That should be >> okay. So we are now going um let me grab our agenda. I do not I do not see Lee. Uh, so we can
>> Oh, there's Lee. Lee's here. >> Oh, yeah. >> How are you, Lee? >> Good. How's everybody tonight? >> Hello, Lee. >> Good. >> Good. We've got We've got a crew. >> Hello. >> We've got a crew here. Uh, we can do
some of our stuff. Uh first the first thing in terms of the the minutes from November 4th, 2025, I just had a couple little tiny changes, but but Lee and Bill, what are your
thoughts on the minutes? >> I looked at them. I'm I'm good with them, Dick. >> I'm I'm pretty good with uh what I read through. >> Okay, Colleen, then we're set with that. >> Okay. Uh let me in terms of of systems
it the we've got the same two that we had from from uh the last meeting. I did I did talk at length with Paul Stipek about the the two forplexes on New Level
Road and he's going to he's not going to be here tonight. He's going to be re redoing his plan. He may in fact end up moving the system back into his original location in the back. But but the two
things we've got are lot one and lot two on West Street from Neil. Uh I'm going to last week or last I guess it was last week we took no action on these two
systems pending uh review against the the state approval for those two lots and we didn't act on the well. And Neil talked to me this afternoon and he told me that
that the state looked at his designs and said that that they were going to be okay with it. But Neil also told me, Bill, that Neil told me that you, Bill, also had heard from the state and that that you were of the same feeling that
Neil was that that was okay. >> Yeah, I talked to D Wetlands yesterday morning and and they're okay on the concept that Neil had submitted. So, it's got to still go through review from this board, but wetlands and they're fine.
>> Okay. So, so I'll go over them again. Neil has made some of the changes, all of the changes I had asked for. So my I haven't updated my review. We'll just when we hit those changes, we can talk about it. Lot one is new construction, a
complete system, three-bedroom house. The fee is paid. The review is complete. This is a partially cleared lot. It's level in the front with slopes down to the to the rear to the southeast. It's a one plus acre lot, deep sands with a 24
inch water table. Wetlands are to the east and the south. So that's on looking in at the lot, looking from West Street towards the chateau. So on the left of this lot and to the rear of the lot or the wetlands, the issues are the the
high water table, the wetlands, the limited usable space. Uh it requires less than 100 foot separation to the wetlands uh and the and the well to the actually the
well to the wetland. The design is for a 1500gallon two compartment tank with an outlet filter. There are three 3Tx 45 ftx 6 in effective sidewall front sidewall trenches that are level. Uh
they it's not vented. 444 gallons a day are provided versus 440 required. Fill is required. Reserve area is provided between and adjacent to the trenches. 5-ft water table separation
is designed. Ballast is not required for the septic tank. Filtration control is specified on this one. the septic tank and SAS separation. The other wells uh is more than 100 ft. This well to the
septic tank is 74 feet. The SAS to the wetlands get as close as 70 ft. all within the state regulations and our regulations that our new ones were necessary and this is necessary.
Discussing the that we need a trench permit, we need fill that noting that the well to the septic tank separation is under our normal 100 and that SAS to the wetland separation is also under our
normal to 100. uh but in both cases above what what the state requires and following our our current new regulation. What do you have for discussions, Bill and and Lee?
I'm good with what we've got. I realize that this has been looked at a lot by different agencies. So, I'm very comfortable that we've done um way more looking than usual, if that's the right term. Uh but I think we're going to get
the best we can get out of it. >> What's your thought? >> When you say, >> uh Bill, when you said about a review, does that mean that at this point in time if there's any contact regarding well location? Um,
we need to pause still. >> I think what happened is Neil Neil, did you send the final design to D wetlands? >> I sent it. They I'm sure they haven't gotten it yet, but yes, I did send it. >> Okay. >> Don't make any ch any substantial
changes of that document. I don't think you have to resend it to those folks. Yeah, they just wanted a sense so because they they said they it would be easier for them to compare the original approved
>> you wanted copy just because that's >> they want to do they want to do an over an overlay. Yes. Yes, that's fine. >> Which is fine because I'm a little less um a little less than what they approve. So >> yeah. So on on this one, Colleen, my
suggestion is that that instead of us following up on the the D approval and wetlands, we should once they get the the conservation commission approval.
Conservation is the the group that's dealing with the D on this wetland. I Lee and Bill, do you think that's the way we should handle it to let the conservation give the that approval for wetlands? >> Well, it's out of it's out of the local
conservation's perview at this point. So, you've got to deal with D Springfield, Dick. >> Okay. So that means that as part of our requirement, the fifth one would be would be to this we we grant ours but we
don't grant the permit. We give the approval but we don't give out the permit to build it until we get D approval. >> That's correct. That's the right way to do this. Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. I got I got you. I got you. >> Okay. Very good. So, that's the way we
handle and as long as we're talking uh we've got coming up that that Neil is is located the well on this one and there is a a well permit application from Cushing for this, but can we approve that also?
>> Yes. >> I don't see why I don't see why not. >> Okay. Okay. So, that's approved, Colleen. >> Okay. The next The next one is going to be lot two. Kind of the same. It's some of the same issues. It's a It's just a
different construction. It's new construction, complete system, threebedroom house. Um the review is complete. This is a partially cleared lot level in the front with this one's got it does have a kind of a slope down
to the rear. Not not so much gradual slope. It's an 80,000 square foot lot, deep sands, also a 24 and 26 inch water table. Wetlands uh on the east, west, and south. This is kind of really
surrounded by wetlands. They >> Yeah. Yeah. This is this is the lot that's out in the woods essentially. >> That's right. The issues with this one are water table wetlands, limited use of usable area, requires less than 100 foot separation to the wetlands.
Uh and the design the design is for a 1500gallon two compartment tank with an outlet filter. Uh three three foot by 45 ft x 6 in effective sidewall trenches not vented. 444 gallons a day are
provided uh versus 440 that's needed. Fill is required. The reserve area is also provided between and adjacent to the trenches. It's also a five foot water table separation. Ballast is not required for the the septic tank.
Filtration control is specified. The septic tank and the SIS separation to the wells are more than 100 ft. The SAS to the wetlands is also as close as 70
ft. to to discuss the trench permit sill well to septic uh I've got that's a mistake I'm saying well to septic tank separation that's not a problem it's the sas for the
wetland separation uh I do need some method to actually both of those a method to identify and protect the temporary benchmark Uh Neil
was supposed to have fixed that. Uh >> there also there there was an error on the trench length on the drawing that in the situation description. Neil says
that's fixed. Uh, also verify the the that Neil had down that the well separation to the to the Oh, Neil was going to verify the well separation to the SAS to the east of
this system is more than 100 ft. He said he he did do that >> and correct the note that the well is not more than 100. I don't think it's more than a uh 200 feet from the the
100redyear flood plane. There's a note on the drawing that Neil was going to look at that dimension. And also on this one, we should say that we're we would grant the approve the the design, but we won't actually give the
permit until we get uh verification that the system complies with D's requirements. Lee and Bill, what are it's it this is essentially the same a little different in dimensions, but it's the same situation
as slot one. and Bill. >> Any discussion from Bill? No. >> Can you hear me? >> Dick, I respectfully I' I've been working on this project ad nauseium for the last five years and I'm glad it's over.
No, everything's fine. Everything's good. >> Lee, how about with you? >> I think we lost Lee. Okay, so that's approved as long as we're here. >> Can we also approve the the same thing with the weld for Cushing on that one?
This one? Lee said yes. Bill, are you gonna move the well, too? >> Yeah, the well's fine. Everything's good there. >> Okay, Colleen, we're set with those. >> Okay. >> Somebody that's making kind of a bunch of noise here, and I I don't see who it
is. So, I just ask the group that's listening, if you've got background noise in your room, could you try to keep it down or turn your >> or mute yourself? >> Okay. The next item uh that we've got at 7:15
is Allan Weiss. I don't see Allan. >> I'm here. >> Okay. >> Can you hear me? >> I can call in. I I added a couple questions on that one. Uh,
>> sure. >> Maybe actually you can probably talk about it, Alan. It looked like you dug somebody dug a one hole 10 feet to the east of the system. It's interesting when I looked in the hole,
it looked like there were models all over it, but that that picture isn't where you judge modeling. But uh but it certainly if that's all we did, why don't you why don't you tell us what you did, Alan, and then I'll ask my questions.
>> Oh, I'm going to rewind. Last meeting, we talked about the three hole other holes that we dug. >> Yeah. And we we talked about trying to establish whether there was water within 18 inches of the existing leaf
stone there because the simple uh appro uh project is to put an addition on the back of the house. So it triggered a title five. We did the trial five and found that component replacement of the septic tank and debox was needed and that was in October. So we went back
like as requested and tried to get another hole to show that there was no water table within the 18 in of the Leech stone. Now if you do the math on the distribution box and Lee stone that
goes down about 48 in. So, we did not see oxides or saturation within that depth when we did this deep hole this morning. And nor were they noticed in
the actual design which um call groundwater at 7 ft when when this was designed. Uh what was it 200 five? I got a I don't have it in front of me. Um so at any rate uh we essentially we did see
oxides in the bottom foot if you will of the nearly 7T hole today is 6 and 1 half to 7 ft but that was the only place where I saw the colors that indicate high groundwater or groundwater. So, and Lee looked in the hole when I was there.
