8 million. We want to use six of it towards the this project cost." So, if if if it's if
you did the 3% one, um the well the $3 million one, let's say, keep again, keep the math simple. So, you did 3.3 million and it was a 30-year uh loan at 0%, you'd repay it in 30
years. Are you you could handle a $100 million loan and repay it in 30 years? You're comingling things a little bit, Steve. Okay. >> You, this money goes into a fund and we
would draw from that fund with approval of town meeting to reduce project costs that would have to go out and get borrowed. So, the size of the SRF loan would come down. Hypothetically, there's $8 million
in the fund and we go to town meeting for six of that, leaving two in it. And the next project is $40 million. We would get 20% of that or 8 million from the Cape Island funds. That $40 million project is now 32. We would use
the six to now make it a 20. How was my math? 26 27 $26 million project that would have to be borrowed from the SRF. >> Okay. >> I'm going to give that a shot. >> Yep.
You mean you want to shoot me? >> No. I said I'd give you a shot. You I'm here. >> Um there is, you know, a total assessed property value number for the town of Felman. >> Correct. >> Towns used to refer to it years ago as the grand list. Not sure what it's
called now and then, but every year or every couple of years they reassess. >> Correct. >> And the assessments go up and up and up. um that increases the grand list, if that's the right term. So if you hold your
percent of property tax per 100,000 the same, isn't your levy limit going up by >> will go it will increase. It will increase from year to year. I just I just >> and I don't know how that factors into the town's budgeting process. I' I've
been meaning to ask that of somebody that might know. Maybe selectman Brown knows, but you know, I I know the assessments go up dramatically. The house I have now is probably doubled in five years or seven years >> in assessed value. So taxes go up
proportionately. So the town is seeing an increase in taxable property and therefore total revenue every year. Can does the town have the ability to only go up by two and a half% total
levy? And how's that work? >> And perhaps Doug has been involved enough to explain. >> Must have been >> he's volunteering. >> I'm lucky enough to have asked that before. So the tax rate gets adjusted down as values go up. So the tax rate stays steady. >> So the tax levy as Steve's showing it up
there. That's the amount of tax we can collect. >> Yeah. If you have more construction in town, you have more property value, that adds to your revenue, >> right? And that figured into projected revenue growth at I think $900,000. >> That's a new growth plan. >> Yeah.
>> So that doesn't you can still on top of that 900,000 for example increase your total levy by 2 and a half%. >> Yeah, that's built in I think. So the >> but you can't uh you can't expect more revenue from the existing place the
existing structures because the value goes up because state law requires the assessor to then back the tax rate down to keep it steady so the people's tax stays the same. Seems odd but that's the explanation I got. But yet the you know
in in my own personal situation my tax bill has probably gone up by a couple of thousand dollars in u the last five to seven years and the property value has almost doubled. >> That's that's because we vote for things like fire stations and stuff
>> on over temporary overrides that we all agree to makes our taxes go up. Doesn't always necessarily reflect on the tax rate. >> Mhm. >> Because that's an add-on that's going to go away eventually. Okay. So you're saying the assessor has to reduce
the levy >> the rate >> the rate percentage of commensurately so there's not an increase. >> Yeah. And I don't know if it's 100% accurate or they just make a reasonable adjusted adjustment to try to accommodate. I'm not sure exactly the
the fine details of it, but that's >> so there is an there is an accommodation to reflect that the fact the assessed value has gone up, but you're not if it doubled, your tax isn't going to double just because of that. It only will increase by the 2 and a.5% maximum. >> That's my understanding. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. I mean the top line here which is the base or prior year levy limit that that's sort of the magic number. Y um the two and a half% allowed. So if they ran the town on $119 million one year,
>> they can go up 2.5%. >> Right, on that tax line. >> But if the value of the propertyy's gone up, the assessor's got to do the adjustment back to sort of maintain the base levy with the exception of anything that we've done a you know a short-term override on. >> Good. Thank you. The the only other
comment I would make is I think it'd be premature to take a consensus vote even of the committee because the details are still in flux. What number will we go to? I think until that is more firmed up. It better to vote a >> I would I would offer that we'll put it
on the next agenda. We won't vote on the levy amount, >> but we'll vote on the support of the concept. Okay. >> To be pursued. >> Yeah. I was going to say it's not a detailed statement we'd make. It's a policy statement. >> Yes. That in favor of the policy the concept
>> given given options for raising money to keep the waste >> establish some continuity and assured funding. >> Yep. >> source. >> Okay. Questions from the audience. Kim >> to Kim Kart from the Fmouth Pond Coalition Freshwater Pond Advisory
Committee. Um I think it's a great idea. I you know it's like uh was done in Mashby would have been good to do it years ago. Um I guess I have just a question about uh the fairness issue. Um
so if I am on septic um these funds are going to be for what what was in the first slide wastewater drinking water storm water infrastructure. So, we all benefit from wa from drinking
water. We're all going to get >> support for drinking water. Uh, so if I'm on septic, I'm not on sewer. These funds, are these funds going to be used for sewer? They can be used for
sewers, sewer enhancement. That's not going to benefit me if I'm on septic, but I'm going to be taxed for it. Is that right? and stormwater infrastructure. Uh if I'm on a private road,
uh my storm my storm drain won't be repaired or serviced by the town, but I'll be paying for people who live on public roads to have their storm drains serviced. Is that right?
>> I'm going to try to answer your question, please. >> Yeah. Um, you you've narrowed in on a specific case here. Okay. I don't have the Mass General law in front of me. I g did give a link. I will take some time and go dig
into it a little bit. I think there's some exercise here where once we have a waste of watershed plan and there's things in the watershed plan that the town is obligating themselves to I'm assuming that that falls under the umbrella of what whiff money can be used
for. >> Okay. I don't know for a fact. I will look it up and and determine for sure. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Let me just say one more thing and that is that I've been spending a lot of time uh with the folks at DPW dealing with the storm drain issue and there's
acknowledgment that the there's a massive gap between the capacity of DPW to service our 7,500 storm drains and their resources, their personnel and their trucks and >> trying to keep you on top which is the
whiff. Okay. With weather's a good thing. I'm just saying, yeah, I'm saying >> not whe not whether or not the town's got the capacity to do any of this. >> I'm just I I am making a case for this because I do think that the more the DPW has funding to service storm drains, uh
there's a massive gap now. So, the fact that this funds can be used for that purpose is a good thing. It won't benefit the 40% of people who live on private roads in town
unless something changes. >> Anybody else in the audience with a question? Okay. >> I think at least half the audience knows that we've spent at least six months trying to figure out some way that town could subsidize
the purchase and installation of innovative septic systems and I it's such a natural fit with the philosophy of this plan that if it's not written in or are already available. So I I would think
we're going to keep pressing forward with getting some kind of exemption or whatever that allow municipality municipal funds to be spent on private property specifically oriented towards IAS and whatever else might uh might need to be done. So, there would be that
help. The storm water issue I hadn't thought of at all because we're on private roads and we pay to have our storm drains cleaned, but um um our basins, our catch basins. Um so, yeah, I don't know what might play out there.
Right, >> Steve. I I would just say in response to that, folks that live on private roads, when you drive out of that private road, you're on the public roads and the storm drains are very important for the safety of people driving on those. So,
everybody does benefit maybe not directly to the drain in your front yard, but it's just like saying, "I don't have any kids in school. Why should I pay taxes to put the kids in school?" or you know the whole sewer issue of protecting the estuaries. Everybody benefits from the town's
general infrastructure and activities we have like schools and senior centers. Hey, I'm not a senior. Why should I support a senior center? You all benefit for it. If not now, eventually or you use those roads or you want those kids in those schools. So, I hear you. But I think you got to look at the global
issue. >> Kristen, how do I get to my next presentation? Right. Do I click close someplace? Back. Bingo. Terrific. All right. Second item on our
agenda tonight is uh the environmental notification form submitted and we got back a secretary certificate. copies have been distributed to the board members and copies the it can be found uh on the
town's um on the water quality management committee website. So a little bit of background for those watching and listening um the MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act environmental notification form and
the EIR environmental impact report process. The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, MEEPA, requires the filing of an environmental notification form for a for project or projects that potentially can impact the environment. Um the outfall project clearly fell
under the purview that um an ENF was required. The NF was prepared over the last year, included a lot of information from the different studies we've been doing, looking at fisheries, looking at um you know,
>> this is for the outfall. >> Huh? >> For the outfall. >> This is all for the outfall. Yep. >> And that ENF was prepared and submitted in early September of this year. And the timeline was >> that comments needed to come back within
a time certain. We extended it by a couple of weeks uh to allow a couple state agencies to get more complete comments in. A total of 15 comment letters were were submitted to you know that's a not a very large number given the scale
of this project. Um in the early part of the secretary certificate which was issued on October 31st um they called out the fact that the town for the last two years has been working closely with a lot of the agencies you know making sure the scope of things like the way we
were doing borings the way we've been measuring you know different things in the water quality uh were were consistent with the fisheries folks and stuff like that and the certificate was issued on October 31st and it affirmed confirms that the
project will require the preparation of a draft environmental impact report a DEIR and so it's a len not a huge lengthy document but it goes into fair fair amount of detail by categories and the draft and I are supposed to
respond to issues raised in the certificate as well as um to address issues raised by uh the comment letters. Um, ideally if we do a good job with the draft EIR, it answers all the issues and
the final ER certificate is issued. Sometimes projects after the draft IR in they decide that you've got to go back and do some more. But I think we're on a good path with what we know and what we're being asked to do um to get through this.
