okay this is the board of guarder Board of Health meeting comeing to order on Monday February 24th 2025 we're in the hubbed conference room it is 4:33 p.m. any person may make a video or audio recording of an open session of a
meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium subject to reasonable requirements of the chair as to the number placement and operation of equipment used
to so as not to interfere with the conduct of the meeting sorry it's small small printing we get any person includ intending to make um such recording shall notify the chair
forth with all documents referenced or used during the meeting must be submitted in duplicate to the clerk of the board uh or committee I'll docment shall become part of the inial record of the meeting meeting is called to order
first item on the agenda is the minutes from January 27th 2024 um I a couple of things I just I was a little bit confused by The Narrative on violation in terms of the chronology of it and then that top
sentence on page two um do you feel like that accurately yeah there was um I mean I think she did a good job of trying to um condense and summarize but there were a couple items that I was concerned
about the chronology too um on the um are you talking about on the first page well I mean I just didn't really understand the sentence at the top of the page to's office about the seven days to ask
request for hearing and then the next sentence you know I guess you were more involved on that side of so I just want to make sure that that accurately we reflected what was disc okay so um the violation occurred Anthony slier paid
the and had seven days to ask or request for a hearing he did not oh mine's cut off he did not request the hearing um he requested it actually December 4th and it was granted under extenuating
cces which she didn't go into on there right um that was one of the areas where I thought I I didn't understand it says Sue did Grant the hearing despite that under what thought was its defense I I
just didn't I don't really get what that means but so so I I guess we can we can reord that in other words it was just extending circumstances that the hearing was granted without knowing that
information I guess more importantly I think um my other comment is that just subsequent to that I think an important part of the discussion leading to the motion that was made to to decrease a
suspension to one day um was the fact that this was a longstanding business in the community they hadn't had a violation in something 20 years or something like that and I sort of feel like they should be part of the record that that was what led to the
motion I thought so that's the 36 month period um right I agree with you on that um I guess it was the 36 month period that we you amended the motion right but I think what led to the
motion being made in the first place was that we had had a discussion about the track record of business in the community and everything like that and um I when I think it was discussed in terms of in the context a setting
precedent and that type of thing that a distinguishing um you know characteristic of this particular well and the precedent that I was concerned about was not that we Grant we do Grant extenuating circumstances and that was the thing
that I needed to be reminded of that this was extenuating circumstances in we've already done that in the past you yeah I think the extending circumstances were in reference to Grant to begin with but I think there was a discussion
about the track record of this business which led to the motion being made to reduce it to one one um I feel like that's a pretty relevant and important part of the record that it should be in there I agree we can get that in there
definitely anything else in there so do you want to make a motion to hold off we have to we just wait all [Music] right right so minutes are tabled until
next time y okay the next item on the agenda is the Civil environmental Consultants before we um start I just want to say that questions have been submitted prior by board members the
health agents and any residents once the the c c members answer the pre-submitted questions going to limit the discussion to the board members and City Health um
and we are thankful to have um conservation agent here at Dustin as well um so that the board has time to you know decide best what the next decisions are that the board has to um
make um I had intended on discussing different formats for um public comment and how we would go forward with that but on theice of advice of the city solicitor and also in um respect to open
meeting law it wasn't on the agenda so it's going to be on the agenda next meeting for under new business rules and regulations so we can discuss a fair and consistent manner of how we want to have open comment we certainly value all residents
input um we res uh value your involvement and um want to be able to have a format that's consistent with that to be shared in the meantime if you have questions after the presentation
you can always submit them to our health agent to Micah and he will do his best to address it or or you know there'll be something on the agenda for next we'll find another for for it for next time
um and like I said that's that so the next item on the agenda is our presentation by the Civil environmental Consultants um it'll be information on the landfill groundwater monitoring exceedance of 14
dioxine do you want to introduce them or do you want to introduce yourselves or U sure yes so so this is uh Phil jagoda he's my main point of contact as civil environmental Consultants um and they are the ones who do kind of the
day-to-day monitoring and um inspections on all of our systems out at the landfill so uh we just asked him to come here today to provide us with a little bit more information for for the board and for the the residents
so yep and then colle here GT uh John tand I also work for civil and environmental Consultants I'm I'm a licensed site professional um in the state of Massachusetts which means I'm licensed by the state to oversee and direct clean