Um, and then we deter together we looked at each other and decided it does not look like there's a indication of groundwater within 18 in of Leechstone, which is the Graanby evaluation threshold.
So my question is when you've got rock that's that's moving, obviously your other holes had stone way up higher and you've got land that's sloping and stone that's sloping. that digging one hole 10
ft outside of the system certainly doesn't tell me that we've that the rest of the system could be sitting right smack on rock and I I just don't understand if we were going in
there and and saying can this system be in here legally we would have been a lot more curious than digging one hole 10 feet away on a rapidly changing Okay. At your last meeting, you were not asking me to determine if that system
was in there legally or not as installed and approved by all the information I presented. You were simply asking me to determine if it met the Graanby code for a title 5 inspection that there was a groundwater indication within 18 in of
the bottom of the lead stone. And that's what we did this morning. Well, what you did is look at one hole 10 ft away from one end of the system and said the whole rest of it complied with Graham's regulations. That's what you said.
>> The work that we did in >> when we're on a when we're on a site, we evaluate the depth to groundwater. Okay? And we assume that the groundwater on a nearly level site is fairly uniform over
that site. So we did the one hole reasonable assumption reasonable when you've got three other holes that said that's not at all the case. You already have data. >> No, the other holes indicated >> the other holes did not say that
groundwater was intercepted at a shallower depth. So we're talking about two different things here. We have to make sure we're talking about ledge or are we talking about groundwater? Your bylaw refers to groundwater
for title 5 inspections. >> So >> that's what we were going back to re-evaluate. If the system is sitting on ledge and you said that you saw something that said there was water six
inches above the ledge, then as Bill just said, it's reasonable to assume that every place that there's ledge, the water will also be six inches above that. >> I didn't say that. >> Bill did. >> No, I think I said that the groundwater
would be expected to be uniform in depth. below the grade surface not relevant to the >> you >> bedrock you >> surface >> you and I both know
>> no I can't say what >> if it's a if it's a reasonably level site and the soils are reasonably permeable between two locations near each other and by near I mean maybe 10 feet 10 or
15 20 feet You don't expect there to be a big variation groundwater elevation for a level of sight. >> But Bill, Bill, we know that he's we've already got data that says that's not the case. >> Okay. Well, just making a general statement if that were true.
>> So, so is the site is the site level or not level? >> Particular level. >> Here's the question. Is the site level and is the is the bedrock contour surface level? That those are two. >> No, the bedrock bedrock contour is not level.
>> Okay. So, the bedrock elevation is probably going to control the groundwater as well. >> Right. >> But again, the restrict >> the soil evaluation, sorry, >> bedrock rather than the water table. >> I'm sorry. I was just going to say the soil evaluation
uh from Walter Marquette and uh witnessed by Leelon in 2005 indicated that there was 84 in of material in their deep hole and that there was no indication of groundwater
weeping st uh standing water and he called the groundwater at 7 ft >> I recall >> and that's what the system installation >> Yeah. And that's what the system installation was based on. I didn't design this system. I simply went to see
if it con how it conforms to the Graanby Title 5 inspection rules. >> But but like Dick was saying last meeting, Walter now claimed he couldn't pour water because the water table is too high. So that doesn't make any sense. So if the water table is super
low, why couldn't he dig a perk hole and pour water instead of doing a SI analysis? I'm not going to explain his work. >> It's a fair question. It's not a fair question to ask Allan because >> I realize that I realize that and Walter's not with us. So, we're just
trying to do the best we can on this thing. But in this case, in this case, if Bill and Lee, if you want to just let it go, but this is is certainly in my view after Allen. We can all re
try to remember last week that this got thrown into the board of health for re-evaluation because Allen said about how high the the ledge was >> in the other spot near the system. And now all of a sudden we say, "Oh, we're
going to go and look in one little one spot and we're not going to look and see what the rest of the system is like and just say, you know what, let it go." >> Well, well, here's the question. The 7 foot hole that Walt Marquette dug years ago, where was it in respect
to where the leechfield was actually put on the ground? Do we know? um it was toward the back wall or north side um whereas I dug on the east, the south and the west. Now one other not thing to
note is I did not see any oxide colors in the the holes that were shallower last time. I did see them in this hole about a foot off the bottom. >> What was the color, Al? Was it was it a a a brown a red brown matrix?
>> It's a red brown graby. Yeah. Seven and a half wide. So hard to accurately look at that. Yeah, >> it is hard to see them there. No, no question. In the reds. Yep. >> Well, let's let's put our thinking caps on here.
I'm very confident that we've established it meets the state title 5 code um in terms of groundwater and I think this secondary additional information does indicate that we have 18 in um
beyond that what the installation did with respect to ledge I can't speak to >> Dick. Is it re would it be reasonable and Al, would it be reasonable for you to do some simple probing with a piece
of rebar driven by a hammer in the close proximity of the leechfield to see if you can drive the bottom of the uh bar 18 in below the leechfield? Is that is that a reasonable thing? >> Because of the stony nature, I I I mean,
it's a good idea. If it were sand, it would be I think >> verycted in this material. >> If it's a if it's a real bony till it might not be possible. >> Yeah. No, it's it's bony. >> Okay. >> And it's a flat stone, too. >> Yeah. >> Angular stone.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, you're going to have trouble driving. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. I would be happy with one hole that was dug on the the southwest corner of the system, you
know, so it's the opposite side of where Allen is. Allen was >> Is that right? >> We did. >> We did that already. Um, we did one.
Yeah, we we got one to the west which was a little more than three feet and then we had two to the south >> and those were in the 42 to 44 range. >> So both of those would tell you it doesn't make it.
>> So we we had two holes that >> I don't understand when you say it doesn't make it. I don't understand what you mean. >> The system sitting on a rock. That's what it says. that at the other end on the part you didn't look at it's sitting on rock.
>> You're not speaking to the depth to the ground. What are you speaking to the issue of rock? >> We've already said that we're talking about the the water is probably sitting on the rock. That's what you you hole shows. >> Yes. At 7 feet it is. That's correct. At
seven feet it is. Yes. But not in the other holes. We didn't see that indication. >> I wonder where the water went. I I'm being I'm being sarcastic, Alan. >> And right now it's >> you're really digging in right right now
and and I don't know what this board should be be doing. The very reason we're doing title five here. You you got a house that's going to be expanded. It's a time when you if the system isn't a good a good system,
it's a time to fix it. And what we're going to do is we're going to pass this along and the next guy that comes around and is unlucky enough to dig a hole where we're asking to dig a hole and that next person ends up have having a
failed title five and they say, "Hey, why did that happen?" and and this ward shouldn't shouldn't let this this kind of thing happen. It ought to be to find out what it's really like, not to say, "Oh,
I'm going to go and do what I need to do to make it pass." Instead of saying, "Let's do what we need to do to find out what's really there." >> May I respond to that? >> Sure. All right. Of course you can. >> Okay. I just want to be clear with you,
Dick. I have nothing invested in in I'm just presenting data to you. Obviously, should this go to a full repair, I'm going to actually make more money. So, I have nothing invested other than just presenting the data. >> So, I don't want that to to be misconstrued.
>> So, I'm just presenting the data and you guys have to decide how it fits. Yeah, >> I did not accuse you of that, Ellen. Please be I would not do that. >> Okay. Thank you. Well, then it would be reasonable to
request to the homeowner that um due to the nature of the findings then possibly after some discussion that uh a small amount of more
exploration would be prudent in this unusual scenario. you know, would that be fair? what I would I would be saying and I I think it's reasonable to say that that Allen did go out
and and you went out and said, "Gee, we did look in this hole and and came back and say here's what this data and then the benefit of having the full board talk about it saying yeah, are we sure
that that what was done given the other holes. Are we sure that that this in fact did prove that that all under the system there's there's the 18 inches
to the water to the water. >> Yeah, I understand. >> What do you think, Bill? I'm more concerned about the bedrock now than anything. Now that I'm thinking about it, >> we know if it sits on the bedrock, it's not filtering anything.
