##VIDEO ID:NEmQ6lhvfDc## okay okay this is the city of gardener Board of Health meeting it is Monday October 28th 2024 and the time is 438 the meeting is called to order um first item on the agenda is review and approve the minutes from August 19th which I think we discussed and there was going to be a correction to them remember correctly yeah I don't remember what cor was though um think it was just clarifying some things from I think that was this paragraph yeah I think those were the minutes where things were kind of jumbled together a little bit maybe yeah and we broke things down a little bit more in categories I don't see anything this and so um we can V just in time we just started um this the meeting from September said that something from July was be corrected for October well did was there in August yes there's we were on the August 19th minutes I believe we um had Brandy had to go and correct we asked Brandy to correct something on them a lot of it was kind of jumbled together and not really clear right but was there something in July that we were supposed to correct for October's meeting this is theer meeting so the minutes in September say we reviewed July and had to correct something for oh this meeting in September yes that's that's probably an error when we get to those um but could be August was reviewed and will be corrected for October's meeting right um for so right now with the minutes for August 19th um we don't have that down there that they were going to be reviewed and correct corrected and reviewed again but they are um these are the minutes okay we haven't signed them yet approved them and signed them okay so I can make a motion to approve right um yeah I'll second okay all in favor I so then the entry on the September minutes just needs to be changed to um the next agenda is minutes from the meeting for September 23rd so um yes that statement should be Aug 19 right right these instead of July 22nd it should be August 19th the other question I had was um we went we were going to adjourn the meeting and go into executive session and we should probably it should state that at the 505 that we were adjourned into moved into executive session but and had voted to adjourn once executive session was ended and we can State um that executive session was to discuss staff and concerns um was there anything else in the minutes that anybody had any discussion is on I make a motion to approve the minutes for September September 23d with those Corrections correction the date and then the executive as well a separate motion for that well to add that yeah so are we just going to make the changes and then approve them at the next meeting or that's what I say right okay so we'll we'll approve them at the next meeting if everyone's in favor of that okay um the next meeting the next meeting um minutes is the executive session minutes for September 23rd 2024 um I think these are written okay did you make second turn in favor all right all in favor okay so these minutes we can sign and these we will put aside for Corrections okay next item on the agenda is Health Department update starting with 827 Green Street all right so 827 Green Street the soil absorption system the fields all the components got uh they dug everything out back down to Natural so and then replace all of the components with a new field that is sized um slightly larger as well as with some different vent um some different vending components a different layout a different size vent um because that was one of the reasons they felt it had failed last time um so they did an inspection when they did the bed bottom I did an inspection and they got all the new components in place um so now they decided to put the pump on a separate circuit just because it it would be safer and better off if something happens again um so I'm just waiting that second ciruit to be installed so that I can make sure the pump alarms and all the pump floats work properly um so I have to do that I have to check that and just make sure that it's been covered properly um before I can sign off completely so so mostly in place they're actually able to use it now it's just I I need to check that the alarms work as soon as they update that circuit so with the way they built you said they dug out everything that so it's not on a mound it was on a it's still on a m still in a du everything out right where the piping was and where the breakout areas were from that and then replace that with new sand that's good okay landf erosion so we had a uh the bid invitation meeting was last Thursday the 24th uh we had a lot of people show up it was really well attended so um that will close next week on the 6th and then we'll take a look and hopefully we'll have some bids to look at and be able to lay out some time frames for for getting started on that um I also have currently just one quote for the monitoring well replacement project uh so I need to get at least two more quotes before I can move ahead with getting those uh redrilled redone I do those over winter um I think it's just very weather dependent like if it's a nice mild winter or we get some kind of warm up and in January February but it might Poss partially started and then put yeah So the plan is just to get those redone as soon as possible but in the meantime in the interim I know we're going to discuss it further but in the interim is there anything that can be as a temporary fix for but those are just the monitoring well so it's really yeah yeah so there's really it's the erosion control issues that we want addressed both right I know but I mean as a temporary if they can't oh of the winter is there any temporary type fix that can be done in the interim if they can't because of the the the weather do not whole a lot they could probably do I'm hoping that we can at least get one let down Channel started this year and um thing I don't have frame yet but I can't imagine it's like oh yeah it'll be a week to get