Okay, I got a group of slides and I've got them as elements that additional information is requested uh that are in the draft EIR and I I picked and choose a little bit of them. There's a lot more things in there that they ask for, but some of them are relatively clean and straightforward and
some of them I think the members of this committee should have an understanding of what we're being asked to do. Uh so there needs to be a full description of public health standards governing the ocean discharge should be provided.
That's a a quote right out of the document. Um you know we in the in the ENF we didn't sort of list all of the public health standards that are applicable to a project like this. Um
that information has to clearly demonstrate that the project will avoid minimize and mitigate damage to the environment to the and this is a key phrase here maximum extent practical practical practicable through project alternatives and design. So it's not an
absolute but you need to identify everything you need to look at it and whatnot. The other the other one in there says the draft environmental impact report should document the status of Kite Park and any other land along the pipeline route with respect to article 97.
Article 97 is a article in the state constitution that says land taken for conservation uh purposes can't be used. You can't put structures onto that land without going back to the legislature for a special act. Um
we believe that uh because the pipe will be under kite park and there will be no structure that surfaces in kite park that we meet um the sort of the allowable standard for that but we need
to document that better in the draft e um going forward elements continued the draft e should include additional details about how the project will help the town to achieve TMDLs and should discuss what changes will be
made to the plans for implementation of nitrogen reducing measures outlined in the town's comprehensive wastewater management plan uh targeted wastewater management plan. So, one of the things that the state decided since we have a comprehensive wastewater management plan
and a targeted wastewater management plan which is sewing those areas south of Route 28, they have basically assigned what we're doing the same number as that. So we are in fact going down a path of amending
um our current comprehensive wastewater management plan rather than you know getting approval for a whole new plan which is it's a procedural issue but it's it's um it's in there and the draft the DEI
should provide additional information regarding the extent to which future sewering will primarily serve existing developed areas and there's some other stuff about not building on barrier beaches and stuff. Um, and the reason I pulled this out is the whole issue of getting watershed plans
done and getting the outfall where there's a little bit of a chicken in the egg here thing. If we don't get an outfall permitted, it's a different amount of sewing that's going to happen. If we do get an outfall approved, there may be some more sewing that will happen. But they wanted some assurances
that we're we're not sewing areas that would, you know, harm the environment by, you know, encouraging development. And then the other one is another one is the no build alternative which says um we don't do anything. We don't build the
outfall. It needs to be recalibrated to determine the anticipated effect of the town's actions assuming full implementation of the strategies with the outfall alternatives. So they're they're they're sort of making us do a better case of
documenting if we don't get an outfall what what happens. Um elements continue the draft environmental impact report should provide plans of conditions along the proposed pipeline route as well as in kite park and additional details
about the design of the outfall in the diffuser system. And then as requested by mass D, it should include an analysis of alternative materials and construction techniques that are planned for the discharge main to demonstrate that the most robust reliable design has been
selected. No, no, no heartburn on my part of that, but they do want to see a better documentation that you know we're not taking the cheapest option, we're taking the best option. So there are a couple of comments around
the wastewater treatment facility. The deer, the draft environment of act report should describe any changes to the wastewater treatment facility that will be necessary to treat wastewater flows of 3 MGD. Again, this is a reasonable request on their part because currently with the work we're doing now,
we never could treat three. We're going to have to if we bump up towards the three number, um we're going to have to do more work at the wastewater plant. Um and that's a reasonable request to outline what that looks like and when that might be needed. The draft EIR should discuss whether the
town intends to reserve some sewering with groundwater discharge in the current various wastewater management plan or direct all plant discharges to the ocean outfall. Um I think this item will have some internal discussion maybe some public discussion
over how much of a fallback or a safety net do we want to maintain or do we want to completely get rid of all the groundwater discharge. So it's a reasonable again my opinion it's a reasonable question for them to ask and see you know some level of commitment as to what what we are or aren't going to
do. Then there's some comments relative to what they call public health. Um we should review the potential public health risks that will be remediated by the removal of excess nitrogen in groundwater and surface waters.
They're looking for a summary of what the good news is if we knock down nitrogen in the estuaries. There is a thing called the anti-degradation requirements which we've been working on for the better part of the last year which is what's the quality of the wa
water that we will discharge out to the outfall versus what the quality of the water in Nantucket Sound um and fit inside what's called a class A water and that we're not changing anything by
anything approaching 10% um and all the initial work on that is generally positive. Over the last year, we've sampled at the effluent for I I'll say I don't know if you got the number on the top of your head,
Christristen, but it's like 40 or 50 different compounds, gathered information on it, and then we sampled out in the sound in in in the sound as well. Um and that just that analysis was not finished at the time we submitted the ENF and we did we expected the
anti-gradation comment to to come up. So um it's not a surprise but there's still work to be done there. And then the the the environmental impact report should discuss public health risks associated with spills or leakages in propo proposed infrastructure. Um it's a
little bit of boilerplate but it's also something that you know we owe the town and this everybody how this will run and you know what's the approach if there's a if there's an issue then uh under construction we need to provide additional details
about the um HDD stands for horizontal directional drilling including whether any drilling fluid such as bentonite slurry will be used and the issue there is that if it's not properly designed and engineered Um the bentonite slurry
that typically gets used can pop out. Um for those of us that follow what went on with the Eversource directional drilling, they they did not have any breakout. We've got good soils, but again, we need to document probably provide them calculations showing how that will not happen.
We need to describe the area of Kite Park that will be used for the horizontal directional drilling operations and the duration of construction activities. reasonable request and it's information we can put together fairly quickly. Um and then the draft EI should provide details about
the exact design of the outfall. For example, the number and angle of diffuse reports, the height of the seafloor, the final location relative to the deep water edge of eelgrass and that's what I have. So the one of the reasons I want to put this in front of you all and walk through some of
these things is we are going to town meeting on Monday night. We are asking for additional funding. A big component of that additional funding is a to fulfill the requirements for the draft EIR. But more importantly, we actually
need to sort of design the outfall in order to respond to the draft EIR and we factored that in to the monies we're requesting. So we're calling it a 30% design. We're not going to do an awful lot about the route of the pipeline going back up through the town, but we're in essence going to prepare plans
that are ready for submitting to Army Corps of Engineers and others for permitting that will show, you know, the the nature and the extent of the diffuser and everything else. Um, so I I'll try to answer questions. I don't know if others of you have read it and think there's something uh that that
jumps out at you that's important or whatnot. Ed, >> uh, I've gone through it a couple of times. One, one thing just based on the highlights you gave, Steve, um, my understanding was the effluent now is
testing at about that three uh, milligram per liter level >> consistently. Our three three are slightly less, >> not 100% but pretty close. So, I would think that's a good long way towards okay, here's where we are. here's what we've done in the past couple of years to get to that level and here's the
actual data and if more um SBS or something has to be added to get get it more consistent then that would be that. So that seems like it'd be a pretty straightforward thing to address. >> Let me just touch on that real quick. >> So with the new SPR that they we just
did the uh clean water testing to prove how water flows through it and that it's working right now. we can treat all the flows that we're going to see coming to the plant as well as the flows from the um ticket uh sewers into SBS. But if
anything goes down in an SPR or that needs to be taken down to be cleaned, we don't have enough reserve capacity to reliably make three. So we're we've we're set up to have treatment capacity for a while as the flows go up. And I don't have the magic number in my head,
but probably someplace around 1.7 um million gallons a day. We're currently doing 771,000 on average at the treatment plant. Um so as the watershed plan comes out and as people talk about maybe expanding the sewer
area, that'll help to start setting a timeline for when we need to put the next SB up at the plant. and the and the the the design work and the construction they have is laid out for a fourth SB. Three SBRs will give us a lot of treatment capacity. A fourth would be
the reserve in case one of them had to go down. >> We currently have two and we're adding a third or we just added the third. >> We currently have two. We've been constructing a third one for last period of time. >> So, it's not finished. >> And uh we're we're at the clean water testing, meaning the tanks are done and you can see how things flow through and
and and work their way through. But we're not treating anything yet. Now the timing is great because that that's a funded being constructed project and that will help to ensure that one other minor point that I noticed in perusing this 70 odd pages is they they talked
about ensuring that we're not impacting historic tr sample trwler dragging >> sampling routes and I'm like okay I I know trwers commercially are harvesting along that route and I've seen them it's
not an issue Yeah, I I didn't think it was. I I found it kind of interesting that somebody said, "Yeah, in here." And they showed some maps. >> So, I don't know whether it's the fisheries. Um, but somebody uh in the spring uh does does trolls to capture things to measure
>> organisms in the area and we have a map of where they troll the historical trolling lines and we are clear of that. >> Yes. >> Okay. But I think they they were looking I didn't put everything in there. I think that one is a fairly straightforward one. We say we have da
da, you know, we're x feet or whatever off of those lines. Yeah. And we we we project no impact. >> Yeah. Stay at those lines, you'll be okay. I do see sometimes some of those commercial trwers going on the inland side of the harbor marking buoy, which
is pretty much near the edge of the eelrass. So, it's like you guys are really messing things up out there already. So I I would think we're going to have to have kind of a a marked exclusion zone over the diffuser. So, you know, those are good questions, but that was one point that was raised that
I said, well, they're really kind of stretching, but okay, easy to answer. >> I'm going to jump to Jonathan. >> Yep. I'm done. >> So, it seems like some of the questions that have been raised rely on having a good understanding of the final targeted watershed management plan.