up of properties that have been impacted by oil hazards materials thank you thank you welcome thank you so yeah we're the um we're the environmental consultant for the city uh we handle the U Environmental monitoring for the Clos
landfill um at the uh out there at 744 West Street uh we also do the operation maintenance for the landfill gas extraction system so those are kind of our two tasks and there's other subtasks under there um you me I just kind of
give a little summary overview of the landfill the closed landfill it's about uh 30 uh footprint of about 30 acres in size and um the old historic portion of the landfill is unlined and it goes back to the you
know 1940s 50s 60s uh as you can see from this figure uh cells one two and three uh have a double composite line system and um it has leate collection system for those three cells Which the
lee is collected uh it's sent to a pump station over here in the southwest uh corner of the site and then from The Pump Station it is sent to the um CC system and goes to the Wast plant and that is just for cells one two and three
the rest of the landfill is onlined uh the entire landfill was capped and it has been since about 2007 plus um so that's kind of just a brief overview um our company performs uh I
believe it's um annual groundwater monitoring there are around the perimeter there groundwater monitoring Wells um all situated around landfill both Dow gradient up gradient and cross gradient there are four surface water uh
sample locations uh three of them are to the north I'll just switch over to this it's a USGS so this is the land Co here uh three of the surface water locations are located to the north and one is located to the South
so kind of in a in a broad sense of things that's kind of what our Tas are um very broad view of of the uh groundwater monitoring system surface water uh and we I don't know if you want us to kind
of go into the recent um results or yeah you can just kind of go into the the recent exceedance on the dioxane sure sure kind give a brief Outlook From consultive
perspective on on that yeah we we um samplings uh typically conducted in April or May once a year and um this last round uh which would have been um in 2024
the uh since we're focusing on one cor diing um with Communications with DP prior to that the understanding of DP um the screening level of or the JT you can jump in Long sure um so the DP contacted
us in December I believe asked us to test for one for that I was saying at a lower screening level um we would typically test um you know with a list of all the other Doc's Vol organic compounds but the test that
we are using only quantifies one4 dioxine down to 250 parts per billion um they asked us to use a different um method to analyze that compound which can um quantify it down
to less than one C per billion um so that's what we did this uh in in April we collected our annual samples um that we normally do we collected samples for one for dioxine and submitted them to lb
using this new um method that the D requested and that's when we um that's when we identifi one4 dioxine in these monitoring Wells at at concentrations ranging
from know between 1 and a half and eight something like that parts per in all 11 Wells um not all 11 I believe it was five of the wells yeah it was uh the screening level
prior to that was 250 parts per bildon and then the new screening level this last sampling around was3 so that's you know the so those uh five Wells exceeded the3 or for and could you go into a little bit
as far as um where di4 dioxine falls under state regulations and where that kind of is at this moment well sure something prepared so well first of all one 14 dioxine I'm sure everybody
wants to know what is4 dioxine right it's um it's primarily like a solvent and it's used in the manufacturing of chemicals it's a chemical that's used in manufacturing of chemicals it's um primar primarily
solvent um it's main industrial use is a de greasing solvent um it's also found in a contaminant uh in all sorts of different things like detergents shampoos deodorants um Cosmetics stuff like
that um the regulations um so the the drinking water standard uh is3 parts per billion um so when people are drinking the water we want to stay below
Parts um so that's when we collect our samples and we um compare them we compare them to Massachusetts drinking water standards there's maximum containment um limits secondary contaminant limits and
then there's guideline standards um and the max contaminant limits those are drinking water standards set by EPA and typically the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
then there's secondary contaminants the the primary contaminants are are Health B um you know that's contaminants that will um that will you know harm humans when they're ingested there's secondary
contaminants uh secondary maximum contaminant levels those are more like aesthetic qualities those are like um to protect like the taste of the water and the the color and the smell um and then there's guideline
standards which are there is no um limit set by the EPA or the mass D um but the D the state uses different information to set a guideline standard and the drinking water standard
for one4 dioxine is a guideline standard and that's the3 parts per billion um the uh the regulations that um we typically the solid waste the L falls
under are solid waste regulations um there's also um the massachus contingency plan which which I'm more familiar with which which governs the um the regulations for oil
and hazardous materials and um there is some overlap between those regulations because um in contingency plan also has standards for soiling groundwater um and the Massachusetts
contingency plan has three different standards gw1 gw2 G 3 gw1 standards those are groundwater standards for drinking water you know those standards consider risk if
people are ingesting the water gw2 standards are for potential inhalation um hazards like you know people breathing this chemical in uh then the gw3 standards are
