[music] Um, I'd like to make a motion to open the Halifax um board of health meeting on Wednesday, May 6, 2026 at 6:31 p.m. So move.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Um, in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 30A section 20B, this meeting is being recorded by area 58 community access channel and can be viewed on YouTube.
Uh, we can reasonably anticipate the following matters will be discussed and/or voted on at this meeting. Agenda items may be taken out of order for time management considerations. And so um in regards to time management
considerations, we are going to start with the discussion items. Um we're going to start with Marilyn's Landon. Um we do have um on Zoom with us is David Murphy um from is it Tyion Bond? Um,
so we recently received their review of the soil reuse management plan and conceptual corrective action design for Maryland's landing um, commercial reuse area.
There are copies of their review that can be found on the table over there if you um, have not grabbed one for yourself already. Um there's also it can also be found on the town website and
the board of health um page as well. Um okay. So with that said um I don't know Bob if you want to share a few words on the >> Yeah. So I I've uh I've taken my time
and uh reviewed uh David Murphy's document. pretty indepth and uh I I concur with uh his findings and uh
I think that this document is is helpful for for presenting the facts. Excuse me, sir. >> I think that this document is helpful for anyone who wants to have a fact-based conversation on the situation. Yeah, it will be posted. It
is posted already on the town of Halifax website uh at the Halifax Board of Health's um I can't that the link for it actually is over on that table over there if anyone wants to see the link. But again, I I think it's important for anyone that
wants to have a factbased conversation on what is there, what it means, what the definitions are, what the policies are. This is a very valuable document to guide that conversation.
>> I'm not sure should we share just the executive summary at the end piece. Do you want me to? Yes. So that would be page six. >> Yep. >> Executive summary, which I guess kind of sums it all up.
I flip to page six. It uh says based on our review of the SRMP and understanding of mass DP's soil policies, Tai Bond believes that these proposed less than RCS2 soils are appropriate for use as
grading and shaping materials for the corrective action and that they do not pose a threat to human health and the environment. We further believe that the proposed final contours are appropriate and consistent with similar projects at other landfills and mass D requirements.
Um and again uh as the health agent I I do concur with this document. Uh David Murphy is here also. Uh he has 40 years of experience in these matters uh with landfills. if anyone has any specific questions. Otherwise, again, I
I I think this is very valuable document to stick with the facts of things. >> Anyone do any questions here that possibly um we'll have we'll take one at a time. Um if you can come up to the
podium, state your name and your address. to 129 Street. But the first question, why was the public just told five minutes before meeting this document to even try to re review it? >> We just got the final version of it yesterday. >> Yeah, it's dated May 5th. So, we just
got >> We just got >> My question is I would think that we hold off on a vote tonight that the public can review this if they want to send any questions in. That would be the first thing. The second thing I thought I understood that they were supposed to review even from what you guys asked
the do they really need this amount of soil just to fix the cap not just for a postclosure going up to almost 180 ft. We were supposed to see if they only needed like 10 ft of soil just to fix the cap and not do a soil project. That doesn't look
like what this was done. >> So to I can speak to your second question. I do believe that was covered in the document question two. David, do you want to speak to that? The uh the height and the slope.