this one time I must be longer than that right yeah I I was really hoping that all of this would have been done before but it just got dragged out um so it's looking like it might be aing project at this point but it's just all all weather dependent and in the interim I guess you know is the the the um monitoring Wells are measuring groundw not surface water the erosion is causing whatever to run off into surface water run off or both ground and surface well the erosion is basically just it is probably allowing more water to soak straight down and then it's also not properly diverting the water that is Flowing off in a way because of all the sediment that's come out that's kind of blocking the bottoms of the channels so in a temporary fix would it even be helpful to just put like that what do you call those hay not Hayes but that stuff that they wrap all up now it's not actually hey I forget what that's called I was just looking at some of that this morning yeah would it be worthwhile to at least try to not knowing where R run off that where monitoring is coming from it ask check well it's encouraging we've got a bunch of bids yeah we had uh full sign in sheets I think it was over over 10 different people showed up for that so um for the record at as was posted um on uh October 15th the board members as well as the health director Micah and assistant director Angela and thank you Mr Russo for also um joining us um who is a you are a resident which has land Abiding and we did take a tour through the um landfil site to see exactly where the monitoring Wells and all the erosion that we're talking so the next on the AG item on the agenda is questions and comments from the on-site landfill meeting so just wanted to prefess that I will just I'll read off these questions and then my answers as we go here which I will your questions were very good um they were I have a a list of them on the other page here but they were all pretty similar and I think we all probably asking similar questions um but so I'll let you go all right so the first question was what was the first point in time when 14 dioxin testing should have been done at the 03 micrograms per leer level versus the 250 level um using EPA method 8270 and the second part of the question is should this have been done years ago so we now hist of test results at the 03 micro perer level so I attached one letter um that I dug up in May of 2010 from Brown and cwell um basically requesting to test some wells at the 03 level which would have been um Well's MW 96r and nw1 13d were the only two Wells that they wanted to keep s playing at the 0.03 micrograms per liter level and then they requested that everything else be tested at the detection limit of 500 microG per earlier um so the D changed the requirement I believe in May of 2006 um the testing results I was able to find look like they were testing at the um 03 level um up until 2010 when they requested to only test those two levs at that level and everything else at the higher level um and then it looks like somewhere in 2016 or 2017 that well MW 96r was damaged it was one of the damaged ones um so they stopped they weren't able to test that uh and then after that it looks like from 27 on everything was tested at the same detection limit which was 250 microgram per lader so it looks like not at the lower they were testing it at the lower level um up until about 2010 when one of our prior consulting firms requested that um some of the levels be raised and only kept the same and those two Wells so they started testing at the higher detection limit after that and then one of the wells got damaged and could no longer be sampled or tested at that lower limit so those are the three Wells that we saw where the one was damaged yes yep so those three Wells they were will one not being in tested but the other two were being tested at the lower exceedence levels not the higher exceedance levels they were being tested at the right levels correct tested at the drinking water level basically so one of those Wells and then um The Other Well is actually not in that location it is over by that corner where you kind of make the turn around the landfill is that the um so they're listed as mw9 6 r that was high in 2010 and MW3 d y so one that actually is is not in my location and I don't know why uh they stopped sampling or testing that at the low concentration limits when they were already High um I'm not sure what you mean by that well I Okay so these levels that they have these these um Wells these are being these are at the lower the current levels exceeded so they but then they sto testing them they stopped testing them because one was well they made this request um to test at a higher level and it was based on it kind of says in the letter why they were in it I think it was just based on historical results so and then none of those areas are the pond those are all called uhw so surface water of surface water okay so they've always been testing under levels I mean they've not exceeded uh they have exceeded they have had exceedances and has test positive sw4 is the one that most recently had dioxide result in it but that was the from what you can find in all your records that was the first time that it was tested with an exceedance um at the correct levels I would have to dig more into that so this has been kind of a a mess of things being filed everywhere or not filed at all um so I have like I have the en Al annual reports from starting around 2005 I'm missing a few years in between like 2013 and 2016 Camp findes um and is this the same people that we worked with I think we worked with them up until about 2012 and then they decided to cancel the contract and I think that's when CDC started Tak over and then CC was we were doing the testing um at the drinking water levels on those two Wells up until they got damaged and then was no longer able to we no longer able to sample that now question about that so do the