for those consider like discharg to a surface water body and those that considers um like harm to the environment um so um the standard the gw1 standard for
one for Dian under the mCP is also3 parts per billion because those standards considered you know ingestion R the um G W2 standard for 14 dioxine which considered inhalation risk that
standard is 5,000 parts per B the gw3 standard for B4 dioxine which considers discharge to a surface water body that standard is 50,000 parts per billion so you can you can see the the
main cause of concern for one4 dioxine is people ingesting it um and the way these standards are set you know they're very conservative and they consider um the3 parts per billion they
would that's considered for somebody ingesting that over your over a lifetime you know so if you're drinking water that has3 parts per billion of4 dioxine in it throughout your entire
lifetime um so values the value set AT3 parts per value it's set at a concentration in drinking water that would increase a person's chance of getting cancer by one in a million if they drank the water
daily for a lifetime okay let me let me say that again so the values set for the standards the drinking water standards it's set at a concent
that would increase a person's chance of getting cancer by one in a million if they drank the water daily for a lifetime that's just considering this and that's the most recent um standard
updated standard yes yep so the the um the standard for one4 dioxine for Massachusetts it's it's the3 parts per billion um the EPA derived a similar value and their value turned out to be35 parts per billion and they use the same
data but there was a little bit of difference due to mathematical rounding so that's that considers risk um do we have a a map that shows the Well locations that were exceeded that haded ites uh well yeah this this figure I
mean I can zoom in um the ground the ground for the groundw wells yeah yeah the ones that exceeded it the3 part perion were uh mw7 14d 96d 74
so 14 yeah most of them were in the in the Northwestern seven is just off the page it's but it's [Music] 147 I'm sorry 14 96 down here Southwest
Cor so due to the change in the testing technology or or standards or criteria at this point um there's no historical data to suggest that the levels are increasing necessarily or or is there at
this point um well there were I think there was one well that did um did have historical concentrations of 1 for dioxine and I think it would um those concentrations were consistent with this
most recent round um I think the majority of the wells they they hadn't been tested um using the lower detection limit um so I think four of the five um it was the first time we saw
one4 locations and are these levels that we're seeing here um is that something that You' seen in general at landfills or is it unusual or it's very well well I mean one of the places where
they some of the places that they are identifying for dioxine are from um wastewater treatment plants um and at landfills so it's not it's It's Not Unusual to to see here especially unwind
you know unline lands which about half this landfill is historically unline greater than half and going forward all 11 sites will be tested yes they're tested every year they're they're tested uh the Saints yep
correct and that's coming up in April or so yep April so remember when we went out to the tour and we were wondering about some of the land water or the land it was like a
wetland area close to West Street is that the same corner I don't if you can see it on this there is a basin yeah there's a basin at the northwest corner right here yeah that may be what your okay just
typically has water right right that's the area that's near the drop off center you drive and then some of the other areas um I guess it would be more Southern um were there's some Wetlands
down there is it possible to test them or would they be tested or uh well the the the locations have they've been um their historical locations have been approved by D over the years so all the ground obviously the groundwater
monitoring Wells are ground and those are established the surface water locations are also established so if we're going to sample somewhere else then that be something we would have to talk to D about I would assume so the the property that AB buts
the landfill um in the recreational pond that's been tested positive um on the roell property that would be probably right here right there so is it possible I mean that would you would
think that would come be kind if it's coming from the landfill or could it be from other surface water because my standing is the one for dioxine does not dissolve I mean it it dissolves in the surface water so that or it doesn't attach to the
soil I I I got it somehow close but so it it goes easily it'll just stay in the surface water so water General right so um because I think there's some Wetlands around there too somewhere
yeah so that's pretty much the from the Sledge landfill to that property is is all Wetland it appears that way what's what's kind of strange is that
um surface water location number four the the the pond on the the Russo property um it's south and east of the landfill and groundwater flows to the
Northwest so we're a little perplexed because we would we think that you know this is it's kind of an upgrading location so you wouldn't typically see it upgrading um there's a couple groundwater monitorings at the landfill
that are upgr that are non detect accid um and then there's also three other surface water locations um north and west of the landfill and those are down here those um also are all are all
non-ect for 1 so if um it would have to go through the D to have sites tested like just a one time say a one time test around the wetlands or
additional locations it would be worth the discussion yes yeah versus just going and doing it right right right um but if that water is actually up gradient from the
pond um do you have any ideas as to where it might be flowing from then or it's it's it's hard to predict right now not really much there there's cemetery