>> Sure. Um the the landfill as it stands right now has a synthetic cap with soil layers above that. There's been failure along that slip line adjacent to the synthetic. Uh there's
been clear evidence of differential settlement and again failing of the cap system as it relates to the layers. Um the storm water freeze system has clearly failed. Uh the cyclope swailes are no longer functioning. Therefore,
it's allowing the perk and storm water to perly the layers above the synthetic causing increase of patter pressure and the slippage of that sand drainage layer on top of the synthetic. Um, in order to correct that, um, the entire side slope
has to be stabilized. In order to stabilize that, we can we don't want to be removing the synthetic membrane. Um so in order to stabilize it above the synthetic membrane and avoid any future slippage on the synthetic there has to be a decent um amount of soil placed out
there to buttress the bottom of that site and cause global stability calculations to to make sure that that repair is proper. So although Taiwan did not do a detailed design analysis to determine the you know an exact amount
of soils um the department of environmental protection working in the southeast region you know will work with the applicant and its its its consultants to you know get closer to um you know exactly what is needed and what what I saw what we reviewed from that
conceptual plan appears to be appropriate and uh in accordance with other facilities that have done um cap repairs and corrective actions. So that's the that's the general overview of my response. >> So I just heard you correctly. You did not do a detailed investigation of the
design to determine if that was how much was needed. >> The detailed design has not been completed. So I can't do a detailed investigation. >> So that was one of the purpose that we asked for by having an independent review is to see if it really needed that much dirt. So that that wasn't
done. I I understood I some >> the other thing I would just like to add you mentioned the D through the D consent order this is right from CEC's report that only 0 to 10 ft was needed to fix the cap in addition to addressing
the landfill settlement in uh restoration of service grades was still a postclosure use such as a solar area that was being considered by BFI The approved permit application included the
acceptance of 70,000 cubic yards of soils to increase the existing grades from 0 to 10 ft to reestablish the final top and side slopes of less than 5% consistent with mass D solid waste requirements for landfill finer final
cover systems 310 CMR list of numbers BFI proposed to accept RCS2 and RCS2 so zone in accordance with the soil reuse management plan to repair the landfill final cover system as a date at the day of this letter. So they're saying 0 to
10 ft to fix the cover and then it goes on. It looks like any other additional dirt is just a basically a soil reuse plan to put dirt somewhere. >> I'm not familiar with the document you're quoting from.
>> Uh it's the postclosure use BFI Hellifax Marin Landing from CEC. >> Again, I'm not familiar with that document. We didn't review that document. I reviewed the conceptual plan that's provided to us that shows the grades um for this proposed closure.
>> So, it sounds like you just reviewed the giant plan of the big increase they want to do of the 180 foot, but didn't do like what we had asked the board of health to look at to see if that was really needed just to fix the cap. What was looked at was just their plan
to bring a giant mountain of soil in. >> The plan that I reviewed was a conceptual show slopes going up 158 and then increased 5% grade at the top
170 at the top. I never saw 188. Well, we heard 177 before, so rounding it to 183 feet. >> My generally 168, but I believe the top
the actual spline very very very last see is 168. >> Then I guess the other question I have right now, just only having a minute to look at this, >> is the dust report. It looks like you're referencing just a D report that they did in 2023 without actually doing any
new dust measurements because there were a bunch of questions in that report. I spoke to the EPA in uh region one in Boston. I also spoke to the research lab for the D up in Lawrence >> for the air quality division and they said the report that was done was not a
correct way to do a real conclusive dust study. They only used two monitors on one side of the dump where if you look at the wind data on the high winds wasn't even blowing to the monitors on those days and they only used the highest limit for
100 uh the 10 uh ppm which was 150 I forget the measurement was itum or they didn't show on their graph at all for the more dangerous what the EPA says the more dangerous particles the 2.5 which I believe is uh
35 and 9. So if you took their graph that they only showed a 150 line and you took micrometers and divided it down to like 35 and 9, it looked like for plenty of days, three days in a row, they were over the limits of the 2.5, but they didn't show that on their
graph. And it doesn't look like any new study was done. We just keep referencing this 2023 study. And if you go and look at the quarterly and monthly reports from Stroberg, the LSP, they took one study in 2003, but then
over the years they totally keep changing what they say in their reports. At one time they said it was done in multiple days. Then they said it was one day only and then they said there was winds of 30 m hour and then two years later they reference the 2023 study again and say it was extremely winds