results does d have a whole list of all the results or um they do get copies of everything so I don't know what they have exactly I wonder if they have anything more organized as far as not not that you're not organized I don't mean that I it's not organized for but I mean I wonder if they have like a whole table of results um I can I can definitely ask them for what they have and I have these I'll uh I'll send you an email that might be a little more clear than me trying to explain it so I do have them all written out for each question I can send that all right thank appreciate that so so they C C took over in 2012 and they were doing some testing at the 250 level and some testing at the 0.003 level which is correct y up until the time when the 96 Power got damaged and then it looks like from 2017 on everything was being tested at the 250 microgram per ler detection limit and only those wells around the damage one 96 hour 96s were required to be at the lower 03 other Wells and the whole the whole system because there's quite a few Wells there they were allowed to be at a higher level that's how it appears right now so I'm still pulling out files and still piecing it together um but it seems like that that the case I'm not sure I understand why they even wanted to change the testing in dropping some of the wells but I'm sure they had the reasoning for it is the procedure much different for the two different tests I mean is is one more expensive it seemed like they were focusing on the two that were the most likely suspects to to test for the yeah I don't know exactly how the procedure differs but it's definitely um it's costing us about $1,300 more per year for the the lower limit testing it is um so I'm not sure what the lab has to do differently to get more sensitivity in their tests um but that but I mean based on this it sounds like they were only using the more expensive tests for the ones they suspected might be that's yeah that's what it seems like so and the other things what else do they test for I know we're focusing on the one foot dioxine long list a whole long list and everything else has been within drinking water levels um or within adequate levels yeah as far as I know everything like we've had other things that are below the reportable limits Fin and seen that in there so other things that they there are other chemicals that do exist um but this just all came up because DP wanted to correct us and make sure we were testing everything at this drinking water level [Music] so hased before like ear tell 2008 right or 2007 um so it's been there for a we're just the goal is to get a long history of results so you can kind of tell what's happening but this sort of um interrupted that process with them changing reportable limits and Wells being damaged um it's kind of broken the the chain for us to keep have a good nice good long time long with that yeah I wonder if D has everything succinctly kind of in a table or whatever with them yeah y I will definitely do a request with them for that um so move on to question two um for the current erosion problem areas was the landfill cap damaged in these areas so I got an answer for this the contractor meeting um the bid meeting on Thursday and it doesn't to be damage to the cap they actually have a what we call a sacrificial layer of textile um above the the cap textile so we are going to be cc is going to be on site and um making sure that if there is any damage or any tears to the current C that they are prepared properly um and it most likely will happen with driving heavy equipment and digging um there's probably going to be some some R but we just need to make sure they get fixed um question number three is uh what is the depth of the monitoring Wells mw7 MW 13d mw1 14d and [Music] n96 where same ined were detected um I'm actually still waiting on the boring logs from CC so that I can have those numbers um so that kind of goes into question four I did get the boring logs um the question is what is the depth of the damaged monitoring Wells uh MW 96r and an MW 96s um the 96r is 32 1/2 ft deep uh and then 96s is 12 ft deep so question five was why is4 dioxine not monitored in the three sludge landfill monitoring Wells at the same level as the now closed municipal Wasteland bill um so I actually don't know that would have to be a question for D I would just be guessing that um leate water gets tested under certain parameters groundw gets tested groundw and surface monitor water gets tested on different parameters and it has something to do with the difference between the two as far as what what testing is required so I'm I'm definitely curious as well and I'm going to make sure I find out what the differences between the requirements for a solid waste versus a sledge landfill um testing and that kind of applies also to um question six U Can must sludge lill now be monitored for for dioxine at the water level um I I think it can that would be something to bring up to the DPW and and Dane as far as um what they could do for testing on on the sludge landfill so the sludge landfill is only Solid Waste I me like uh it's only um from the water Tre would that not have the one for dioxine in is that why they don't I mean have they ever I say don't know yeah well if it's coming from if Le chains come from the solid waste landfill and the solid waste landfill has/ 14 dioxide in that and that LE goes to the wastewater treatment plan through the through the leate system right you know we don't know if it then it could it could become back to the Sledge Landfield plus plus I think the products that one for the oan are in household products it's it's a lot of um household cleaners and things like that that are going to go down into the sewers yeah so I think it it's it's it's likely it's possible it's at least possible it yeah right right right I just cuz they've never checked or they for it or I'm still learning as I go it looks like like if I look at the