and there's the the sludge landfill and ra tracks over here do the railroad tracks produce that kind of gener I'm just yeah you just look at what's around you know what this is a
gra pit or something over this area I wouldn't think some either composition [Music] so if the pond is basically kind of connected to the edge of the sludge landfill over there by mostly
Wetlands um would that be the most likely that's hard to say I mean the I the sludge landfill is not like we don't have anything to do with that design per monitoring but as far as I know it's it's a the entire landfill's a double
composite lined lill um so it's I mean it's hard for me to I I don't believe they test DP has the Sledge to landl tested it's not they test but not for one for Dio right they have a different set of
standards that they follow so see the other questions so in terms of risk um you know the primary risk would be is somebody drinking it and um I think
we've had some communication with the town that there's there's no drinking water there's no private pable Wells within a th000 ft of these locations where theing has been identified um so I mean that that's
great right there's there's no private Wells within, ft um there's um and so there's really no evidence that anybody is is drinking it or could potentially be drinking it um the concentrations reported in the
surface water um are are low you know they're they're above drinking water standards but um C surface water exposure and drinking water are different um and the concentrations identified in in the surface water are are low
enough that swimming in the pond would not result in a significant exposure um because one for dioxine is poorly absorbed through the skin sure you may have in just some you know incidentally while you're swiming
um but it's not like you're drinking it for the purpose of drinking it um and certainly not over the amount of time that the uh standards consider like over a lifetime that's what the standards
considered and I gave that um the example earlier the standards that are in the Massachusetts contingency plan the regs that govern oil and Hazard materials the gw1 standard is.3 the inhalation standard the gw2
standard is 5,000 and the surface the the gw3 standard the standard that consider is discharge to a surface water P that's 50,000 acoss um someone was swimming in the pond with with sunscreen on would that
potentially put one4 vacine into the water um you know that's a very good question uh I mean I'm not sure your guess is as good as mine if sunscreen has one4 dioxin in it I know it has P files in it but we're not talking about
P files here but um it's possible may I ask a question are any um septic systems private systems in the area that we're aware of West Street is mainly septic systems on West Street
I was just wondering if discharge from a septic system might be those are still was deterg and discharge into a sanitary drainage system that's one way that it can reach okay
yeah uh one question on here would be just do we know how long the erosion has been a problem or I think it got first identified in the mid 2015 somewhere in there um but do we know how long it's
been uh I I think one thing to notice CC has not been our consultant for the entire time so there was a Handover between I think it was brown and cwell before yeah um so as far as you
know um do we know how long erosion has been identified as like a corrective action with the uh is a corrective action I believe it's just been a few years okay but I think yeah I think as you mentioned it was first identified in an inspection report around 2015 and
it's just kind of slowly you know slowly gotten to the point where it needs it needs to be uh it needs to be addressed now right and I think we have bids just waiting for the weather that's going to be yeah part of my update get that um
so all of the areas when you look at the whole picture you have the erosion the Lee the um the 11 sites does it make any sense or is there
any pattern that you can determine as to you know where it might be coming from the flow that has the contaminant the one4 dioxine in it I mean would it be coming does it look like it's coming from the erosion or the I don't I don't
know if we speculate that the because the erosion that we're seeing it's the erosion is above the liner on the cap so it's surficial um so that is more of a structural functional thing for handling uh surface water runoff okay so that's
not underneath anything that's under there it's it's above the geomet liner and you mentioned a range of like 1.5 to8 ppbs so would it be helpful to know where there's more ppbs like than going down the L is there some when I was
talking with D um part of what they said is just now that we're testing it this new lower limit um it would just be a man of continue looking at each Year's results and then it would be you know a matter of several years before you would be able to see well I just mean like in
terms of which locations have more and which locations have less like going from say to the Northwest do the Northwest ones have less and there's more in the Southeast I I think we can see that once we have actually it's
exactly the opposite so so groundwater flows from Southeast to the Northwest okay um and there's so the two ground one monels that are sort of south and east
there's no concentrations of 1 14 dioxine there um as you move towards the west and the Northwest then you start to see the concentration of one4 dioxine there um so I mean considering that data
and keep in mind this is just one one round of data one sampling Point um you know it certainly suggests that the landfill could potentially be a source of the one for dioxide so I guess going forward
um and I know we're substantially below these limits that we've discussed in terms of other than the drinking water um just from a health standpoint we're trying to wrap our heads around it and you know if we see these
levels increase or Spike uh would be you know what would we what would be the next step I guess if they go up substantially I know there're still they're still you know well below the levels that you're talking about uh for