>> Yeah. Because if there's clearly fractures in that rock, very likely, and the water is going right into the bedrock, right into the fractures, and hopefully it doesn't end up in somebody's well. So, I think it's kind of important that
we find out where the rock is under the lead field. >> Okay, >> Alan, I don't question whether you went in thinking you were doing what we asked you to do. I don't question that for a second. So, if I could just ask that whatever
you decide tonight, just please um put it in writing and I'll present it to the owner and they can decide what they want to do next. >> Right. >> Colleen has wanted us to close this out. if you can send Allan a a note stating
that the the board did review his data and as we review the his most recent data coupled with the previous depot data that deepole data that Allen had
dug that the concern is that the that the remainder or part of the remainder of the leaf field may be sitting very close to ledge and that the board is requiring
additional holes be dug near the near the actually near and around the the leech field to determine the location of the the depth of the ledge.
the clearance between the bottom of the leash field and the ledge. That's correct. >> Send that down. >> So Allan Allen um is this Walter Marquette um design
are the reserves in between the lines on this thing? Do you remember? Um the the the design, you know, I'm looking at is a repair. I don't believe there's a reserve. I don't believe it's a bed. >> No, it's a bed. >> Yeah.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, all right. I get it. I get it. >> Okay. But as as Bill points out, there's certainly something suspect when when everybody says there's no
water, but it can't take you can't pour water because there's too much water. >> So >> just Yeah. So just to establish what the perk says is discontinued perk test due to soil dampness
sent sample to lab for textural analysis. Now I I then they did a 30 minute per inch design. I will honestly say the material that I saw above the ledge probably would perk faster than 30 minutes per
inch. So, >> um, but the dampness I can only I I mean I don't know what the weather was before June 6, 2005. >> Yeah, >> you can't tell. >> But I can tell you my all of my
experience with Walter Marquette was that he was a really straightup guy. He was not a a guy. We've had other engineers that were around at the time that I wouldn't say that about, but Walter was a straightup guy.
>> Well, he was a good guy. Very good guy. >> Okay. So, we're we're going to go on then. Our next our next item. >> Have a good night. Thank you. >> Okay. Good night. >> Thank you, Al. >> We've got
Paul is not coming. Let's see if we can get through our the rest of our things before we we end up with a West Street. We've got uh 10 minutes. We've done the minutes. Money turnover is
$1,550 for this period of that. The whole thing is board of health permits. Are we okay with that? I'm good with that. >> Yes, >> I am too, Colleen. >> Okay.
>> The next next one is bills payable. Just one bill and it is uh for Coner for the RICO copier and the annex for $20.15.
Are we set with that? I am >> Bill Lee. >> Are you guys Can you hear me? >> Yeah. Yeah, we're fine. D. >> Yep. >> I'm Colleen. That's approved. Also,
the next actually the next two are well permits. we've already decided are are all set. The next one is
a next one is a temporary food establish. Oh, no. This is not temporary. This is a permit to operate a food establishment over 25 ft. It's for It's a renewal at the the town
of Graanby Council on Aging. >> Are we set with that one? >> Yes. >> Good. >> Bill, >> I'm good. >> I am too, Colleen. That's okay. >> Okay. >> The next one probably Lee, you're you
can tell us about this is at 202 West Street. This is way up at the the west end. This is Allen. It's like it's a certificate of compliance from Josh Fugler. Allan has got dimensions with
both horizontal and vertical and as built. Are we set with that, Lee? >> Yes. Everything was put in in accordance to uh the plans. Josh Hugler was very
attentive to the details. Um it came out um really well. Elevations were are where they should have been. >> Okay. Bill, are you okay with this one? >> Yeah, >> I am too. >> Mhm. >> Colleen, that's approved.
>> Okay. The next one is an application for disposal system construction permit. This is for a from Neil Jackson. It is a new distribution box. This at 317 Chabby
Street. I'm guessing that's the result of a title five lee. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Are we okay to approve this one? Yes. >> And I am too felling. >> Okay.
>> The next one is the same kind of thing. This is on four ridge tap and it is by Neil Jackson. I think this one is a septic tank, a 1500gallon two
compartment tank. Uh a replacement. Is this one okay? It must be a result of a title five. >> Um, this was a collapse. >> Oh. >> Uh, this was kind of a
unscheduled emergency. The whole top uh is is not there anymore. It just completely fell in. So, thankfully no one got hurt. >> Are you okay with this, Bill? >> Good, Dick. Thanks. I am too.
Where is Ridge Path Lee? >> It's off of Bachelor Street, isn't it? >> Yeah, it's the access to Griswald Circle. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And that is for that one. Uh
we've got an approval for from the building department. We've got 90 Cold Hill Road, lot seven. Oh, we've already approved this. This is the the only Oh, no. That's not exactly all approved.
This is for the building department. But Bill, I see stuffs that that's floating around that you had questions. that one. I think this is the one that's got uh >> Oh, this is the one with the arsenic and the well >> arsenic and bug.
>> Yeah, >> Colleen, thanks for forwarding that info from uh pushing well drilling. >> Yeah, you're welcome. >> Dick, there's a there's a proprietary product that they're using on some sort of oxidizer to stabilize the arsenic, but I'd like to know exactly how that
mechanism works just for future reference. Yeah, he and besides that, he didn't tell you. He he basically gave you MSDS stuff. And >> that's I want to know what the configuration is
and how the product is dispensed. Yes. >> Yeah. And he he didn't also he didn't tell you what the the UV system is like, >> right? Um it it actually and and I don't
know how you deal with with this that that without without those two systems working it really doesn't have a portable water supply and when you when you put in
you know an unsafe water supply and you're putting remediation what is the what is the system. This, you know, not not mechanical system or electrical system, but what are the systems that you put in place that the
the homeowner knows that that they have to do a certain maintenance and and checking and it's not like you put in a robust system. It's that they're drinking water that if they're the two devices that
they put in to control it don't work, it's not safe anymore. Dick, in my opinion, the only failsafe system is what you you're using at your house, and I'm considering it's an RRO system, >> and that's what this guy said he was going to do.
>> Well, this doesn't this chemical doesn't seem to be uh in in concert with an RO system in my opinion. >> No, >> it's something different. So, we got we got to iron out what they're actually doing. And the other question is, are we
going to require periodic testing for at least a few rounds just to make sure the darn thing's working? >> Yeah. So, so my my thought is until we get it straightened out, we don't give the
approval for the septic system. >> I agree. >> Lee, what are you thinking? >> No. Yeah. Yeah. There's that's absolutely uh vertical that if we can't get a water source then
they need to rethink this whole project. >> Yeah. >> The other concern of course is >> is there um that they take it serious enough to not try to >> Yeah. I find it to be very interesting.
try to shortcut the system. Not not the installer, but the owner in three or four years later when it comes time for maintenance and so forth that they don't buy of it and try to >> undo it. So you you know what I mean? >> Hopefully that's not even not even a
concern. If I were doing this, if this were my lab right now, I would be pumping that well and retesting because that's it's very unusual to get bacteria problems with a a properly installed deep well,
>> right? >> And and that's not an area that that we know arsenic's a problem. The only arsenic that I know in town is on Morgan Street. There's some on Morgan Street.
But, you know, I just wonder if this is a a test that's not a correct test. However, the the issue is it's not resolved and it's not a
it's not a viable portable water source at this point. Okay. So, we've done that. The next one that we have and it's right at it's 7:44. We've got the West Street
School folks here and it's it's their turn. I see Lynn is is looking at it. She was she was really quiet the last meeting. And we we'll see
we'll see. Are are you the one that's in charge of what we're doing today, Lynn? >> Well, I mean, I'm the chairperson of the committee, but I do have the architect that is here to speak, uh, the OPM who's
here to speak, and the engineer. >> So, we're all here to answer some of your questions. Yeah, we have both the civil engineer Charlie Levat from Gunllo as well as the um mechanical engineer
Mike Bianini from Robert Hall. >> Okay. So, so what we talked about the last time is that that the next what we thought would be for for whoever the appropriate group is to
choose the the I guess it's a a soil evaluator to work with with the board of health to go in and and take a looks right now that from what the lit what
the notes has said it's only one system that one system is going to be abandoned and the other system is going to be evaluated so so that was I don't know that that's been done at
least I know that that I don't know that it's been done that has I don't know if it has been done but I don't know that it has been and to get and to and to schedule the the investigation.
So that one the investigation is going to end up being to look at the the condition of the tanks, the septic tanks, the pumps, the pump chamber,
the leaking facility and the soils where they are. There is a thing that we should at least be looking at when we do this is as I read more about
communication that Len sent us that the new use is going to be and I don't remember the exact numbers but like 10x the the design is like 10x the size of the intended use which
at least Someone's got to talk about whether those bugs can in fact exist with that kind of usage. That it it means that it's possible that that we only dose that system once a week or
something and and something that's so grossly oversized probably can't work. But but when we get into this and and and look at it that that we certainly can talk about it. My guess is when we get in we're going to find out that the
the system since they're the tanks are what 70 years old or something that that we're going to find that that there's unusual conditions that we find. So So
that's the first the first arc. But I don't know what progress we've anybody has made on getting that done. >> Do you want to speak to that, Charlie? >> Sure. Uh, can you hear me? Can everybody >> Yes, Charlie. Hello. >> My name is Charlie Lebat from Gloan
Associates Engineers and we're the civil site engineers and we inspected the system uh actually one year ago yesterday uh the 12th of November on 2024. Um, and Tim, if you can pull up some of
the pictures from the inspection, we can we can take you through a lot of the the >> We shouldn't do that. We shouldn't do that tonight. We should because the that uh absolutely the board of health has to be involved with it. And so what we have
to do is is >> And you're you're you want to be involved with it because it's a change of use >> because that's what we do on all title five >> and >> on all official on all official title fives that would require an official
title five because there was a change in ownership because there's was no change in ownership. Obviously >> any there is a change in youth. Uh if
if we're in a spot now that that saying you don't want to go look in the grounds, you don't want to look in the tank that you don't want the board of health to see it. No, we don't
mind. I'm just want to make sure >> that we're not putting the owner through a burden that they're not actually required to be put through from a regulatory standpoint. Again, we >> I find it I as we're going
>> the owner. We're the owner. >> I understand that. Yep. And I find it really unusual >> that before you went to look at a the septic system for a public building that you didn't call the board of health and said, "Hey, I'm going to go looking at
that." I find that really unusual >> and that doesn't happen with with a So I didn't want to go there. No, what we what the whole reason for our inspection was to just become aware of of what we
had for our system to understand what our next steps would be in case it was failing um and stuff like that to try to start to uh potentially um budget and allocate resources in in its direction and everything.