L reports those are different than this environmental monitoring report so I don't actually think lii gets tested under the same standards as groundwater and surface water either so I don't believe there's any for. same testing with the uh monitor yeah it would be interesting to um check with maybe talking to D and asking them about it and explaining you know what we're finding on the landfill side and you know because the one yeah like you said the 14 dioxine it is going to go into the waste water the sewer water because that's where all your chemicals if you're cleaning and stuff pretty much are going to go in so it would be good to know I mean I think we need to know so um the viia released like the drinking water tests and I think we had not detected for one on that so I don't know if that kind of indicates that it is eliminated in the treatment process or not um but they don't check for we didn't have any uh we didn't have any they definitely test for it drinking water testing yeah uh see the last question the other other surface water test locations in the vicinity to the south of the landfill site that should be tested for one for dioxine because this would establish a pathed kind of have a better idea of what's going on in that area um so that would be something we have to look and see if we can identify I don't know what the criteria for a surface water is I mean there's definitely PMs and um things like that in the area that we could look into adding to the sampling I I wonder if that's because I know we were um me I was wondering and I think it came up from others too questioning where that um surface water the L is Flowing too um you know there wasn't really any um I mean it it just kind of goes somewhere we don't I mean is there a cat Basin is there a an overflow area that it's absorbing that when we went in let [Applause] see so when we went in from West Street and we started to go around and we stopped all and then little decline so you know is wa that does it flow there just go and flow um yeah that's kind where it's supposed to flow and then but we don't have any monitoring sites over there um I would have to look at them at I'm not exactly sure so but um as far as this question goes I think I could ask CC as far as if we could add some more surface water Identify some more surface water location um something we can definitely look into just can help us track how this isn't um that was one question and there are some on the did you like geography Hydro geography studies that were done kind of show which direction water does move those up for you and see what I can find along those lines so so right now the one for dioxine in exceedance levels has been just in the surface water not in the ground water uh actually in both it's in both okay in his surface water in his pond and then there was and those three monitoring house the one that's broken but that's collecting water flow or Lee from any area from the C yeah it's just any groundwater and that spot whatever is whatever is there they're going to they're going to detect so and and do we know is there any change in the concentration at all or just um just we just measure the I mean I don't really understand I'm just I'm trying to learn too but the exceedance levels it's a just the numbers or does it does that if it's high or low or whatever that that determines the concentration level if it's greater than what it if that changes and gets then we know that something's yeah so I if it if it looks like it's getting more and more concentrated as we keep testing that would definitely be an indicator that something is going on and needs to be looked at so that's kind of what DDP is looking for as well is it actually going [Music] up 52 201 that's 2010 so how do those numbers compare to now I have not gotten a chance to actually crunch that together so that's kind of where I was frustrated I'm going to get hold the CC but yeah they should be able to have a list of all the numbers even at least from even from when they're doing it from 2017 I mean certainly I don't know if this company is still working um they should have a list of them too only to 2012 right somewhere in there yeah and then who did it from 12 to I think CC took over after Brown and called but I just I can't find the physical copies of anything between 2012 2015 I've been trying to Wrangle a whole landfill file into something easier yeah cuz D should have too um I know I let me see what other questions I have yes so we don't really know where the surface water could be from anywhere and then I'm thinking back too when we I know our jurisdiction is this landfill and the sludge landfill is dpw's jurisdiction but I know that when we were looking um at the areas that are were washed out and there was no all that SL um silt and stuff was I mean there was nothing there with any barriers that looks like it had been um you know just destroyed over time I don't know that jurisdiction would be on the Sledge Landfield DPW or is there anything we can do about that or is that conservation or I think conservation is the one who he's kind of he's out there working for D sort of his eyes so he did actually write an enforcement work on the DPW to to fix those um those blowouts there so he conservation can has to do with anything when it becomes within a wetland or close to a wetland okay good so that's resource that's what meeting about is later on tonight yes so they they meet same days as us just 6:30 I think so they can get that area or or put in enforcement and cleaning that up and fixing that can I ask a question I'm learning but if we look we've identified these two Wells that are high even way back when is it possible to know where that's draining from and then dig dig it up and get it out wherever like if there's some waste in there that is leaching out this isn't that our goal of this whole project but the whole if you remember when we walked around there I mean all that DJ is