What is the timing of answering these questions relative to the completion you know of that uh the plan by the consultant? Are they they need to be pretty close together so we have the timeline you know not negatively impacted? >> Yeah. Yeah. It's just
we are not obligated to put the draft environmental impact report in within 60 days or 90 days. We're going to come back in response to the secretary certificate and outline our approach and a and a timetable. I have not seen that yet, but obviously we're going to town
meeting to get money to, you know, get going on the watershed plans. Um, and I would say six or eight months from now, we probably have a much better picture of where we're going to on some of this stuff. Uh, you know, definitive enough
to put it into the draft EIR. Yeah, it's a there's two there's two paths that we're on right now and they need to merge into one path. You're done. Um Steve, where they talk about concerns about spills and leaks
from the proposed infrastructure, are they talking about only the new >> infrastructure? Are they talking about the whole package? >> That that's a great question. I I would say a minute ago I just talked about adding a third SB
to minimize, you know, to give us reliability and redundancy. So, you're going to go all the way up >> to the beginning? >> Yeah. I because otherwise someone will come back with another question. So, you >> Right. That's what I I just trying to the way it was phrased. I wasn't sure whether they just wanted to look at the downhill stuff or everything at the top
of the heap. I >> I mean, this is a case of, you know, are you using concrete pipe? You using ductal iron pipe? Are you using um HDP pipe? Well, you know, what type of pipes you use? There's a couple of places on the route
where we actually have to cut under culverts and whatnot. Um I will tell like what's the Italian restaurant? Is it Vine? Is it right by where we get our ice cream in the summer? The Dairy Queen. There's a culvert there under that road and few years back when we put
the water man in in that location. We actually put use galvanized pipe because it's below a elevation where there's probably regular intrusion of seawater during high tides and whatnot. We wanted to, you know, make sure that it was
going to, you know, not corrode and rot. Um, you know, so that's the sort of thing that we need to advance the the the the overall design concepts on. Um, and be fairly specific that we will do this, we will do that.
>> Steve, you had your hand up. >> So, does this is this unexpected in the timeline of the outfall? >> No. I no this is all factored into our timeline that we knew this step would would occur and >> um >> and who who I mean looks to me as though
you can answering most of these is fairly straightforward. >> Um who who does it you and Amy and Kristen or a contractor? >> Uh no uh GHD is contracted uh as our engineer on this. So they they
prepared the ENF they will prepare the draft EIR. I'm sure John and I have once a month for the last year um sat in on monthly uh progress meetings on the outfall. Um and those have gone pretty
pretty smoothly, pretty comprehensive, would you say, John? >> They've gone very well. So yeah, you know, I I brought this up to kind of frame for this board and anybody listening, we have more work to do. It's going to cost money to get some of it
done. Um, we got to still do some onwater monitoring. You know, I didn't bring up the part that says we have to develop a plan to measure water quality at the diffuser site for a number of years going forward because it not necessarily controversial, but I
tried to pick out pick and choose things that at least to me are things I want to make sure that people understand so they they know why we're spending money and that we're spending it wisely. >> Comments from the audience. Great job.
>> Well, I the the I would say I've I've g gone through in my career uh some of this stuff a few times. Um and the whole the entire team, GHD, Amy, the people from the state lined up earlier early early on and you know
understanding what they would be curious about. Um everybody's everybody has worked almost from day one to to understand that for found with all of our issues that the outfall is what is what will really help us to get to where we need to get to. Um so rather than
throwing up roadblocks they've sort of been like well you know this is what we are concerned about so make sure you look at that you know like we looked at the you know the impact on the sagor lens there were several comments in here about that report but none of them were like you need to do another analysis or
you need to do more analysis. Okay. Nice. Yep. Making myself a note so I don't forget that Kim asked me to do something. Um the next item on the agenda
is uh as we as as this board knows we applied for a grant for the Snug Harbor PRB. The grant got awarded the town has some obligation to provide a level of inind service. Um
if we want to make sure that we're not at the end of a project in a couple of years and saying, "Oh, we're supposed to have 10% and we only have 8%." Um it behooves us not when we talk about it at this board. But if anybody like Ed or
Ken or Kristen works on it or the town council has to look at something and provide an opinion, we need to keep track of ours spent. Um, you know, the DPW has indicated they'll provide a certain level of equipment and labor for
the project. Um, but Ed, if you would be willing, I would like to ask you to sort of set up a bookkeeping system and we'll routinely remind people that, you know, if they do they do a half an hour or an hour, collect it. Okay. Accumulate your
time investments whether you know I I've personally been using 15minute increment minimum. Well, you sound like a lawyer. >> I I am. >> I I I've learned to dislike them over a long enough times I became one. But, you know, I think it's it's simple enough and, you know, I got a lot of scattered
notes of, you know, 15 minutes on the phone with XYZ and neighbors and what have you. So, yeah, I I can be the central repository. >> If you go over to the West Val Association and give a a presentation, >> keep track of that. I've had halfhour
conversations with them on the phone. That's that's all accumulated time and it you know if 15minute increments and just >> jot them down and I can uh toll them up and submit it as part of our financial part.
>> Kristen at some point whatever the bookkeeping on that is required from the grant just let know about it. Yep. >> So we collect it the way it needs to be done. >> Okay. All right. Uh, and I don't know if this is considered strategic planning or what it's
considered, but uh, at the last board meeting, I pointed out that we're at a point with this committee where it's probably good to try to define what our role is. And I I'll preface that by pointing out that,
you know, the DPW through the sewer department, they're they're the people that are contracting for engineering on the outfall. They're the folks that are contracting for the construction of sewers. They're the folks that are contracting.