>> You know, you know, Charlie, you know, Charlie, you you could have came to our office. We may have had some literature on that system in our files. I'm surprised you didn't come to the board of health office and ask for that in your research. >> Well, I think I thought we did get all
of that information. We asked for it through the through the school through Lynn and her department and we have plans um for the particular systems and the older components. Uh this system was constructed in 1972
when um they added a pump station and built a new system uh further out in the woods to the north uh which obviously was was likely sub subsequent to the existing leech field I'm presuming
failing at that time. So that right >> in 1972 uh the one we inspected uh that's when those portions and we had we had plans of that. I I presumed those ultimately did come from your office. Um but we the route of which you know we got the
information was was through our team through Lynn and Lynn to the town and and whoever. So we >> well ultimately that would come through the board of health office and and I don't have >> well the board of health at that point may not have been in existence. It's right near the time time when the
selectman switched from being the board of health to forming a a board of health. But but uh so and it was a brand brand new board of health. However, we're Charlie, we're we're not in any different view of where we are as far as I can
see. You you went and dug some holes. You said, "Gee, we we didn't conclude everything we needed to conclude. We need to go in and do some more stuff." And uh we agree what was done was done. You did what you were supposed to do.
You found some things out. And now, as you said, time to do the next step and figure out what needs to be done. So, let's do it. >> Yeah. Okay. For the most part, um I think we evaluated everything you'd need to evaluate for the one system we're going to be using. Uh where we where we
didn't um we didn't review the system, the septic system and ground of the system that we um are not intended to use. Um, but we're >> not gonna we're not going to get downtown here if if we don't get to the
spot. You you already on one of your reports said that the 70 year old septic system or maybe older, maybe it's 80 years old septic system wasn't evaluated
for its condition because it had water in it. you and you in fact said it should be pumped out >> to see what it looked like or the tanks. >> I don't know why you're digging in right now, Charlie. I'm just trying to fix. >> I I understand. I'm just trying to make
you aware of of actually what we have done. We did we did look at both of the septic tanks um and they were they were actually full of water to their outlet invert, which is what you would hope. so that they, you know, showing that they don't have
leaks. Um, what we we reviewed >> provided they're not sitting in the water and then sitting and in fact we've got one thing that was in exactly that condition and there was no bottom on the tank, >> right?
>> Which is the reason you want to pump it pump it out and the reason you said that it should be pumped out. So So this is crazy what we're doing right now. What we should be doing right now is saying, "Let's all get together. Let's dig a hole." >> Let's go.
>> We certainly can schedule another Title 5 inspection. I just wanted to update you on everything we did find. >> Um, and that we did we were able to dig up uh that one leechfield that was built in 72. Um, you know, obviously we were
able to look at the pump station and and and then dig up and and see the leech field that was done in 72. The one we didn't see was the the the western most one which was I think built in 55 or so which is which is dates back to when the
school was built originally somewhere around that time and um we did see obviously we saw its septic tank because that it has manhole covers. We're able to review that one. Um but that's the one that came off of the kitchen that we
don't believe will be used for the new project. I'm guessing that's the newest system because that's when the the cafeteria was was installed. The one that you're probably looking at is I'm
guessing I'm guessing was the one that that end of the building was built uh I I actually was in school with this there and it was pretty new. So that was in the early 50s during the Korean War. So that's probably when that system went in
and then got fixed 20 years later. Uh so but the the system you're talking about abandoning I'm guessing is is I'm guessing is the one that went in with the with the cafeteria with the the
section of the building that's along West Street and fix up that septic system that toilet system probably. But uh but the one in the in the back, we definitely when you start looking at something that's 70 years old, we we
definitely want to look at what it is. And as I said, when it's 10 times oversized, we want to understand how it works. Well, yeah. And we'll we'll want to talk about that because I think from a
gallons per day perspective, it may be close to 10 times over size, but from an area of the leech field, given what they used to use as an application rate compared to what you would currently use as an application rate, I don't think
the leechfield is that far oversized. I think it would probably be fine um size-wise. uh like you're referring to the 72 design plan said that Leechfield at that time was going to be designed for 2,000
gallons per day. Um and as you know our we think our design flows around 300 gallons per day. So that's that's close but not quite the you know the 10 times that you're getting at. Maybe seven times or something. But I think um we'll
we'll talk we can talk more about application rate and everything um >> that may and stuff even before article 11 Dick >> I think article 11 didn't come into favor until the mid70s >> but but
right the rates the loading rates were were very very high in those days so >> right >> but let's let's get some fresh eyes on the project. Yeah, let's look at it. Let's get it. Let's get this thing done. >> We We want to get in there and look at it and make sure stuff is
>> is good. And uh we definitely want to see where that where the water table is and and with that ledge under there that this this our board may end up saying that that if you pass a title five test,
we may say no, you want to we're starting on something that's going to go another hopefully another 50 years or something that we want a title five system, not a not a pre article 11 that just wings it by and it's putting
sewage right into the rock and polluting everybody's wells where so we have to find that stuff out and let's get into it. So, so that that's that's how we we find out
and that's exactly it's exactly the reason that that this board wants to look in the ground and see what what's what's there. >> Dick, it's exactly the same as we just did to the fella at 100 West Street. Exactly the same approach. >> Exactly.
>> Let's get it done. We're consistent. Let's get it done. So, so we just choose who we're going to have have it done. We we don't know. There's another another engineer that's floating around that's doing the same
thing apparently that you know Neil Jackson has done kind of the same thing. And it looks like he did kind of the same level of of investigation. So, we're we've got two things that have already been done.
neither of which involve the board of health and neither of them have been are very complete. So, so I guess Lynon is your group, you as the leader here is going to have to give some marching orders to your your
team and let's let's get this thing scheduled and and done. So what needs to be scheduled is a title five test with the board of health with one of you. >> Yes. >> Um so I go through Colleen for that
>> you can do you can do that. Yeah. >> And um how quickly can we get this done? >> Yeah. Actually, it we'll have to see who's available, whether Bill's available or lead's available, whether both both are going to go that we were
trying to get it done in the last weeks that that didn't get done. Um, so we'll have to you have to see when when the engineers ready to go. We have to be sure that some place I saw that that the
the machine that was used to do the digging with a machine with a a wide a bucket not made for digging. We definitely would end up needing the right machine to do deep holes and and plan on on getting the well, we'll deal
with the engineer that's involved, but the the pump the tank has to be pumped out and people have to have a plan in place to figure out how they're going to go down and and look at it. We typically on a system, especially an old tank like that, dig around, look at the inlet and
the outlet of the tank, find out what whether the tank's corroded. It's it's really a a look to see what's there and especially when you look at something that's that's 70 80 years old that there's there's reasonable
people would say that stuff could be shaky. >> Um Charlie, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have our DPW do the digging for you? >> Yes, DPW was the excavator. >> So we could still use DPW. Yes.