coming down and going and flowing and that's the thing we don't really know where the actual source is inside that is groundwater that's coming from all around anywhere but it would be interesting well the clean water comes down and goes on the runoff right so that it should but that's where we have right I think if if it did come to like something else I don't know if they I think it's all about containment so they wouldn't want to go like into the landfill and remove something could disturb more stuff but and it is mostly lined and capped right yes as far as I know so I um I think what they're really wanting is just contain so that's why goal number one is is there a way to get to those and filter it or what else do they do um I I actually don't because we're not it's not being contained right now if it's um been tested in the pond right so and that's your pond is way in the back of 12200 ft away of the um the sludge landfill and yeah so so it's flowing somewhere I mean I don't know if that area from where it was coming from where the sils was all there if that would help at all um because then you have all those wet lands in there and then your land is on the opposite side do we we don't check the wetlands though right we just check his pond um yeah I don't know how the sampling sites got determined but it would be to see if it's we can definitely look into adding more SES I'm just wondering about that so correct me if I'm wrong but your the pond that's on your land is beyond those wet lands that we saw when I mean the wells the monitoring Wells are right here and we had the uh trash the um where all that Sil was right just that is these are the two landfills the wetlands are here right the pawn sw4 is right here okay okay and you know my concern is the streams coming out of this go here right this is not tested at all all right so yeah I'm just wondering if we could could get talk to CC and see at least a one time sample and see if there is anything now and you know even if it's not going to be the actual Mar was but at least to find out currently and have a baseline of does that make sense my I mean I'm know I think surface water don't need to grill well right just into the you know the wetlands and like you said that other Pond um it it would be I think beneficial to to talk to CDC to find that out like forever Pentacles that are not right broken down in nature but is there a way to filter it out of saying your pond I I don't know see this is why my initial memo or email to to Mich I suggested that that the Board needs a license typ professional to provide you with a lot of this input somebody that will work for you that will help evaluate the situation and and assist M as well with all the right answers what can be cleaned up what can't right how do you contain them how do you contain a situation like this I mean I think first you need more data you need more tests you need more tests so you can develop a pattern and that's what I think what an LSP would do when they look at a site they they they look at sites where people want to buy things to develop them and when you go and look at a site like this you want to figure out you know where is it testing you know the initial pictures that mik put together or somebody did um show a whole line of test Wells you know and they're kind of in between the solid waste landfill and the and the um solar farm and the sludge landfill so you got these Wells testing positive and I think you mentioned increased levels and then you got this thing way outside to the South SW for which is right on the other end of wetlands where this stuff moves right that's the according to the DP information so I think doing more testing down in here will help the STA we have a biger pattern but I do think I do think the board would benefit it's up to you but it would benefit from Consulting with the licens side professional that could they could give you quick answers to some better answers to these things from the expert site valuation so what is CC is that what what do they monitor I mean would they have that knowledge um I I don't know haven't really provided that so yeah that would be something to look into right I mean how who contracts with CC does that that comes to to me and the Heth department so um so would it be beneficial I mean are they at a point are they someone that we could have come visit or and share with us more information or are they is are they just doing the monitoring and not really doing a site evaluation or system to deal with abnormal yeah yeah they have people who yeah because it would be I don't know how you feel but I mean I would have them come and and meet with us' be good sure so c c doesn't do it then we could look into any private contractors that do that but I think it we should start withing C well I mean is that that part of the service they're providing or I mean what how much so yeah the service they're providing what we're paying for is really just the monitoring and then maintenance of the flare so they they go out and do all the tests and and then collect all the data put it into the reports I agree with I mean they must have somebody there that knows what it all means information to look at the whole site rather than just doing the numbers I mean I think it's a good good idea may it's beyond us you know so yeah and then like everything is extra beyond that so if they came to do a meeting I mean I guess yeah I'm sure they would charge you for that that comes out of you can do with that um do we have to make a motion we want to just under your budget under the budget if you have it if you have it I guess to yeah I I'll see what see what how much it would be and kind of just let them know that's what we want to do and make a decision approval no okay I mean if you need to I mean yeah you're the one who has the budget and has it approved and all that unanimously concerned ande here saying we shouldn't spend this money work on this