And now we have the last year or so ago, IAS are now with Masttec. So I enjoy coming here. I enjoy talking about things. I thought it'd be good to find out what people on this committee think are key things that we need to be
working on. Um, I might give John the opportunity to go first because Kim and John and I sat down to talk about some things having to do with a webinar for the pawn coalition and John was very clear on there's two elephants in the
room, one pygmy and one uh gray. So I had two things that I think we need to to work on. One is e equitable contribution of IAS in the wersheds comparable to the town contribution that
we make to sewers. In other words, we've got to figure out some way that if we mandate 5,000 IAS of one type or another that the town is chipping in for their implementation, whether that's buying
the hardware for the IAS or whatever. But I think that's just a ma for for us to be successful, we've got to figure out a way. and my understanding at the moment that's not currently in the
10-year capital plan uh at the moment. The other thing that I think is absolutely critical is the development of a successful model for a responsible management entities. The mastec has had
a million-doll grant to do that. We developed a management plan oh five year or six years ago >> when we developed the CWMP for Oyster Pond and we sat down and discussed that
plan with Brian Dudley any number of times over coffee. We never could get DP to commit. So the the real problem is that in order to monitor these, if we have 5,000 IAS and we have to monitor
those and report to DP, we can't afford to do it at the rate that D mandates now quarterly. And we developed a a scheme, a reduced monitoring scheme to be able
to do that. We never could get D to respond to that. And my understanding is that Masttec has not gotten D to respond to that. And so I think we have to go to people like Ze Crocker, the other towns
on the Cape and to our uh delegates to Boston to get them to intervene at D and get them at the table to sit down and really work through this uh to get a successful management
scheme. So, I don't think it's a town problem, but I think it's incumbent on us because NASDAQ has not successfully managed this that we figure out a scheme how to move it up and apply pressure at
Boston to get some sort of a reaction from them. >> Who who or what in the town would take respons? I mean, would we contract this out to Masttec? Would we would this be under the board of health? Do is
that's something we need to probably talk about, John. Right. >> I think it's largely political at this stage. We mastec had a contract. We developed a perfectly viable management entity scheme. Um
D has simply not managed to come to the table and discuss it reasonably. And I don't believe we can be successful with our watershed plans if we don't have a way of being
reasonably able to report to D annually. Thank you, John. We got written suggestions from two of the board members. You guys want to do rock, paper, scissors and figure out who goes first? >> Oh, >> hi Doug Brown. Select board. Just wanted
to quickly say that, you know, whenever you run into a roadblock like that, I guess that's time for you guys to send another letter to the select board and say here's the problem that we have. We need some help to move it forward. And then the select board would likely take it up and I guess what we could do is then send letters to our delegation and
say that we need help and copy it to D and you know rises to the next level and then if we don't get a response from that then we get the legislators to send their own letters. I guess that would be the process. So I I I sort of wrote down a little I'm taking a little notes here. John, I think what we should do is we
should find what you did before, resurface it so everybody on the board sees what was done before and then we can have an agenda item specifically on that. Then >> the model we developed for Oyster Pond uh to Kristen and she can distribute it.
>> Perfect. You get that agenda item going forward. Gentlemen, they they gave written comments. I'm going to allow the written comment folks to to jump in next unless you want to talk about management entities. >> Are you looking at me or John? >> You
>> I see a couple other key points and it really I think goes back to issues with somehow defossilizing the D. One is we're focusing our effort on numbers
that are 20 years old. Best guesses when when groundwater inputs of nitrogen, groundwater flows, attenuation and everything I believe date from 2006. What would it cost to sit down and re
literally remodel these flows? the concentrations, what exactly we're having to deal with. And at the same time, Ken brought this up a couple of weeks ago,
we need to switch from dealing with concentrations to dealing with mass balances because that is where, not to be cute, where the rubber meets the road. Exactly how much nitrogen is there, not what is the concentration.
Because once we start looking at reduced flow plumbing fixtures and urine diversion, the old models don't work. The actual concentrations are going to go up because you've got the same amount
of nitrogen presumably going into a smaller amount of water. So suddenly when you're doing your monitoring and looking at your efficiencies of your septic system and what what the concentrations are on the effluent in the septic systems, it's all messed
up. And so I would like to see us somehow get some kind of cogent statement for supporting both new modeling and new modeling that involves mass balances. I mean it just it it it's so basic
because once we start messing with other sorts of changing the the amount of water flow in the system concentrations have got to go up almost I can't say they got to go up but they're most likely to go up and then you say oh my gosh we failed. Well we haven't failed
we're just dealing with a different situation that we didn't anticipate. And um other than that, a lot of things are on here. Common things about outreach and um public education. Um and also
we kind of have the luxury of doing big picture long-term thinking and just develop some thought models about what if X happened to Felmouth over the next 10 or 15 years. You know what what is Is there a black swan event
that may suddenly change the wastewater situation in Felmouth or whatever it might be? Um, and I won't get going on my ideas of what I thought COVID did to parts of Felmouth because suddenly you had bunches of
people year round in parts of Felmouth that didn't have year- round poverty. But I'll stop there. Steve, could I just make one comment uh regarding mass balance and the new model? Towns early on decided they would
sue D about that model. D absolutely refused to entertain that. As far as going by mass balance, which is clearly the right way to do this, George Hoyfelder, who's been head of massec for
years, has fought with D about that and has gotten nowhere. I'm not sure that's battle we want to take again. I I was I agree with absolutely with both Tom and John. What what Tom said is
technically absolutely true, but the elephant in this in that room is D. Yes. >> And it's an elephant that won't move. >> Right. >> And the t the first step before you paid for
modeling would be to establish from D that they would accept such a model, >> right? >> And that figure out that the whole thing could be done such that the 20-year goal could still be met. Otherwise, it's pointless.
>> Yeah. No, I I agree. We we need to get them to move on this. And as we've seen >> because appealing to them, although it's distasteful, it's sort of free whereas the modeling you have to start paying real money. Well, I was hoping
they would pay for the modeling, not us. >> Even better, more reason to go to them first. >> I know that's a pipe dream, but >> but it's just crazy. I mean, I'll stop. >> Careful what you ask for, too, right?
Just get worse for us. >> It's possible it could make it worse for us, >> but I don't think so. I mean, I always say, you know, the the MEP has got these TMDL things in them.
They're numbers that I don't disagree that the model was either incomplete or, you know, not, you know, using the right data and things are different, but I always say at the end of the day, it's whether or not the biology comes back.
>> Okay? And so again, we look at Little Pond once in a while and at least on paper, if we follow the rules, we did not sew enough of the Maravista Peninsula to be able to get biology to
come back in there based upon the model and the numbers. But yet, we get anecdotal information, we get the data, and we can see that the pond's getting better. it's getting cleaner, you know. So
the the question would be how to the the level of e effort or calibration required to get DP to understand that we don't have to turn around and say we're going to put in 800 sewers and 800 IAS for this wershed, but we're
going to put in 700 sewers and 300 IAS and that we believe will make what we need to make there. One of the things that I've been struggling with in the watershed plans is you put these targets in and then you're measuring every five
years. What you're measuring is the number of facilities you put in, the number of sewers or the IAS. And I haven't got g gotten far enough in anybody else's watershed plans to to
know whether or not you can say our goal is to get this done by this date and then be able to look and see in five or six years because it doesn't happen overnight. You know, you put this in as we saw in Little Pond. You don't put this stuff in and the next year
there's an improvement. It takes >> Yeah. >> some time to to to see it. Okay. A couple of things. I think what I'm hearing, if I'm understanding you correct, Tom, is you're basically saying we need mass estuaries project version
2.0. >> Exactly. >> That and that is a state D responsibility. That's their expense and the mission would be to convince them, hey, this is old stuff. You need to redo it. And I think that's as far as we can
go. Yes. I I certainly under no way would consider the town trying to do it on their own and say, "Hey, DP, eat this and take it." >> Yeah. No, that's >> waste of time. Uh the other just quick point to u what John is saying about the
SUP. It's it's interesting. What are other towns doing? And I've asked uh some months ago um the MASHBY selectman who happens to be the chair right now and she queried the board of
health agent what are we doing about monitoring performance and very simply the operator of the system whoever's the lency the licensed operator is required to send the samples to Masttec the
county and MASHP's done they have nothing to do they're not accumulating the data. They're not monitoring it. The onus is on the homeowner's engineer or the company that put the thing in and the county. That's their sub. Period.
Done. They're not trying to monitor the hundreds that they're putting in or have mandated. You know, most of the town has to do an IIA if they're not in the sewer zone. And um it's going to be interesting and I think important on a lot of things as we go forward. what are
the other towns doing? The whole Cape and the islands, how are they responding to this? What is the reaction they're getting from D? So that that's all on that, you know, unless we want to start going through the lists that are up there. Um, one comment on what Ed just said. I
think we want to be really careful. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with saying the responsibility is the homeowner and their engineer or like nitrex or nitroe. >> Y >> but you better make sure before the
homeowner or anyone else signs the contract that the supplier agrees to that. They may say, "Oh, well, if you want us to do that, that's another 5,000 per year." I made up that number. I have no idea what it would be. I I I if you
go go dig into the board of health current regulations for IAS, I think they've covered a bunch of that. They the board of health will tell a homeowner that's going to put an IIA in and does your engineer understand that your system has to work? Does your provider of the system understand that
it has to work? And if it doesn't work, the onus is on you to take it out and put in one that does work. >> Yeah. I'm just saying in doing that, you want to make sure that it reflects back to the prices that are going to be charged. Okay, fair enough. Right. >> And >> go ahead.