>> Yeah. They just had to put the the tooth bucket on instead of the grading bucket. >> They just happen to have the grading bucket on the excavator, >> which we got down. We were starting to hit ledge. Um obviously we're digging until we could get to ledge on a lot of our test holes. They probably could have
gotten a little further with some teeth on. Um but it was far enough uh for what we were doing, so we had them stop. >> Okay, that's good information. Thank you. Okay. So, the next the next issue that
that I guess that that we had I I don't know. We talked about the well is do we is there a report that's going to be around Lyn for the the well that what the water quality is, what the well construction is. Well,
>> I know you were talking about getting it >> reertified as a public water supply. Yes, we're in the the midst of doing that. We have um McCclair Engineering signed on to do the well testing. Um we are waiting for them
to give us a date. They have submitted permits with the DP, but that could take up to 76 days. So, we are in the middle of getting that accomplished. Um and once we find out what's going on with the well, and if we and we can reactivate it, we'll certainly share
that information with you. >> Yeah. One of the things that I don't know what they're doing. One of the things on on a well like that would be is is for a well company to be involved, a driller to to say, "Okay, we've inspected it. We've made sure that the
the seal of the well is adequate, that the that that casing goes down into the bedrock." We don't we don't know anything about that. So the so along with with the regulatory stuff of saying you know we want the the well to be a
public water supply somebody really also needs to say is the is the well even constructed right we don't know that the >> well I know the D has >> I'm guessing D if D uh water supply is being involved on this project I'm sure
they'll mandate that but we'll keep an eye on it. Yeah, because they're they are the ones that that regulate the public water supply. >> Oh, yes. >> And the testing of >> we end up getting we we get reports, but they're the ones that typically would go
and and require a higher actually a higher level of inspection. >> Well, I know that everything they asked us to do, we have done so far. I believe I sent you um the consent order that that they what they are requiring us to
do now to reactivate that public water supply. >> So, >> okay. >> So, you're working on that? >> Yes. >> As as we said, we typically it's not the board of health that usually does that. So, so you're going the right route to
do that. The other I think the other questions we had are involve the ventilation. >> Yes sir. Mike Banchini. I'm with Robert Hall Engineers. I uh responsible for the HVAC design. >> Okay. So the my my questions like I
guess were around uh makeup air and air quality air changes and just making sure that that having gone through it with the with the two schools and and COVID
uh recognize that that uh it paying attention to details to that is is really really important. important and and what we found in the schools is that the that the
engineering of the system, the engineers that did the engineering weren't weren't skilled and and actually air fre. were they were
the guys that can do the the nuts and bolts and and make sure the bands are the right size and the ducks are the right size. So, we just want to make sure that that's handled right. >> Well, uh so I've done quite a bit of work in the town of Graanby. Are you referring to the newer elementary school
to the junior senior high school? Uh I recently was involved with the kitchen project over at junior senior and uh done some review of the HVAC systems there. Now those systems are u antiquated. Um they have several deficiencies being the junior senior
high school. This is uh they have several deficiencies with the unit ventilators themselves at the time. The pump systems for the boilers uh were being basically duct taped together. Uh those have since been replaced. But uh in short you are correct that the junior
senior high school has several deficiencies when it comes to adequate ventilation. I know much less about the elementary school. >> Yeah, the elementary school was a traditional energy management
design. So it there not a lot of outside air uh brought in. Uh it ends up that as we tried to pick up the air flow the the air changes of fresh air but the the obvious place you run into is that the
the heat capacity isn't there to heat it up when when it's cold. So So that they're not that they weren't designed with with air-to-air heat exchangers. to to have lots of air and and good energy
management. So So uh we just just want to make sure that that that we pay attention to that and >> I appreciate that. Um the the approach that we've taken is uh we've t we've provided uh what is code compliant
ventilation. We've followed the standards of the 2021 international mechanical code. We do have the air-to-air recovery uh systems that you're referring to and uh we have followed the guidelines that Ashray has
provided um which yes it is MV 13 um in terms of the filtration but that is the requirement to get you to an effective air change per hour um that is also consistent with what the CDC does in
terms of um healthc care facilities. So, one of the other types of work that we do is um uh outpatient facilities, mental health facilities, these types of things. DPH uh and the CDC have guidelines
surrounding those. And in terms of effective air changes per hour and adequate ventilation, their requirements are also to a MUV 13 condition. >> Mike, Mike, I got a question for Mike. Mike, >> yes, sir. Tell tell me about bumping it
up to MURF 14. What obstacles would be involved there? >> Well, in this case, MUV 13 with the type of system we have is the maximum we could get to. Um, in terms of I I'm actually not aware of a MUR 13 fil MV 14 filter rather. Believe the next would be
17. Um, having said that would be having to customize filter boxes. >> 14, 15s and 16s. >> Yeah. Yeah. There's no 17 or 14, 15, and 16. 16 is surgical. >> Let me check myself here.
>> Operating room. >> Your your data that you've supplied us shows that too. But but in terms of of the two things, the actual outside air changes outside air air changes. What are you looking for at the at the time
for for COVID? We were looking for six to six six times an hour of fresh air and and the the other is I I didn't see any place in the system that that was
talking about level of humidification that you're dealing with. >> Uh the easy portion of the conversation is dehumidification. The systems that we are installing inherently uh dehumidify the system down between 40 and 60
>> humidification. >> Yeah. >> Um in this case, no, we do not have any direct means of humidification. No. >> Yeah. So that's that's a from a health standpoint that's that's a serious omission.
>> Uh typical design for an office building would not contain any form of direct humidification. Even under winter conditions, you're still talking about 30 35% outside with the latent gain you'd have internal to the building in an office situation is still going to land you at the lower threshold.
>> 30 to 35% humidity in a >> airframe on outside is is when you bring it up to to 70 degrees inside, it's about 2%. So So just the 2% RH. Uh, I'd have to
take my sight tell to tell you for sure what it is, but but uh >> you you're correct. You're at the lower thresholds. >> You're none is what it is. It's a static problem. It's a disease problem. It's a it's a a thing that humidification
belongs to in the system. So, so we ought to be looking and talking about why it's for instance, would you be I know this isn't a hospital, but I'm going to guess you
wouldn't even be talking about a hospital system without humidification. >> Likely not. >> That's right. Like you say, Dick, humidifica, the humidity is a function of temperature. So you need the psychrometric chart to even discuss
this. You're absolutely right. >> So So you have to be careful when you throw around, you know, if you want to talk about absolute humidification, that's fine. But if when you start moving around with RH's and moving
temperature around, you know, it's not a meaningful unless you're moving around on a site chart and you you look at absolute moisture and you can see what's going on. But but uh you don't you don't
play it that way. So, we've got that and we still haven't talked about the code that is my reading of the code says that they're shooting for four air changes an hour of outside air, not equivalent
filtered air, outside fresh air. And so, we this isn't the time, this isn't a technical time to be discussing this. It's something that belongs on our list. It doesn't it doesn't get in the way of of moving the project forward. It
just says that it's on the list that the board of health is very concerned with. It is absolutely crazy to have Lynn and her team sitting here listening to us talk about RH and psycharts and and it's
it's not the fun thing to do. Lynn can absolutely bury me in her law books. She can kill me. I cannot understand anything she's talking about. And it's not fair for us to do the same thing to
her with the things that she shouldn't know anything about. And that's and uh so what what this is is it's a I think it's it's just like the the skeptic is a thing to say let's get it on our list.
Let's talk about it offline. Let's see if we can, you know, do engineer to engineer, come up with some things, find out where we're together, find out where we're apart, and then say, "Here's the things we have to resolve. We may not be far apart at all."
>> I'm fine to do that with you. It's it's just a a thing that that we we were concerned with energy use, but it it looked like Tom Quinnland is saying that that he's
going to grab that and and uh whether you know our our board from a philosophical standpoint is saying that for the good of our town, our town's people, the world, we should be looking
at things that that are doing green kind of energy stuff. You look at what the what the library does. Look at what the the safety complex does is solar. You geothermal you something that
says let's let's not just go out and burn some more fossil fuel and and you know pollute our town. That this is the time we're going to spend some money. let's spend some money in a way that we do look at public health in terms of our
close little community in our world. >> I if I can speak to that a little bit because uh you know I've been in the business now for about 20 years. I was you know deep into the COVID concern when it first came out and I looked at several options uh surrounding
mitigation either elimination, dilution, what have you. I looked at all sorts of different options. Um we looked at it from a hepoiltration standpoint. you know, forget MV 134. We looked at it strictly from a HEPA standpoint and the virus itself is smaller than a HEP
filter is actually capable of. So, in my opinion, any level of increased uh filtration non-starter in that respect. Um, we then looked at infrared. I can't let I I can't let you just go beyond that, Mike, because because you know or
what it we find out is that the virus in fact, you're right, the filters don't do that. >> But those viruses on this particular case were sitting on small droplets of liquid >> and the droplets of liquid were plenty
big to get caught on a HEPA filter. So they >> to a certain to a certain percentage to a certain percentage. >> So anyway, we couldn't do that. We shouldn't do that right now. What we should be doing
>> Yeah, we're getting too detailed. We're getting too detailed. >> We're This is not a design review. It's just something that that says the the three items again that that I don't I don't know what group
is is in charge of the the energy systems and it's it's definitely the board of health saying we're we're concerned if it's not and I just call it a green
system. Lynn and her team may end up saying, "We just can't do it. We can't afford it. We This is not one of the things as good a is this I think from the the three members of the board of
health. I I'm guessing that's that's not a show stopper that the the kind of damage that gets done from not dealing with it is longer term. It's a It's certainly a little project like this
isn't going to make the polar bear bears live any longer on the in the Arctic. It's not going to happen. So, I that this isn't a it's not a battle to fight. It's one that says if if you're going to be
spending some money to spend it smart. But the the other two things, the septic system and the and the ventilation, those are things that have immediate impacts on on people's health. And the
board is is going to say that they have to be dealt with. And so though so the the plan would be how do we how do we go about it? We talked talked with Charlie about his part. If we looked at at the
HVAC, how do we do you just get something to the board so we can review it and say, "Gee, we got these questions." Is that already have you can think about? very already saying that that the
not dealing with humidification is certainly is a real nuisance for anybody in the airspace because they can't even pull pieces of paper apart without snapping with electricity and people getting shocks moving around the the
offices. There's carpets and it it just that's a a nasty part. But the fact that that bugs love the air that doesn't have any water in it. And uh so so that part you can look and say, "Gee, these guys
are are saying we need some water." So you can look at that and then send us the other stuff to review. We can we can try to review that quickly. the the septic thing we ought to do because it's going to get cold and we ought to to find define what we're up to and and get
that stuff headed. But if if you're buying equipment to be putting on the roof, then we definitely shouldn't do that until we're on board. So, to circle back and reiterate in terms of what you're looking for, Rich.