groundwater but um I guess you know all things being equal if we could control a potential carcinogen and find out where it's coming from and uh keep it well below those levels you know that would be our goal um so do would there be I I
know it's just hypothetical and it's hard for you to really come and speculate on that but would there be uh is that what we would be looking for is a spike or a significant increase from one year to the next that we um well you you want now that we' identifi you'd
want to monitor it you know monitor it regularly and see if there's any Trends you know going up going down um se you know fluctuations l or with ground water um rise and fall
um and uh based on you know discussions with D um they may suggest additional monitoring um or perhaps even um additional monitoring points addition
monitoring locations additional Wells to um possibly delineate to see the extent is is so you like maybe even doing it every twice a year instead of once like we're April May so I guess that's going to be
a key thing as to what those results come in yeah potentially or um you know or um another monitoring well you know further to the Northwest um you know to see if the concentrations there are
lower or are are none or are higher for some reason is there any technology that you're aware of that could place a tracer somewhere in one portion to see where it shows up or I don't know like well I'm thinking like a
scientist you know is there any way to trace where um well I mean yeah thing is we don't really know where it's coming from right but you don't just do random they do kind of a analysis of the groundwater and what direction it moves
the site I think that's all we really have as far as C flows yeah okay so in terms of any private residences that may be in that Northwest direction do we have anybody that you feel like is within a perimeter that they maybe
should be getting their their drinking water tested or I think the closest person in that direction is 1,600 ft away something like that um which is quite far yeah um
to the asking to the west of it is it a private well the the closest one it's kind of yeah it's above the that Cemetery to the left you'll see a little lot there at the end of where it say in I think that's the
closest spread as well um and then there's doing nothing else in a a pretty big radius except over on Keys Road I think there the other was the other side that be Clos as well there's a public water supply about
about a mile a little over a mile away um I think I think they do all sorts of testing for for everything I think they probably test for one is that in Garder or is it it's in
templ Templeton Garder also does a yearly you know Water Report where one for is tested and was not detected for and that water area is Ted as well can we find those results uh we can ask yeah
yeah were there other questions that were on the list um I was just going to say there's some other questions um that if they don't get answered today I will I'll make sure they do get an
answer um I was wondering about like if you find that the level is the new standard what's the process of mitigating that you just follow it and make sure it doesn't go higher I there a way to like neutralize it or remove it or I is there
any action we should be Tak um well um that's that's really up to probably the DP that would be based on on risk um you know in in in this case there's there's not a lot of people that
are exposed or anyone really that that we can see um that would really be up to The Regulators you go Ahad well no I just I know I saw some um actions that where
they there's some things that they use that they put into the water but they have so much more side effects um I think it was more of a bacteria or something that they used I don't know was Acton and um I think Aton and East they had a couple
of large large spills yeah yeah um so for um in um so they did they identified one in in East as well and they believe it was from the landfill and there's
there's no public water supply it wasn't by and there was Private wells in use throughout you know north of Glanville and they found one part they put in poter treatment systems which are basically carbon activated carbon
vessels and that strips up the for so I understand correctly still I'm still confused about how the the pond is positive but it flows opposite where
the yeah we're we're a little I'm a little perlex with that myself like the pond is to the South um and our other three surface water s locations are to the north and um groundwater flows to the
north and West um and I believe the the river it's like an un river that we have our sampling the surface water sampling locations those are all those are all non detect as
well so that pond looks like a couple different bodies of water are those all connected are those this it's probably connected through wetlands uh I know there was another question about um the other exceedances that we had in
groundwater um and those um those included iron nines chloride um total dissolve solids um those are um those are considered
secondary maximum mcls secondary contaminants those are the ones that I mentioned have or sort of exist to protect the aesthetic qualities of water um I think the majority of the exceedances were iron maganese
in s actually choride um there was um there was one Max uh mmcl that was exceeded for arsenic um that was that was exceeded in
well um um but again you would have the same concerns where you know is anybody drinking that water that has shown concentrations of ox and that's that's really just not the case
um uh and then there are the the guidelines um which are there aren't uh specific EPA standard or standard but um the information considered by Massachusetts and they have these
guidelines um and the guideline standard for one4 dioxine was exceeded at these five Well locations and sodium is another compound that has a guid a guideline standard that was also exceeded um and the concentrations the