>> That's all. >> Jonathan's going to jump in here. >> I just think it's important that we do have some sort of centralized management integration because if a lot of these systems are underperforming and not everybody's aware of it, then the chance of the project being successful
decreases. So, I think there should be somebody who's looking at all this data for an area of one of these targeted watershed management plans. and is is gauging how successful things are because if everybody's underperforming and they're getting 20 milligrams per
liter instead of three or whatever the 10 the number is then I think that's a major problem that we don't want to wait for x amount of years to recognize it. I think we need to be integrating all the results together at at some frequent interval. I don't know if that's the
supper who does that and understand whether we're on the path to success or failure before it's too late. Agree. >> We go through our lists or please >> because I think we're we're getting into detailing items that are up there or in
somebody's mind rather than just okay, here's things that are important. I think >> you want to put an edge list up. >> It is. Now, this this was my attempt to um I had actually prefers for the last meeting and we kind of deferred it to this one, but important issues that have
been part of this committee the two years I've been on it and and I think need to be continued going forward and you know I I view a primary mission of the committee is outreach and public education and support of any of the
wastewater related initiatives and so outfalls the biggie right now. We've talked about it extensively already this evening and that process is moving. But an important part of our mission and it as I see it is to make sure the public is aware and accepts and has any
questions they have about this project answered prior to it going to town meeting for full funding and to the general electorate and also to address concerns and questions that you know areas residents in the immediate area. Felmouth Heights off of Kite Park,
people along the pipeline route, um to understand the project and if they've got some fear or issue that we address it proactively and to determine how are we going to do that outreach and education and actually implement it, I think is a key goal. Um
IA triggers, you know, the the board of health has passed recently their regulation that goes into effect, I believe in just a couple of days on the 15th for all new construction flow increase. Thou shalt install an IIA estimated to impact roughly a hundred
something. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Um you've got this is a great list. So let's stay with the first one. Is that is anybody have any concerns or comments with us continuing to be be engaged in outfall outreach and education?
>> I mean they're all good things and the list is similar to mine and probably everybody else's. The real question is the how you arrange them in order of priority. >> That's right. We can come back to making the priority list. >> Okay. I just because because I just
don't want to have somebody have something >> build up too many questions. >> I would just say that public outreach is for all this. It's not just IA. It encompasses I think everything that we're trying to do not just outfall. It's it's it's all these different elements. is having some sort of master
plan to, you know, reach out to the community to make sure that they understand what's happening, why it's happening, and the successes that we have like little ponds so they understand the money's going for something useful >> that that it's working. And you know, there's been comments made at some of our meetings by members of the audience,
the sewers don't work. I'm like, what do you mean it doesn't work? You know, give me some evidence. But, you know, we need to address those questions, concerns, and correct any misinformation. And you'll see it's it's a common theme of outreach outreach outreach. I I think part of the whole thing because it is a
general part of our mission as I see it. What is the methodology for the outreach? You know, Katie and her wonderful articles to have a mini enterprise is a good start. Not everybody reads it. Fewer still, I think, understand it, although she does a great job of, I think, trying to
explain and bring it to the points without a lot of extra words. Um but yeah, IA triggers, you know, there's there's the first one has been implemented. Um there are roughly between two and 300 in town, depending on how you count and whose numbers you
believe and um this will be another hundred. I talked extensively to um Cleanto who does the nitro systems this week. Um basically their marketing and administration person and um
you know they they are determined and feel they are going to get a 10 or 11 part per uh of per million of nitrogen general use approval in the near term. hopefully by year end but certainly soon
thereafter. Um I don't see the data supporting that and I've asked the questions of them mastec and I've also got a call into D Southwest regional wastewater folks. Tell me about the numbers and how you're going to calculate these things waiting for a response. Um but now what are the next
triggers going to be? Is it going to be transfer of title? Is it going to be a time trigger? Is it going to be some combination thereof? Um the important first decree has been sent down with a lot of definition of what areas are falling
under this you know what is a nitrogen sensitive area and all that they did a lot of preliminary work so now that die is cast going forward it's just what will that next trigger be logical one to me is u transfer of ownership but that's part of I think we don't make that
decision but I think it behooves us to discuss get a consensus of this committee and suggest and advise the board of health that this is what we think and work with them proactively. Um, wershed management plans uh that's been talked
about this evening, but to be aware of it to help educate people on what it is, why it is, and make our suggestions um to those folks putting it together if we have some concerns we feel might be ignored and then advise because that's our goal. We're in an advisory committee
to the board of selectment on the plan and also DPW as they're working because it's their responsibility to develop it. But we work with them, the consultants and whomever. Um, great pond phase one. Let's not forget we've got bids out hoping for favorable bids in the near
term to start construction early next year and be done by the end of the following year so people can start hooking up at the end of 2027. But a lot of people still don't know that they're going to get sewered and what are they going to have a grinder pump or gravity and all that. So I think you know going to their meetings, their precinct
meetings or their um association meetings and being there to answer their questions and explain things again outreach uh and continuing to see how the project is proceeding. uh the initiative that John and has really
headed up on septic tax credit change to a refundable to do anything we can to promote that legislative change by outreach to associations and select boards and whomever should comment on
it. I think that should be that's a very very key one to help relieve the financial burden on people who are going to be required to put that in. Uh and also you know that affects people who have to hook up to a sewer that don't
have the income to take advantage of that tax credit on their connection cost. not the betterment because that's ineligible, but the help of that that can give is not just for IAS, but also for sewer hookups for people that have a lower
income. Um, any income if they're a resident. >> Well, any taxable income if you don't pay a state tax. >> No, I'm just saying if we could get the change applies to anybody that's a resident. >> Yes. Yeah. It'll it helps >> low income.
>> Yes. Correct. But it helps those that are not. It makes it it makes it more fair to every everybody. >> Yes. And helps that population that I think we're most concerned about. Those who are financially stressed with maintaining a house they might have inherited. >> You just said it in a certain way that I thought you were somebody might have heard you and thought it only applied to
people of below a certain income level, but applies to anybody that's a resident. >> Yes. Yeah. Anybody that's a year- round resident of this town. Um, best available nitrogen reduction technology. Real mouthful. NIA performance that ties in with you know some sort of a
management and reporting plan but also what are the systems where are they in the approval process and what are their comparative costs you know what what's the best bang for your dollar to reduce the mass of nitrogen uh and hit those goals of performance
>> I'm going to add something just under under item six >> you know that whole thing is with D and the tech center about how systems perform but coming back to John's thing like at some point over the next period of time, not like six months, but probably the next two years, we're going
to need to develop a model or or an approach for the town to be able like they did with the grinder pumps to put an RFP out of some sort and be able to get, you know, bul purchases to then make them available back to the homeowners. >> So, I would I would add that into the
item six there as well. >> Yeah. >> Okay. There there's a lot of detail to each of these and I guess the the thing I'm trying to emphasize is we got a lot of work ahead of us. There's a lot of things we need to be involved with. Um the IIA
performance and best available nitrogen reduction technology that that that's the deeper I dig into the performance numbers the more it becomes a can of worms. Masttec on their reporting on performance uh bases it on the median performance
and that's how they say you know this percentage is meeting the goal. D does not use median they use the mathematical average and that's much less favorable in the performance. So my question to D hoping somebody will
answer my calls is what are you going to use when where and how are you rigidly saying minimum 50 for 3 years that's the only thing we count it's only the average and we're even going to include outliers that obviously are
got something wrong with them. If they do that then I don't think anybody's going to meet a very good performance number in any hurry. um the best performing in the most systems out there continues to be nitro. They have um actually two approvals. One is general
use um provisional rather for um 19 milligrams and then they also have best available reduction
approval for pro provisional approval at 11. two different numbers and they're working against both. So they have two approvals for putting systems in which I found pretty interesting. Had not known that until just the past week. Uh you're
in diversion that that project has become a town project and it's a real can of worms. It's it's got a lot of stuff involved with it. uh I'll be very interested as things go forward to get an updated report of where is that project and again it's for us to
understand and be aware of what it is that is not something that this committee is directly involved with but it's part of our overall strategy and another tool in the toolbox um PRBs same thing uh you know we we'll keep an eye on the Snug Harbor thing we watched
Shorewood for how many years three years four years now and u but then look hey is there other places where this effective but only limited locations are applicable but is there other places where that can help us and also you know
a new one I thought of just the other day is the grant opportunities you know we got a grant for 450,000 for the Snug Harbor project and to be aware of and and Kristen's great at this you know what grant opportunities are there that might fit our mission that we ought to
go after and then you know who when and how does the outreach and try to get that grant and see if we can get other um entities like you know the APCC or Buzzards Bay Coalition or some of those organizations to participate in the
grant application. So that's what I had as general and the more I thought about it the longer the list got. You know we've got a lot of work ahead of us. So Amen. >> Yes. >> want to go up. Well, if you insist. But
I I mean, Ed and others have really outlined all the major topics. My some of the wind has been taken out of my sales because this meeting tonight has so far been so good. And my pet
peeve that I was trying to make in my written report is that I think in the past we've spent too much time dabbling in a whole lot of little things to make a character true of having a speaker come in from some other town saying well
this is how we get rid of seagull droppings I mean that never happened but I mean a lot of the things seem to be trivial like that whereas the major technology ies are IAS and sewers and we have five years to plan it and 20 years
to do it. All the other stuff is good and it's like oysters. They're working fine, but they're really none of our business anymore other than in the watershed plan if it's legal to subtract first the amount that they take
out and the same for the PRB and inlet widening. But the these big issues of monitoring IAS and the plan itself, how do we decide where the sewers are going and uh where
the IAS are going to to avoid duplication such as I think is inherent in the recent board of health plan. But I'm happy to see that everybody seems to be moving in this direction now. >> Okay. I I have one one item that fits in
with this but isn't really covered by some of the stuff. So, um other communities. So, Falmouth adopted a thing that's had new construction, the nitrogen sensitive area against our map. We'll we'll put an IIA
system in. It's that's as far as we've we've gone so far. Okay. Other communities have turned around and said any whatever the different triggers as you'll call them and they say 500 feet or 1,000 feet. I think one of them on
the vineyard might be 1500 feet. Kristen >> uh the one on the vineyard is pretty much in their whole wershed. the whole >> it's Tisberry. >> But but where I was going with this is >> I think this committee can do some work to help guide the board of health on the
next thing that's going to have to happen relative to who's got to put an IIA in and why. And we've had different people wander in front of this committee at times and talk about attenuation of nitrogen in the ground.