Um, essentially, we're going to work with you to get the Title 5 scheduled. We'll get some kind of documentation and whether that needs to be an offline meeting following on ventilation.
And then just to speak briefly on energy systems. I know we're moving towards all equipment is being fully electrified. So we aren't using fossil fuels on the site other than the legacy of the old boilers which are remaining only for the
unoccupied portion. Um which we can't deal with at this point. We're really just focused on the portion that we are going to occupy. And in doing that, we have added insulation and are updating the um windows in that area of the area
of renovation so that we can make that far tighter than it currently is. >> There's a point of of reference, have you done the the door fan work to see how how loose this building is? Has has
anybody gone through and say, "Wow, we got lots of ceiling to do here." Or has that work been done? >> No, not currently. >> So that's >> and currently for for this scope of work
we're under right now, and I have reviewed this with Tom Quinnland, sat through and went through the design with him. for the level of work we're doing today and based on us only doing the one wing, it's not required at this point.
I can tell you if you are when a thing you go I guess it's if the team says go ahead and do it but it's it's it's just not the smart thing to be doing when you're starting to rip walls
down and put to be not looking at holes in buildings is just crazy >> to be at least go into a job like this and not even look at how open your construction construction. It's just it's just insane. And then for energy,
you've all the stuff that all the wind that's blowing through. Yeah, we're looking for fresh air changes, but controls, it's just it's just you want to do it in your house. That's for sure. That the code wouldn't let you do it. And just because we can get away with
it, that that isn't what should be done here. and and essentially within the wing we're renovating it's addressed the issue is more the unoccupied zone which is the more than half of the
building >> but unless I'm incorrect in what I heard you say I thought I heard you say that you didn't do the testing to see how open
the structure is in the wing that you're working on because the code didn't require you to do it. That's what I thought you said. >> Yes. And and essentially what we are working under right now, which the code does allow, is to use prescriptive
methods for the detailing we're doing for all new assemblies going in and how we're closing up the walls. This is Lynn from a standpoint of of us. I I don't know how to I don't know how to deal
with that. That that's that's such a >> I offer a a different perspective. We we brought a comprehensive renovation project to the town >> at a at a significantly higher price point
>> and it was defeated soundly. We we do not have the budget, the time or the resources to solve all of the envelope problems that exist in that building. We put that on the table. The
town overwhelmingly said no and redirected our task to address only the spaces that we were renovating in the building. And we are extremely stretched with the current budget that we have to
meet that objective. And I I fully appreciate, support, and agree with you 100%. But unfortunately, this job does not have the budget to even investigate the rest of the building
to the level that you've requested. >> My guess is that if you stood up in front of town meeting and said, "This is what we're going to do." >> No, respectfully. Respectfully, Richard, we did that twice. >> No, I'm not saying that.
>> And we got blown up both times. But you would get blown up really badly if you got up and say, you know what, this part of the project is going to be bad, but we're doing it anyways. That people would say, don't do a bad project. That
so that when you when you go and do something like this that that to say, gee, we're we're $100,000 short, or we're something. and to get someone to say it's better not to do it.
If if you're gonna do it wrong, don't do it. But if it says you we're 10% short to do it right, then to get a bunch of people to say, "Let's we we just felt a teeny teeny bit short, but we don't want
to go forward." But to to go and say we're going to do this to do something that's really awful like this is something that if if we don't have the right forces to to bring this home then then let's get the right forces to
bring it home. If it's if it's a project is going to be a lousy project we shouldn't do a lousy project. You you shouldn't we shouldn't be in a spot. You guys shouldn't be in a spot that that says, "Oh, the devil made me
do it. The data makers did do it." >> I got a question. I think their intent is to isolate the unused portion of the building from the new proposed renovated part of the building. Is that not true, Neil? >> That's what they should be doing that.
But but >> they are doing that build. But it's the point is >> that there's they're not going to look at the spot that they're they're working on and saying, "Let's fix that one up and not let the wind blow through it."
And and because we we can't afford to do it and that on that section. >> No, no, no, no, no, Richard. That's not what I'm saying. We're we are working within the wing of the building that we are renovating only.
what you asked for or my understanding of what you requested was that we be looking at the building in totality and addressing any issues that remain outside of the space that we're renovating. And I'm just trying to be clear with the board of health. We do
not have the resources to do that available to us. >> I understand that I think there's a disconnect. I think we're working on the north. Let's call it the north wing. The north wing and what is it 10,000 square feet, Neil? Roughly >> correct. >> Okay, that's what we're working on,
Dick. The 10,000 square foot north wing. >> And I purposely I purposely rephrase what I thought Tim says and I'm going to say it again. And let's make sure that and for people to say, Dick, you're wrong.
What I heard Tim, what I thought I heard Tim say is that we are not going to on the section that we are rebuilding.
We are not going to do the air testing, the the leakage testing and define the amount of paracity in that building, that section of the building, because we do not have the funds to do that. And
we're going to do what we have to do on the new stuff that we buy to make the new stuff meet coat. But again, we're not going to quantify
or control the paracity of the existing structure that we're going to rebuild the existing structure that we're going to rebuild because we don't have the funds. That's what I thought Tim said
and Tim said yes. So essentially and this is one of the things that we need to work through in our testing with our uh in terms of because it's not something that we have tested at this point
but certainly can be and we can have it be part of the testing when our systems go in and as our systems go in because >> Tim are you using the IEBC BC for this
project. Okay. >> IBC 2021. >> Okay. What level renovation is this in your opinion? >> This is a change of use which essentially puts it into an alteration level three. Oh, >> it's okay. Level three. And you're using
prescriptive rather than performance-based methods. >> Correct. >> Okay. Yeah. That's the international existing building code, Dick, which is allows some leniency on on retrofitted projects. >> Understand that. That's what I'm talking
about. That that the time that you the time that you determine the scope of your work is not when you're putting it in. It's that you do that at the beginning of the project to determine what needs to be the scope of the work. And that's the part that we're not
doing. That's the part that says let's see how bad this structure is before we start working on it. And it could be that it's not bad. It could be that it is bad. But it's not looking at it says again when you have a
70 or 80 year old building and not looking at it as a start is just not the way to do it to say we can get away with this. And especially especially when you look at it and say, "How do we get away
with it?" Because you got this monster building and you're doing a little part of it. So this becomes a instead of being this our our own big project in a little spot, it says, "Oh, this is a little a little change to this big structure." So you can get away with all
sorts of stuff. But that's not the way we should do it. >> I I don't think we're trying to get away with anything. I No, I understand when I'm trying. >> Yeah. Okay. But we're trying to or we will end up with a building that is safe
that is um renovated in a way that Graanby will be proud. But we were constrained and we are constrained by the budget. And we did go we went before the town twice and and said we can make this wonderful project,
but we need this much more money. And twice the town said no and then said go back and do what you can with with the $5 million. So we're constrained to what the town wants us to do. We would love to make it, you know, all rainbows and
and, you know, >> the the one thing I would interject in here is just the fact that in in the sense of what will remain in that envelope, which is really what we're talking about here is the roof was
replaced 10 years ago essentially. So that should be in terms of a material and the seal on it um concurrent with essentially yes it's maybe one code behind but it's generally
going to um be far tighter than anything that was there previously. Um it is in good shape um in good condition. Um no current leaks through there. We are pulling out as abatement and removing
all of the existing doors, all of the existing windows inclusive of their frames. We are pulling out all of the unit ventilators that go through the uh wall and then infilling those openings to meet current code. So what will be
there at the end of the product project? because we're essentially replacing at that point I would say at minimum 75% of that wall that currently exists is going
to be far and above tighter than what you have today and those elements which are going in will meet code. Now to that end, the one piece that will remain is the brick surround essentially of those
windows. And that's really to your point, Dick, that's really just where that's the weak point if anything. Um, and we'll do what we can. Obviously, as part of this, we also have um brick repair and repointing in no areas of
known damage. section of the walls to the roof. >> So that we are also replacing as part of this as well, but we will be uh rebuilding the sophet as part of this work and insulating through that entire
zone which is currently not. So we are going to be creating that connection >> without doing the testing. You are addressing the places where you would get infiltration. >> Correct. That's fine. I can I can I can deal with
that as as essentially going after the the main the main critters that would be >> like you said, >> it doesn't make sense to do a blower door test now because it clearly performed poorly. So, let's do the
renovations and then we'll tighten it up and assess it as construction proceeds. That's all. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And as far as the budgeting, is it possible for you to move items around? That is take some money from the lighting budget and al reallocate it
toward the HVAC budget. I'm sure you guys can come up with a game plan to reallocate funds. >> Unfortunately, Bill, the project, the project was bid. We received general bids from the contractor today. And at
this point, we could make changes, but it would be through a change order process as opposed to a full um preconstruction design change. >> Like you say, Dick, too bad we didn't have this meeting six months ago.