exceedances that we um reported they were all of them were consistent with the concentration that seen historically um at those locations nothing was really surprising except for the concentrations of 14 dioxine in the monitary
Ms and and that was because we sampled using the lower detection now I just had to kind of point of clarification as an LSP you are kind of reviewing all of our testing results and
everything like that for the landfill or is this kind of a special uh I do look at the data for um a lot of landfills actually for cc um
just because I not not necessarily because I'm an LSP but just because um I know what I'm looking at and I and I have a lot of experience R Dowing result in Thea so obviously at this point it's speculation like you said but I mean is
there any specific recommendations that stand out at you that we should be doing other than talking to D looking at more monitoring Wells more frequency maybe um um I I wouldn't
necessarily um do something right away I'd like to see more data um because if things just cuz if things change um I'd like to see more data so we can determine if
there's any Trends um if one location is consistently the highest um um and and sort of go from there um then
talk to D sort of with their thinking and um and that that may lead to additional any other questions so I mean if any water testing's been done in anybody's wells
in those the right that they would never be test Tes in for that anyways right so if they have any results they would just be your basic primary and secondary well the they do test for voc's but the the standard drinking
water voc's wouldn't include one for Dio yeah it looked like there was a separate well testing kit for one speci yeah test for that low level in for dioxine but if that water supply that's
um shared or is in Templeton if they don't test for it I mean I guess you can have that conversation yeah okay I I sent uh their health department that letter notifying them and then you can just see make sure
we're communicating with them and getting looking at their results and everything like that so I think as a public water while they for so yeah you mentioned those results they put out a water results are publica yeah yeah definitely
so and then we can uh see if they have anything else they want to share with us just to keep it keep everything so and in a private well would a test for/ 144 diox dioxine be similar cost to like a
standard drinking water test or does it involve I don't know off hand how much it is but it's maybe 150 bucks yeah I didn't see any costs on them I just saw that they do sell one for Di
and kits for Wells proba okay well thank you very much and if there's other questions that you have or if anyone else has any other questions the public um people here and out in the community um you can forward
them to Micah and we'll forward them to you appreciate it thank you thank you very much okay next item on the agenda is Health Department updates so uh just a quick update on
Staffing um so since the last boort of Health meeting our board of health food inspector Eddie montg passed away so that position is currently
V and I believe that uh a newly hired Administrative Assistant was also offered another job for more money so she'll be taking that so that position will also be vacant on March 14th um with the city now under a hiring
freeze we're only going to be able to refill one of those which is going to be a food inspector position and then we'll be uh separating out the other ending duties as best we
can um and then I'll go to the my updates for the land Phill I did I get on the phone with d last week so I got on the phone with the the three heads of the solid waste division Central
Division and just gave them an update as far as where we at with our funding for the erosion repairs and um just kind of gave a general update status update so um they seem to be okay with everything
that was going on at the moment and we'll continue to update them as we go along um I did look into the realloc reallocation of the Surplus School funds to be able to use
that for the landfill unfortunately um that was only for produ projects with a certified useful light over 30 years years right so I would have had to get the whole thing re re-engineered basically um so that's why that
didn't um get kind of put into that conversation we did try um I had soil X come out they're the original people who barded the testing Wells they took a look at the two
damaged Wells and thought that they could be repaired um so we're just waiting for an estimate on that and then um as soon as the ground gets dried out and they can get a piece of equipment in there we'll get those repaired and back
into service um I'm also coordinating with the DPW and T and Howard um as far as there was a project for tied together with the DPW project
as far as refurbishing that pumping station um us refurbishing our Le pumps so I'm starting to push that project back forward again you just might have to do another like a rebid process for
how much that's going to cost um but there was already funds encumbered for that so most of it could still probably already be paid for just be a matter of a little bit of a difference in costs from when that estimate came
through and that is really all I have for for my updates so officially as the board and we certainly it's done sympathies to Eddie's family and you know as we've already shared you know to
the off you guys too on vacation when we brought a nice basket over but um yeah that's very sad um okay further questions on anything new business
is I guess the new business would be able to be making more detailed agendas right right yeah that was the thing that yeah so we'll get together with the agendas beforehand and outline what's
going to be discussed on new business trying to clean that up a little bit okay so we need to set the meeting for the date for the next meeting the 24th or 31st M yeah they work for me as well you want
to stick with the 24th since it's okay so next meeting is March 24th and I'll entertain a motion for adjournment I'll make the motion I'm sorry that's okay day motion
motion's been second in all in favor I is adjourned and it is 5:26 p.m.