Back to your the model is flawed. The model makes no accounting for attenuation, but I think that that there's some data analysis that this board can work on that would say groundwater is moving
at 300 some odd feet a year. There is the time of travel and you know I got a hold of um uh Kevin
Kevin Kroger a number of years back authored a report that specifically looked at the attenuation of nitrogen in the ground looking at the wastewater plume from Falmouth and uh I think it was Red Brook Harbor was the other one
uh for some reason. So he he was looking at time of travel and what happens to the nitrogen. asked Jonathan one day to take a look at the Maryland Vista Peninsula and you know you bumped into it pretty fast John but um I I think
this is a key thing for us to kind of wrap ourselves around and say okay you know maybe title maybe everything else but you know it put an I 12 years travel time up in the nitrogen
sensitive zone probably has less real benefit than putting one in within the one year or the two-year zone. Okay. And I we've we've had a little bit of that in the background, but that's something I'd like us to try to wrap ourselves around a little bit more and try to start
understanding where it makes the most sense to to put these in. I I I don't know where the watershed plan will go with that, but I think you guys talk about fairness a lot and I I agree with you, but we want to push hard to get it where we need to get
it to see a benefit of it, not just in a nitrogen sensitive zone. >> I I agree. I But >> because that because that that 40 or 50 or 60 that may be going in at somebody's septic system way up the system might only be eight or 10 by the time it gets
Let me say another part of what I was thinking. The you've said that we're going that uh you and Kristen are going to do the watershed plans this summer, right? >> Kristen is going to do it this summer.
>> She's on the she's scienceware is part of the the the team that's going to put together wershed planning. Yes. But she's GHD. I'm assuming a key part of that plan is a map that shows the properties that will be sewered and the
properties that will need to be have IAS. Is that correct? >> It's a reasonable assumption that that is an end product but the path to that end product could benefit by some >> Oh, absolutely. But when does that end product is that written down? When is
that map ink? >> Uh that will be June 14th, 2026. Okay, that's I accept I accept the humor. >> No, no, no. Humor. You're not putting that in minutes. No, no, no, no. Hold
on. I'll give you an answer. The last thing I saw, Kristen, was people talked about eight months. >> I mean, the talks for the contract is by the end of 26. >> Yeah. Yeah. But it it's not two years. >> Correct.
And so to draw that map that I mean that map is what everybody wants to see. I've gotten >> I know but until it gets approved by the D it's just a draft. >> But it's way beyond where we are now. >> Okay. It's what we want it. It's like
the outfall. You want an outfall and then there's this give and take of what you have to do to get one. But the the inking the map is what people want to see so they can plan. I've gotten more than one call from people who are saying, "When am I going to know which
we have to do and when we have to do it?" Think that's common sense. >> Yeah. >> You don't need testimony to that effect. >> No. And um that anybody would want to know that. And I think it's the job of this committee
well before that map is inked and before the contractor decides where they're going to draw the line to decide what criteria and algorithm we want them to use to determine the position of the
lines on that map. >> You you you just circle back to what I just said. Good. >> Which is good. Back to the watershed plans. There's a fiveyear you. This will happen by this this fivey year. This will happen by year 10. This will happen by year 15. This will happen by year 20.
So I don't think it's one map. I think there's four maps for each watershed. Okay. And I would say that the time of travel from IAS should help to define within the first five years. This is the
push within the second five years. This is the push. You know, if somebody wants to do it ahead of schedule, great. >> But for instance, I think you would agree you you don't want to have people putting in IAS where you're going to come along even 20 years later and put
in a sewer. >> I don't know. I I don't know that I would agree with you on that. Really, you see, it's acceptable for to tell somebody that they have to spend all this money, as you say, burying a new car in their yard only for it to be
go to the scrapyard in 20 years. >> You just made a hypothesis that somebody puts an IIA in that's going to within a year or two be effective because it's close to the water and then 20 years from now when the sewer comes by, they have to connect to the sewer that they
shouldn't be put in that position. And I would say if they're within a certain distance of a water body, they're they're a primary contributor now and they should be doing something now. That's me. You ask me if I agree with you. I don't agree with you.
>> All right. I I that's maybe not a topic for tonight, but I think it's a major topic for this committee. >> Okay. that that whole planning process and the the financial trade-off between the cost per unit for sewer or the cost per unit
for IAS taking into account for instance point you've made which is one sewer connection does the same nitrogen removal as two IAS roughly >> yeah if we get down to if we get down to the 10th >> and taking into account the pricing of
sewers and IAS >> right >> but not just waving our hand actually putting down numbers and figuring it out. >> Again, I I I brought this attenuation thing up because I think there there's a
there's a there's a key group of homes near water bodies that probably have a greater impact and we won't get to put sewers in them for a while. And to me, it's like you you you've you've you've bought a
piece of property next to a water body, you should do something to make that water body healthy. And if 20 years later the town wants to grant you a waiver, they're not tied to the sewer or anything else, that's fine. But in the in the 20 years in that 20
years, we can't just say, "Oh, well, in 20 years, we're finally going to put sewers out at the top end of a koite and nobody's going to do anything and have an algae bloom every year out there." I'm sorry. >> I I'll just say one response to that is I think that if and when
>> that's my opinion, it's not a fact. >> Everything everybody's saying is their opinion. Um, >> but I'm sure you agree with me. If and when this fairness between IAS and septic uh
IAS and sewers is worked out and there's a substantial subsidy from the town to the IAS, I submit that opinion will move in the direction of let's not waste the money. Let's not install something only
to take it out 20 years later and install another expensive thing that the town now has to pay for. No individual in their life purposely does something knowing that eventually there'll be something else there.
>> People buy >> there are plenty of exceptions. >> People buy boats and do things with them. So that's that's probably six. Jonathan, I >> I don't think we should try to solve problems here. I thought this is the the forum to discuss what are the broad themes that we need to be focusing in on in the coming years.