>> Regardless, we have to Is this We should be open with each other. Are you guys you guys have control of the the budget, you have control of the spending.
Are you just going to say this is a we're here with the board of health because we have to be with the board of health and it doesn't matter what anybody says. We're we're cutting these contracts. as you just said, Neil,
that that you've got the bid, you're going, and what is is and it doesn't matter. If that's the case, then then we ought to all just stop this thing and
do the battle as the battle comes and just move into the win lose or lose lose, wherever it slides, and just do it. and and because it's not if we're already at a time that the committee is
is going >> Jim Franky here I'm on the committee with the with the west group >> that's not a fair statement >> that's a question statement but nonetheless let me make let me
>> let me let me and then >> you you didn't hear my >> there wasn't a question My question is, is is this project at the point that regardless of what the board of health is saying right now, the project is moving forward the way it's
moving forward? That's what I'd like to know. >> The project is moving forward the way it is moving forward. It's dictated by building code, state building code. We're also a a um a a a town that's
that's committed to energy. >> Willy simple question, Jim. And when the question is >> I just answered it. >> No, you didn't. The answer is, is anything going to change right now as a
result of what the board of health says or is the project at the point that you're ready to let a contract go and it's going to get started on? That's what I want to know. >> I don't know if we can answer that
question because the board of health is involved in the board of health issues. building code dictates other code requirements that goes beyond local jurisdiction. We're we're we're
required to to build and remodel according to the state building code. >> No, Jim, that's not the health that's a minimum. >> That's a minimum. >> No, it's not. No, it's not. That's not a minimum. >> It's not a maximum. It is not a maximum.
state building code is a minimum standard. It >> It's a standard that's required, but we are a town that's >> minimum standard. >> It's not a max. It is not what's required. It's a minimum of the answer.
Lynn, you can just tell me. Are you guys ready to to the septic system? You're probably going to get stuck with what the board of health forces you to do whether you like it or not. The ventilation and stuff. I'm guessing from
this conversation is ready to go and it's going to go and you guys are going to do what you want and that's what's or what you think is right whatever it is but you're going to do it's it's done you're ready to as Neil said the bids are in and you're ready to spend money
and you're going to spend it and and uh when it happens just when it happens is that what happens with people is if someone gets if someone listens to this conversation
on the on the television, someone's going to say, "Gee, that's what happened. The board of health said that." And and and we got where we got. We bypassed the
whatever procedure that should have been used, didn't get done, and we are where we are. But it's a waste of everybody's time. It's a waste of my time to be reviewing stuff that's that's that's not going to get changed. And if the issue is that the septic
system is going to have to make the meet the code, then we're going to be in a spot that you have to do it. Period. It's not it's not going to be a thing that that that the board of health is going to be saying this is what the the codes and it'll be our turn to say
that's what the codes are and and we'll find out that the the engineers will say well that's not what the code said. Well, the code actually comes out saying at the bottom of it, it says regardless of all the testing and everything else,
the board of health shall determine what needs to get done and get replaced. And that's what the state law says, and that's what we'll do. >> I mean, we did get the bids in. Yes. However, I we do want to work with the
board of health to to create a building that you guys would be happy with and whatever your requirements are, we're trying to work with you. Unfortunately, this just started in the last couple weeks. Um, so
it went we went further than we should have gone without any board of health input, but we're listening now and I'm sure that we're going to try to accommodate um what we can accommodate at this point. Is that fair to say, Neil?
>> Absolutely. to the extent that it doesn't affect budget which is already challenged and timing we'll we'll absolutely work with them >> no doubt >> I I'm a project for 50 years I manage projects I know exactly what you're
saying and I know what it means what it means is when this stuff gets the contract gets done and you say gee that's not the the air handling unit that's over one of these things that the board said should have been done you say, "Gee, that can't be done. It's already purchased. We can't do that.
It's going to double the price because we can't use what we have." And when you say, "Gee, the system wasn't designed to add humidification." And you say, "Oh, that's a bad thing. We already own that and it's just been put in. Can't get changed." I understand that. I did that for a living. I understand it really,
really well. My guess is probably as well as anybody here. So, I I know where we are. But the the point is that the the only way you you got two ways to do this is to say we're going to stop and we're
going to try to make this right or we're going forward and we're going to deal with this the with the septic system is where the board of health is going to get involved because there's no way you're going to avoid that. And whatever happens happens. And if this means a building can't get used, it means it
can't get used if you can't afford it. But that's that's what that's going to be the bottom line. >> Well, that's not our that's not our committee's choice. That would be the select board's choice because we are an arm of the select board. So, I can bring
them this conversation, but they're ultimately the ones that are going to tell us to go ahead because we're under time constraints and budget constraints. Um, as far as I'm concerned, I want to work with the board of health, but I I I can't say yes or
no. That's not my decision. That would be a decision of the select board. >> I understand. I'm just saying that that that we shouldn't we shouldn't put your engineers through this and spend money on this. We
shouldn't spend the board of health time on this. It should be something that says you're they're whatever you're the group that you're dealing with that's saying setting direction, let them set the direction. But I'm just saying that from and I'm just saying I'm doing most
of the talking right now, which is not the right thing to do from the the board standpoint. It's the three of us, but but I know the three of us enough to be saying we're not going to let a system
go in, a septic system go in that is going to hurt the town's people. And it won't be the people that live in the the building. It'll be the rest of the town's people. But we're not going to let that happen. So, so just know that that's >> I don't think anybody's asking for that.
>> That's But again, that's what we're saying from the board of health. The minimum that the board of health can do. We can give our opinions and be strong about saying we think this is not going to be safe for the the people in in the
town and people that work there. But but but we all know that what happens with win lose when we go into that win lose only exists for a very short time.
it finally always goes to lose loose. So at time the time will be when something goes wrong and somebody gets sick and someone says the board said don't do this. It's a really bad move. We
shouldn't move forward here. There's been a mistake that's been made and rather than accept the mistake and stop. we're going forward to say, well, we don't have the money or we chose to spend the money this way. As Bill says, we we chose to buy lights instead of
buying ventilation or whatever. Then and you say, well, we didn't have time, you know, we skipped this step, but we didn't have time to do the right thing, so we did the wrong thing. >> If I can interject, Dick, just to circle back to where we were before,
>> we we want to work with you. We want to do everything we can to integrate what we can and as much as we can. So to go back to where we were in terms of kind of what our next steps are,
we're going to reach out. We're going to work on scheduling title five with you and we're also going to send you data on the ventilation and we can set up a sub a subsequent sidebar on that as needed
to review that and see what we can do. >> When is the contract being left for the ventilation system? >> Nothing has been awarded yet. >> I didn't ask that. I said when is it going to be? Wh what's the question specifically?
>> When will the ventilation system >> contract be left? >> You mean in terms of the documentation or the >> the the town >> the town Richard I'll try to answer your question. The town I believe has 90 days
to evaluate the bids and make an award. >> Okay. So that's 90 days from You said it just came in. So today Yeah. 90 days from today. >> Bids were received today at 2 o'clock. >> Okay. So that was the answer to my question. >> Yeah. Sorry, I didn't understand your question. >> No, that's okay. That's okay. That it
was the answer. So So what we've got to to look at is get it out to us. Let's see if Let's review it. It isn't a feta compon right at this instance. There's still room to if we say it's,
you know, it's it's something and it's and it could in fact be that if the board of health feels so strongly about it, then maybe you throw it back at the board of health, Lynn, and say, "Hey, if you guys think this is such a big deal and and we tell you it's going to be a
quarter of a million dollars, you guys go to a town meeting and get our money. We'll do that. That's the that that would be a fair thing for for you to if that's what it comes out. So So it is worthwhile. It is worthwhile to move forward with both of these project. The
septic system we have to move forward. That that has to be >> great. >> But this one then it is worthwhile for you to get us the the ventilation system information and and let let us review it and see if we think gee we feel strongly
it should be. Maybe we don't. Maybe we say, you know, that's great. Let's keep going. No need. So, so and then we got we've got obviously it's it's not the whole 90 days to to do something about it. There's a better if
we've got concerns that we better have something moving pretty fast in in 30 days. So, it's not 90 days for sure. >> Richard, I'd like to wrap it up in seven days if we can. >> I'm out. Well, I'm gonna be sitting on
the beach in seven days. >> So, >> so anyway, then we've we've moved forward and uh Lee and Bill, what are you what are we thinking? >> Well, I guess the next step
>> Well, Go ahead, Lee. Go ahead. No, the the very next step is to uh see how quickly we can get the title five done. And I'm guessing Bill and I will be on site um for that. And that can happen as
quick as the town can get it together and we could do it tomorrow morning if if we knew about it, but it it'll happen quick. >> And then >> be careful. I won't I won't >> be here, Lee, but if be really really
careful if you if you do that >> because you're you are going to be right on the edge of a a an open meeting law violation with the the two of you there. When you start looking in the hole, you have to be
really careful coming to decisions while you're there because observe. We can observe. That's all you can do. You can't even you it's you know if you if you have something that you want to talk about then you really ought to know one
of you leave and let let the other guy talk about what's what's going on what you see what you think because I'm I'm guessing you probably you might have decisions that you're making there and you definitely will be open meeting law violation.