we do that yeah absolutely and I just had one other question to about the current Pump Station so is that under board account The Pump Station no so um we do have a connection to it so there are is Lee a from the landfill that goes to the pump station but it's dpw's Pump Station and you were saying something about the d letter there was the d letter which that was on the slow to landfill not right yeah there's a separate a whole separate D um thing where somebody had uh s in a complaint about that outfall pipe too having uh you know sedimentation uh siltation from look like a pipe that feeds that area so what we were talking about the area we were talking about right Al fall pipe to that one we visited the site at the site visit and um so uh what I found was the uh somebody in DMP Wetlands Judy Schmidt wrote a two-page letter basically following up on that complaint um and and uh that I believe the conom was addressing tonight because she basically said you should go through the conc to correct this problem cation of damage yeah if I don't know if that has anything to do with the dioxine problem or not because we we just don't we just don't know no um but that's why we need more information about testing I mean if if the sludge landfill has test Wells it's got three of them if we were to get a dioxine test out of that at the appropriate level you'd at least know if the test wells around the Sledge landfill are testing positive for that and they're clearly not testing for one4 dioxine right now it appears they're not doing it but but those like like surface water places those are wells already drilled you just got to run so that's request that they do it I don't actually know I mean I can ask but I think without that no I mean I think what um with conservation with um you know where he is doing the enforcement for the silt well that's a star anyway you to fix that erosion that looks like that's been there for a while but okay any other questions or comments from the onsite landfill meeting at this point are we all good yeah I just think that question number one needs some which you've already said but I think question number one needs some more work here when should he have know and it sounds like requests were made to change the test levels but but Mr go can't pronounce his name uh the guy from DP juj juji ali uh in January clearly said test at the wrong level and I don't think he specified specific Wells no he didn't did he so that means every well out there ought to have that level so who how did things get changed down over a certain middle period after 2010 we don't even have the data now that's atrocious so I mean I think checking with d and checking with c and checking even if we have to go back to it Brown and Brown and they have to have reports somewhere um so I don't understand is this policy Carri forward the brown C policy as far as the or like what's been going on in the time period between that report and the present as far as like what level we're they went to in 2017 C that's what we're trying to pull together but in 2017 C took over and then in um what was the date of year of the letter from the D when they said the levels were being used were wrong January this year January this year right and but yet we don't really know which testing sites he was referring to and we don't really know if that's just from CDC was testing at the inadequate levels or that was being done all along from Brown and called well because the levels changed so we don't know if those two particular Wells have been tested at the proper level since that time or right we know one has not been at all or anything it was damag and it fixed yet I don't know why or if like the other wild that's what we Mike has been digging through everything to try to get a timeline together and to be able to really evaluate and assess what levels you know how so we know if there's been a change and at what change is the concentration change but we don't really have adequate data that you know of all the testing Wells somewhere so that's one of the things that we have to obtain because that does make a difference and maybe D has it all recorded somewhere in a nice little file because we don't have it well I'm going to keep digging away so we once I've get it all kind of put it together in a better sum and have it kind of go sequentially like what the limits were what the results were um and kind of just put it in the timeline from there but going forward as of now as of at the L level I mean unfortunately I you know can't speak for past but I know going forward with this we have to figure this out you're exping try to figure out which Chang why was this tested not tested but bottom line we have some abnormal results and we've going as possible we figured that we when we were notified you know and pied up on it I think that's what we trying to do is to go forward but it sounds we need DPW to do Sledge testing of those Wells we need ask the CC if they have data from 2012 to the pro and then we need to ask CC if they can do an expert opinion on how we can chain and deal with those abnormal vaccine levels so yep okay next item on your update mattress recycling um so this is just for mattres that are too contaminated or too it's supposed to be anything that has bugs or Bott fluids or molds um if it can't be recycled um we need to find an alternative as far as disposing of those so right now I'm working on a couple of Alternatives one will be top stop and fishburg um they have uh basically a machine that will shred mattresses so they take out all the parts so they can accept stuff that's in a little worse condition um and then they would also charge us if it's completely unrecyclable it would be $55 per mattress to get top stuff um with E Harvey it's $150 for Mattress if it's it's too contaminated to recycle and then I'm also looking into the option to see if there's any way to trans for those to Wheeler and just have them incinerated