>> You're right. And we need to get digress too much. Yeah. I mean, we're trying to get into the woods here, but I mean, for me, and I have a few of my things under Ed's very comprehensive list, but I I'm a I'm a grouper, so I have financial support. And I think we need to be looking at ways to help out homeowners
to pay for these very expensive systems, which we know are critical to the health of the waterways, but still for a lot of people, it's a huge expense. And um I was listening to one of the Barnable water quality meetings the other day and they were spending a huge amount of time
looking about what are the various public funding opportunities out there for IAPIC systems. How can we get loans for people and I think we need to take a similar approach. We need to start really focusing on you know how we can provide and if we can provide some sort
of financial relief whether it's through the town through the state or federal government whatever. But for me, that's something that I would like to be involved in, and I'm sure there's others, is it's part of the fairness. How do we get money to people who need it the most to pay for systems that they never really thought they would have to
put in? They're not budgeted for that. >> But they recognize it's their civic duty and we need to help them pay for it. Y >> uh the other thing is public outreach. I agree. I think we can do a much better job beyond what's already done with the paper. um you know letting people know
what's coming because I also get questions all the time are the sewers working and just the other day I had to run through the list with little pond but they should all have that information so in their mind they know right now that this money is well spent not is it is it working it's you know
how will it help the ponds that are closest to me or whatever. >> Good point. And the other thing and I don't know maybe this is out on a limb but water quality beyond nutrient reduction is that at all within our purview you know it's it's a huge issue potentially or are there other groups
within the town that deal with that specifically >> like PAS or you know other you know other things that affect the quality of drinking water you know is is that something that we ever are going to talk about or it's just beyond our scope.
I mean, I know a lot of people have films. >> So, you know, the water department measures for PAS and all the drinking water supplies and they've got provisions for treating for PAS in uh
the fresh pond well. And um so in terms of drinking water in PAS, there's a real focus inside the water department already. >> I'm using as an example. How many people put filters on their water here? How many people drink it out of the tap?
>> I would I would hope that just about everybody in town drinks out of the tap. The water is very good quality in Falmouth and it gets chlorinated and chlorine is is a poison. So, you should have a carbon filter on anything that
you drink or make ice cubes out of to get rid of the chlorine. But other than that, the water's excellent. Sorry, I ran the water department. But my favorite thing was when the fourth grade class came in, I told them that I was the only person legally allowed to put poison in the drinking
water. And, you know, more than once I've got a parent later say, "Did you tell my kid that you poison the drinking water?" But, you know, I I wanted to I wanted to explain to them like, you know, years ago, people didn't make it to 50 because their teeth rotted out, >> you know, >> but maybe that's part of the public outreach because there's a lot of
forums, you know, people don't necessarily have the same opinion. >> It's probably not factual, but it's something that we should as the water quality management committee be able to then make a a strong statement that, you know, hey, this is not an issue. >> Doug's going to set us straight.
>> I'm just going to offer my my own suggestion. You know, when I was driving down here, I was thinking, you guys have really got this all under control and most of your work is behind you and now you've outlined obviously there's so much more yet to be done. You know, still on the same path that you're
going. But my thought was that I I remember a few years ago when there was some questions about freshwater ponds and it was sort of it was clear that it was outside of your purview. And I'm hoping that you might reconsider that and maybe come up with a new mission statement that says that, you know, in
addition to following through with these with the public outreach and theformational uh stuff, you might consider taking on that freshwater aspect and start to say, you know, maybe you could be the technical support to these pond groups that are forming like
the the pond committee and, you know, all all the stuff that we're starting to have these initiatives on because I know there's a need for uh >> cuz you know they can only do so much with their technical expertise and you guys have the real experience with Kristen and you can make recommendations
for expenditures by the select board. So >> that that's a great honor but how do you reconcile that with the fact that the select board very recently created the fresh pond committee and has eminent experts like George Hoyfelder on it.
>> Well maybe maybe it's not needed. It was just me. >> And if nothing else, you'd have to draw the line so that we weren't fighting with >> Yeah. Well, that's true. It's a good point. >> We We have a somebody on this board is >> Yes. >> covering it. >> Yeah. I'm going to talk a little bit about that. >> Kim and I Kim and I communicate fairly
regularly. We met the other day because he's asked me to participate in a webinar to explain what we're doing. And um we we will continue to talk. Um I I think >> maybe Steph even makes a good point that
now that the committee's in place >> no part of his position Doug was >> you know >> we are so focused on the estuaries and there's models and what we got to do and everything and they're still trying to figure out a lot about pawns and whether
they what what they might need to do or might not want to do and there so they're they're they're a little bit behind in understanding what they've got in front of them. Um >> I attended uh last Saturday uh the Brewster Pond Coalition folks. Um you
know they're they're a couple of years ahead of where they are. But I I I believe we we have been supportive and will continue to be supportive of the pawn thing, but they have you know they're they're focused on things like phosphorus a little bit more whatnot.
um >> as they should be >> as they should be but I don't want to take away from them >> no I agree >> maybe maybe the I wrote a little note here to you know be have it be more clear of our interactions >> right >> and and and and where we can support them
>> okay thanks I got to go to a precinct meeting so thank you >> thanks Doug >> you go to the rec center >> no eastbound school >> I don't fit into those seats I doubt that you do >> I either.
>> Okay, I think I'm going to move this conversation unless we got >> just one point I want to I think I understood what Mr. Leighton was saying a pretty important point on the watershed plan that's being prepared by
the designated group of science wares and GHD and and DPW that I think he was saying at what point does this committee have any chance to look at that map or maps and say hey this looks pretty good
or hey boy aren't you planning the sewer over here you to look at the specifics of where they're saying this will be eventually sewed or we're suggesting it will be sewed. But I would like to think this committee would have a chance to see that before it's stamped and
submitted that is precisely >> I would say much like John and I have on a monthly basis been participating in outfall planning. >> Okay. I'm I'm certain that myself and somebody else or couple
people from this committee will sit in there'll be there'll be a monthly status of where they're at what they're doing. >> They're not going to work for nine or 10 months and then say tada. >> So take it and like it. >> Yeah. I think it's important. >> No, they've been it's it they've they've
not been doing it in in in a closed way. So, um, >> you know, I had the feeling that when, and I argued pretty vehemently with Eric and and Virginia back when they were heading up the Little Pond sewer service area that you're going too far
u in contradiction to the mass estuary project on the heights, you know, sewer houses that are right on the beach and unless gravity is suspended, it isn't flowing backwards up the hill. Uh, and not far enough in other areas. And as I, you know, get more and more acquainted
with the issues and how things kind of are working and not working, I I can see parts of the heights that probably should have been sewered midway up Little Pond but didn't. But if you look at the topography, gosh dang, that stuff's got to be
flowing because the groundwater kind of swails into a long like almost a mile long trough right into what's most impacted parts of little pond where you see fragmitees growing and things like that. So you know there's fresh water input to a large extent. So I think for
this committee with whatever experience and and uh brain power might bring to the table to see it as it's being developed not after developed. I think that's what you were saying. >> I'm saying even before it is and let me make an analogy. If you have a lot and
you want to hire an architect to design a custom house on it for you, you don't just call up an architect and say, "Hey Joe, could you design me a house?" Great. Let me know. Send me the bill and send me the plan. Yeah, >> that's absurd. >> You tell them about how much you have to
spend, what size, how what features you want. You want a big house, a little house, >> and you you you work with them. And in this case, >> it's our job, it seems to me, to specify the method they use to decide between I
mean, what if they come all back with sewers? Do you want to take a first crack at specifying what methodology they should use to make their watershed plant? >> I think you if you want me to, I think you'd do a much better job. >> Well, maybe no,
if you want to make do this, we can bring it up at a meeting and say when they're going out to contract, we want to know if you've considered this. >> I'm saying that unless Well, who is the purchasing department? Who is the purchasing agent
for this contract? >> Is it Amy? The contract will come out of the D. The contract will come out of the DPW. The scope of work. >> The scope there. The scope of work. Who writes the scope of work? >> Have you read the Have you read the watershed plan? There's a there state regulation says a
watershed plan shall include the following. >> Okay. And none of it is specified by the town. The town takes that document and then they add information like you know things that we know about parts of the
town. But GHD and scienceware are very aware of everything in this town. The the issue is that the plan has to do this. It has to look at buildout. It has to look at this. It has to look at that. Like I was just reading stuff off the draft EIR. If you go to the the
documents defining watershed planning, it's very it's it's not down to the last minutia, but it's it pretty much says you you need to do this. You need to have this. You need to have things like financial implications. You need >> Does it say anything about how you
decide between IAS and sewers? >> No, that's a town decision. >> That's a town decision, right? Don't you have to know prices for both of those components to make a rational choice? >> I'm going to I'm going to So, we're getting down in I want to stick it
because you you you're you're very concerned that there might be something that's not getting done. You you should put that list together and we can check check off with it or whatever. So for example, Kristen came in one day and she said, "I am looking
basically the contingency plan and I'm using the following methodology to look at where sewers andor IAS would have to go. >> Perfect. That should be presented to us." >> We've already had it presented to us, Steve. She presented it once before. You want to go back and revisit that?