>> Yeah. But >> so be careful of >> we won't make any decisions in the field. We won't deliberate in the field. We will just observe and that is permitted. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Observe and and some note takingaking and then Right. But point
well taken >> I can work with Charlie and Tim and DPW to get a date. I imagine sometime next week. Sure. Uh just uh uh please uh uh uh no
Monday. >> All right. >> My email should be should be working and I actually can spend a little time while I'm there reviewing the GHVAC. I can do that.
But I won't guarantee how much I'm going to do it, but I I will do it. Our ne our next meeting is is the 16th. Well, listen, I think I think we've all
agreed to work together on this, and I trust we will, and I trust we'll get this done. And uh again, Lee and myself and Dick were all always available to communicate with. And let's let's work together and
do the best we can with what we have. So, >> all right. >> Just a word of caution for us as a as a board and and how we're going to manage this thing. We will have used up the the
30 days. Our next meeting will have used up 30 of those 90 days. So, so we have to be really careful. You know, it's possible that that when I
get back, maybe we're going to have to call another meeting before the 16th. Mhm. >> So we can we can talk about this or else or else have individual,
you know, talk back to to Tim or or whatever and and uh do do talking without having decision making from the board, but at least you know kind of move it forward. But we need to manage that time. But one one
thing I do recommend is that the design folks, all the engineers and architects on board, please share everything you can with us as soon as you can. Go through Colleen. She can distribute it to the board members. At least that way we'll have a uh we'll be up to date as
to the latest uh issues. Okay. >> Okay, everybody. >> Okay. >> Thank you. We we will. >> Okay, folks. >> I >> appreciate you guys coming up here tonight and talking to us. >> No, thank you. We want We want to make sure that we're doing this right and we
want to make sure you're involved. >> We will. I know we will get through this. >> We'll get through it. >> Well, thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, L. >> Good night, everybody. >> All the best. Okay. Bye now. >> Thank you. Jolie and
>> and Bill and Colleen. What else do we Colleen, you're the one that usually keeps us on track. What have we what have we not done tonight? >> No, I think we've done Well, we've done everything on our on our agenda. So, >> it's not even nine o'clock, Dick. So, it
worked out pretty well timewise. >> Yeah, >> I agree. Yeah, >> I'm exhausted. >> Okay. I just >> Yeah, I just did it. >> Yeah, it's it's going to be
I think it's going to be hard to to impact this and uh I don't know how we're going to do it. We we could end up we could end up having to try to go to town meeting
but but but still someone needs to as you said Bill if you've got you've got an overall budget before you go and ask for more money you have to at least have gone through and say well can can you reduce
the one expense in terms of another they the the answer can't be oh We've got a we or shouldn't be. We've got a went out for quotes and now everything's got to change so we can't change
anything. Then if that's the case then then we're going to be >> I was surprised to hear that the bids came in today of all day. So it mean what we don't know is is where
the bids came compared to the project budget. We we don't know whether >> Yeah. >> Whether you if you look at that library up in Ammerst, I think they bid that job out about four or five times. So it wouldn't be unusual to bid this out two or three times.
>> That's That's true. That's true. And and especially what what happens is on and Ammerst they ended up getting the bid and say well we've got to change the project because of the bid. >> That's right.
>> You know so so you you just look and figure out what what has to be done. >> Right. But I I've got a feeling I've got a feeling that that
everybody's looking at that that seven well only part of the system is the septic system is 70 years old. Some of it is is 90 years old. And to to think that they've got a septic tank in the ground there that's
that's a structurally sound 90 year old concrete box is pro it probably wasn't structurally sound when they put it in. >> You know the thing that's going to be Lee when we go out there and look at that we got to check that to see if that's an art cement tank. That may be
an art cement tank tank. >> Well that's what I think. I'm I'm thinking that that wasn't a cast inplace tank that it was pieces laid together and it it's probably sitting on rock. So part of you know when he says, "Oh, the water level's up in the right place of
the tank." It's probably because the water level in the in that little basin that it is is probably up to the top of the tank. So the reason it's not leaking out is because that it's sitting in the water. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. Hopefully not, but that's very possible.
Well, the reason they didn't put the new leech field, there was a leech field there. And the reason even in 72 that they didn't put the leech field back in the same spot it is is because the soil was no good. And what Franny Dit told me it was it
was sitting on rock. And so and then looking up if you look at their the little drawing that they've shown for the the leech field I'm guessing the leechfield is on rock >> and that they and this isn't a thing of
g does it clear by 18 in and the fact that that they claimed that the debox is a thousandgalon tank you say who would who did that and and they've got radial spokes coming out for for the the the
lines. I'm guessing they're not they are lines, but I'm guessing it's a bed. The >> Is it Is there a full basement in that that building or or just a frost wall? >> I No, I as I recall there's a crawl
space under part of it and that the place that's got the basement is where the boilers are. as as I as I recall, >> you would walk down you'd go past what's now the the the
cafeteria and then you hit what used to be the the entrance. The the principal's office is kind of in the middle there. It's it's at the beginning of that that spur that goes to the north and and that
that little corner is is uh I think I think that's all a slab in there or at most a a crawl space but I think it's a slab but as you go as you
go down that go to the north on the on the west side it drops down and That's the boiler like halfway down there on that left side and that's that's dropped down. But but then if if you go come
back out to the main entrance where the principal's office and you head to the east on that side there's I think the first the first room was a little library and then there was the nurse's the nurse's room was the next one and
that kind of backed into the back of the principal's office and then that there was a teacher's room there and then you went through some doors and you were in the old the oldest part and the oldest part went down at
that point. There are stairs that go down and stairs that go up. That so that that the uh that 198 at the 20 Yeah. Yeah. 1970, no 1950
edition was at like an halfway spot between the the original the original old school main floor and the kind of the basement was the old school. >> Now, when was the first was it
originally built in the 30s or 40s? >> No. Well, when when I think back the one that's in the the let's say the 50 one, the one they're talking about now,
>> that that building was a lot newer, a lot lot newer than the old. >> So, if if you were to make me guess right now, I would guess that the the original building was 1920s. Oh, wow.
Wow. >> That's what I would guess. >> Wow. >> But I I can't I can't guess. And I I think so. I think you've got basically like 20s 50. So maybe 30. So maybe they're 20
years apart. Maybe it's maybe it's the a third 1930, 1950, and 1970. Maybe those are the >> okay the ages. >> Okay. Anyway, Lee, let me know. Let me know what you guys want me to do. I'd be
happy to help. Okay. >> No, I think that I just have >> You need a lot of digging. >> Yeah, it may be a uh maybe they'll start digging the afternoon before or something. Who knows? I would I would wonder whether the what
conditions the pumps are even in. But but I you'll see I guess that's I guess your your first thing is to figure out you know what condition everything's in especially the tank and then what kind of land you've got for the leeching.
>> Is there a plumbing plan done for the Is there an existing plumbing plan? I don't think so. >> I don't know. I haven't I haven't seen it. Somebody must have >> Hey, I'm wondering, Dick, if if they let out a a a contract for bidding, there must be a design set. Did you get the design set?
>> I've never I haven't seen anything. >> That's crazy. We didn't get the design set. >> I don't I haven't seen it. I I don't Who knows that, you know, they just assume that the plumbing I don't know what the
plumbing's like that on that place. There are, as I recall, it's hard for me to remember. I think there were two sets of toilets. I think there was a set of toilets by the principal's office and then there was
another set of toilets way at the at the northeast end of that wing. I think there was another set of toilets, but I don't know that. I can't, you know, it's a long time ago. A long time ago,
>> but I can see what they're trying to do on a fixed budget, but they're just going to have to reallocate some monies. And I I bet you they can do that. >> Yeah, >> they're clever. They they know how to reallocate monies. Anyway,
that I think we'll see. I my guess is that the septic system is going to be the whole thing is going to be no good. You know, maybe the line going out to the out to the back, but it could, for all I know, it's it's Orangeberg.
>> Well, it's either going to be Transite or Orangeberg or ored clay tiles or something. If it's if it's transite, if you if you look at at what the uh the condos did up by the notch, that
transite ended up being all of the transite was no good. Everything above the water level any place was the the transite end up puffing up to about three times the thickness of the original transite. >> Oh. Oh. So you could end up you could
end up with if this is transite pipe going out to the to the leech field even that could be no good. >> Yeah. In the 70s it's probably >> was used to carry water. I think if it has water in it all the time it's okay. >> Yeah. What this was the spot that went
bad was where you could see the the bottom where the water flowed on the bottom of the pipe. It was Knight's original transite, then everything up above it where the gases hit it was all no good. >> I see. Okay. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Okay. So, if we're done then >> Okay, folks. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Have a good night. >> Have a great trip. I'll talk to you. >> Have a good day. Bye. Bye. Good night. Good night. >> Thank you.