and see what kind of cost that would be otherwise it's really I think when I talked to Stan he said it's maybe three or four mattresses a month that are like that um and almost almost the mat we get are in recyclable conditions and they can just we take the mattresses to recycle take those they go to raw material recover after that and they get recycled so it's just the contaminated ones basically it has been sitting in like a ditch for months years like mattresses like that they cannot recycle so we're just looking at alternatives to paying $150 a piece to go through Hardy for that next um just with food inspections we have no food board H complaints since the last meeting we just had two general complaints uh 10 routine inspections and one reinspection [Music] um for housing and nuisance uh we only had nine new cases for 14 cases and currently have 23 open cases uh we got a kind of a rush of no heat calls that first couple mons when I got down into the 30s um so we're expecting a little bit more in the near future and we had two emergency responses for both were for back up sewer pipes um and then we're also slowly moving forward with getting one property in into a becoming like a receivership through the ago's office um to try and get that back into the housing market and then my last update is that for next year I need to find a new contractor to mow uh nuisance properties if we have to mow them I need to find somebody new for next year okay and prevention oh prevention um let's see we had the I don't actually have updates been kind of working with the schools now and I know we did National Night Out we did the domestic violence this month this October um Li away this month is October this we cable interview and I um which is on the local cable show tring to think what else I she's involved in the schools she [Music] is that is all I have for today okay anything else do you have any other comments or questions about anything no again I I thank you for the continued work on the uh on the landfill dioxan issue extremely important you know I can tell you that I'm also on the board of directors for nor County land trust their property is Downstream from my paw4 they're concerned about getting their Pawn tested and then right after that pawn is go to another small city right to theer few hundred feet away so I mean again I think it's you know I grew up in Garder and I think back as a child and you saw all the hay staffs you melt the air and you know all the factories were you know back then we didn't know and people were dumping everything everywhere don't know what was dumped in any of the lands and certainly not but the um the the landfill I mean everything was you know dumped in there as kids we ran around and played in it you know I mean we just unfortunately but you know I also believe strongly in we can't change what we didn't know about but we can go forward and I think in everything I feel strongly I know you know that's how we learn ourselves um I mean I worry about this stuff you know like and I've said before like I even even I had no idea some of these forever chemicals where they're at you know we didn't know about the fire I me look at in the fire departments the flammable pajamas and stuff um or nonflammable pajamas um have a lot of chemicals in them and things like that that you know we always with our soaps are detergents and you know we always took for granted we never checked on and I know going forward you know we definitely do the best the good thing is get more information right I think that Dr Parker's point you know the real bottom line is what's the corrective action try to figure things out what's the pattern of contamination we've got something from the well so far but what's the further pattern and how do you move through a step where you do something you know one other question I would just just quick question is is the May been briefed on this problem he has been briefed okay good thank you yeah yeah okay um the next meeting just want to thank you Mr Russo for taking us around the landfill and all wonderful we wouldn't know as much about this problem if it wasn't for all the work you put into this and I really appreciate that welcome I app appreciate working together with things and not you know against each other because you know there's a process I mean we're all all of you know how municipalities are run and you know with the boards and the chain of command and stuff and you know personally very valuable um and honored to be on this board you know and working with the people that we work with and you know I think we have a pretty strong idea of processing things and not going to just doore you know we do what we can you know with things so okay the next meeting um that brings us into November when is Thanksgiving just 28th right um I know the 25th is not good for me um 18th isn't great for me okay this is where 11th is Veteran's Day um might need to move into December 2nd second is not yeah too good for me okay do the ninth that's not too far out no I can do that I know it's the holidays are um going to throw things off but even if we meet well if we did the ninth and then we could go like the first of January that first um we that wouldn't throw us off yeah we P the holidays without having the month stuff which is really challenging so holiday so we could do and then we could maybe look at January 6 for the you know to get us through so we're not going on too long a Time December 9th and January 6th um maybe I mean that's kind of a long ways to put things on I know I don't want to do like an email update or is that okay you know like as you find things out oh yeah and you yeah you can update us and that's not violating anything um be in email so yeah yeah um yeah all right so next meeting would be December 9th okay so um motion to adjourn sub moved second and um and all in favor I meeting is adjourned at 5:4 yeah if you email us then if something changes or you can