>> No, I remember those presentations. They were good. and there was a map >> and and so they those are those are the underlying criteria that they're using going forward >> then I'm taking up too much time on details.
You and I can talk about this offline. >> Yeah. I I'll ask Amy if if she's got a draft scope of work and I'll get a copy of it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So you're you're you're more of a skeptic than I am. You think that
they're going to come up with some way to, you know, define where sewers and IAS goes that that that is somehow other, you know, not not equitable or not based on science. Well, I think it's a possibility
that anybody can possibility this next 10 minutes. >> Everybody sees mistakes everywhere. It's the job if you're going to have multiple entities for them to check on each other. >> Okay. Can we move on to the next item of the agenda?
>> Maybe. Anybody in the audience want to say ask anything? >> Oh, yeah. >> Please. to step up to the lect. >> Uh I'm Richard Hail. Uh live at Treetops 42 Landfall. >> Yeah. >> Um so I haven't been to one of these
meetings. I think I was trying to find last time I was here, but I think it was 2019. And uh I'm both uh happy to hear this committee is still focusing on fairness and unhappy to hear that sounds like
zero progress has been made with the town. And I I sort of have this feeling the town uh is willfully ignoring the problem. Uh that may not be true, but I feel that way. Um, I think it'll become
a political issue at some point when people figure out u you know the uh the cost discrepancy between whether you're mandated to have a sewer or mandated to have an IIA. But u you guys are on it which is good. So I'll leave it at that.
But other concerns, uh, coming back into this many years later, uh, you just were mentioning that the homeowner has a responsibility for these systems when they're installed, uh, along with their engineer. And, uh, uh, Steve, I'm
frankly less worried about putting in an IIA for a lot of money and then 20 years later connecting to the sewer. I'm more worried about putting in an IIA that fails $60,000 and being responsible for putting in another IIA for $60,000. It doesn't sound like these um these things
are operating, you know, at uh the level of efficiency that you know is expected. Um and that apparently hasn't changed. Um, and my last comment simply is, uh, I agree with the concept that you put the
IAS where they'll have the most benefit, but I do think you want to be careful not to characterize homeowners as sort of perpetrators. You know, people who buy near the water certainly can impact the uh, the water quality um, sooner
than somebody who's 12 miles away or whatever. Um, but they have always followed whatever the town mandated and the fact they live close to the water is just, you know, uh, chance. >> I apologize if that came across like that. >> Yeah, I just, you know, because part of
the outreach and stuff is going to be very important. Um, and that's pretty much it. I know none of this is new uh to you guys, but um, I don't know. I just feel like several years on, uh, we are no closer to
figuring out how, you know, what we're gonna have to do and what it's going to cost and what happens then. All right. Thanks. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Moving on in the agenda, reports of members and staff.
Tom, >> I do want to spend just a couple minutes on a project where the freshwater ponds advisory committee is moving forward. Um, and that's an issue partly of enforcing
existing regulations. And of course, the first thing they followed up on in one of their very, very early meetings was calling marine and environmental services staff in to the meeting to find out how the nitrogen bylaw was fairing.
And apparently, I forget what year that was passed, it was a lot of hoopla. And there's never been a single enforcement issue that >> fertilizer. >> Yeah, the fertilizer. >> That's what I thought you were talking about. >> By law. And one of the things they've
working on, although it's not ready for showtime yet, is to change the wording of that and make it nitrogen and phosphorus controlling. And in the research they and I have been doing since then, it turns out in 2012,
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed some very restrictive regulations regarding phosphorus, specifically phosphorus and phosphorus, and then I'll just cite direct quotes from the regulation. and phosphorus
containing fertilizer is restricted to when a soil test shows that it's needed or for the first year of establishing new lawns and turf. After that, you're not supposed to use it unless a soil test shows it's needed. There's other
application rules of frozen land and and water bodies and things like that. Um, all applications must not exceed the annual recommended rate established by the University of Massachusetts guidelines.
And the one they're pursuing right now is the retailer requirements. Retailers must display phosphorus containing fertilizers separately and post a sign explaining the restrictions on their use.
And it literally calls out that the sign must be at least 17 by 11 in in dimension. And I don't want to read all the wording. It's about two paragraphs of wording, but it explains the issue with phosphorus and the fact that they're very strict. >> This is in the state law. >> This is in the state law of the acts of
2012. So what they're doing now is going in at the retailer end and asking the town of Falmouth to ask retailers to follow the display regulations and post a sign advising consumers about the use of these products and also
recommend that retailers be encouraged to advise customers to use soil test kits to evaluate their soil. And um it's once every two years is what the regulations actually say. Um so they're taking sort of the soft
approach right now um and asking the select board to follow through on officially advising retailers what the display rules are. So so it's a a pretty interesting approach I think so they the
we're going to be refining the final word I've got the recommendations with me now really close to meeting next Wednesday the 19th. Yeah. >> Um to come up with a final wording of this and then to present it to the to the board. Um I will say that
right now Doug's idea that somehow we would come in and sort of quote help them with their stuff certainly they certainly welcome our advice and all but it was a major part of our push to have an official committee set up that was separate for freshwater. So I don't
think move on. >> That's just my my >> you've been a good you've been good communication. Obviously you're bringing this back and committee report. So >> So anyway, that's that's the uh the gist of my report right now, but if anybody has any questions or ideas or things about that and Katie, all of that I
think will come out later. You don't need to rehash that now. I'm sure a week from now they'll have something to put in front of you or whoever is going to cover that. >> Could be me. Terrific. >> Yeah. One one thing that
might make sense for that committee to look at and talk to and maybe get a presentation. I think it was his name Chris Neil I think maybe. >> Yeah, Chris has been >> he writes some op-ed stuff now and then and I remember somewhere past year or
two something he had in the enterprise about the relationship between nitrogen and phosphorus and fresh water. And as I the way I understood it, one doesn't work without the other. You need the two combined elements to really
screw up the water to put it scientifically, >> right? >> And if you remove one, the impact if you remove a lot of the nitrogen, it >> yeah, >> you you're not going to have to worry so much about the phosphorus. It might be good for him to address and discuss that with the committee or maybe he's on the
committee. I don't know. But I think that that is that seems to tie in with that thing. The other thing I've noticed in the the websites of the two best performing nitrogen reduction, which is the Nitro and the Nitrax, they both
claim that they can make their systems remove phosphorus, too. >> Yes, I have. I've seen also. >> Okay, tell me how and how much they say it, but I don't think they're doing it. And right, >> but it it might be worthwhile having them >> explain that to that committee.
>> Yeah. as the phosphorus >> concern. Such totally different materials in the environment >> in terms of the way they behave and everything. >> So I'm looking at the clock. We have nine minutes to wrap everything up. If there are other committee reports that
are of substance I thought I would get you to say something. >> Um the National Estuaries Program funding call is open. That's the funding agency. We just got the money from Snug Harbor. So, it's nationally competitive,
but letters of interest are due next Friday if anyone has a project they think would be a great fit. >> Yeah. And how do we get the um the pond analyzers, the zones? >> That was through regional. That was
>> Yeah. >> Thank you. So, um this pops up every year. So, we don't have something in front of us right now. kind of got a little bit of a full plate with a lot of things, but to the extent something's going on with the pond folks and other things or you know, anything you guys
got rattling around, let's let's not come up to the last week and then try to decide what we want to go get. We could be put >> on the last week. You said it's due next week. >> I don't think we're going to put anything in, but >> I wanted to flag that it's out there and that during the course of the year we
say, "Wouldn't it be good if we could do this to learn this?" >> Yeah. >> Save those ideas. >> Yeah. Aren't there some grant opportunities that typically come up in the late winter, early spring? U >> usually February, March is when the regional like SNAP comes out. Yeah. Um
>> I think for us to be made aware of those timelines and what types of project might be eligible so people can put on their thinking hats you know weeks and months in advance and say oh gez you know maybe um whatever over here storm water project or whatever culvert
project who anything but they you know they they seem to come up every year and and hopefully they'll keep getting funded and it's a great opportunity to do things that the town doesn't have in the capital plan. reports of anybody else on any committee. Otherwise, I'm going to move
to the next item to vote minutes of the prior meeting. >> Move that they be accepted as written. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded. Any further comments about the minutes? All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. I. Very good. >> Um, our next meeting is >> December 3rd. >> December 3rd. >> Third. So everybody have a nice Thanksgiving. >> Okay. >> I will not be here for this.
>> Make a motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Martin. Are you