over 60 mph. It's like they were falsifying their report and changing it over the years, all referenced in that one 2023 study. So, I was told by the D uh the EPA, who has all these regulations for air quality, the conclusive way would have
multiple monitors on site and off ringing the whole property so you could catch whatever way the wind was going. And that was never done. So, do we really know what the air quality is coming off that dump dump? >> If I could um ask a similar sort of
question. Hi Dave. Uh Candace Green. I'm one of the members of the board. Um I got a chance to uh I got your report earlier this afternoon, so I've been able to sort of read through it and I just had a couple questions if that's okay. Um one of the things you mentioned is that um it's the failure mechanism
has been effect for multiple years with numerous attempts. um to try and correct the situation. Um and I think we can all agree that corrective action is needed. Uh my question and I think what Chris was sort of getting to is is there any other way to do this without bringing in
so much soil. Uh the comment that you know numerous attempts to correct this have been made would to me imply that there are other ways to do it. So I guess my question is um I thank you for reviewing this for us. In your opinion, are there other ways to do this on a
smaller scale that ensure um you know that we are protecting the landfill and not having to keep do this every 5 years? >> That's a complicated question. The dilemma that you have the site has is
that the synthetic the planes are are quite sharp and you have there's no longer stability in the size. So long-term stability of the solutions is not possible without some correct action. Um I guess if one were to go
down the road evaluating alternatives, you know, there are some that are out there and some that are probably more expensive that might include stripping the site taking that exposing encoders um you
know possibly compact the waste uh so it stabilizes the settlement and not not the weight of the soil on top of it. Um you know I I did not actually go through an analysis
of those alternatives. But I will say this alternative is one has been proposed and used before you know we're still in particular Greenwood Street. You know actually far more so to do that
repair. Um I guess I guess without more timing than um more time uh is more so I would have to defer to fully fully answer that question. >> Okay. But just so to ask it more simply,
this is not the only way to fix this. >> Um there are other there are other possible ways of fixing it that might be more expensive. >> Okay. >> Um >> so the other um question, sorry I just
have a couple. I took some notes when I was reading this earlier. Um, you also mentioned that assuming the corrective action design properly incorporates a state-of-the-art landfill closure storm water management system and carries the storm water off the land cap, the slides, sorry, the side slope
should become stabilized once the mature vegetative system takes route. Um, any idea what sort of um closure storm water and management system they're thinking of? Did they mention that at all in their report? >> No, I I I don't see well enough in time
one for around a long time representing over 150 municipalities and I've worked on dozens dozens of sites like this so that I I generally know where it needs to go. Uh it includes a set of sides slope shafts that intercept with both
the surface home water and the subsurface uh perlet that was not in the drains. Uh that that water intercept so many vertical foot separation as it comes down the slope and then transmitted at a grade off of the side
slopes both on the surface and subsurface uh to again to relieve the pole water pressure in the various layer itself. to relieve the the the surface um flow of the swailes. The swailes have to be
sized such that they can handle you know a fairly large storm because you don't want a 100 storm to come along and over top those swailes and cause them to you know cause size corrosion. So, so in the in the industry, we designed these fairly large uh to handle that flow. And
then subsurface wise, you've got to not only grab that storm water per the drain layer, but you also have to um make sure that the the the subsurface doesn't get above the synthetic layer on the down
side of the swale and over top it within the soils layer of the cap itself. So my guess is you're going to see you know three four side slope rails running the entire length of that that slope. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and then the last
question I had um you mentioned that uh you said one item that has been discussed on other sites is that the Commonwealth does not want to see the owner operator maximize the site and leave no room on the top for post postclosure use like a solar farm. So I guess I'm a little confused and I don't
know if you can answer this or not. um they've already approached their max of 144 previously approved elevation. So, have they already exceeded what the Commonwealth would have recommended and not left height or is this just a recommendation if we approve an increase
in height? I don't know if that makes sense. >> Um yeah, let me go back a few years and I'll explain the context of that note. Um during the big day, we had lots and lots of soils that were coming out the needed homes. And that's probably partly where the common 971 policy came from
where the Commonwealth needed to, you know, place soils at sites at some level of control and containment. Um you know, proactively looked to landfill sites to take these soils. What we didn't want to do, what the Commonwealth didn't want to
do was to take them and literally create ski slopes that went right up. There was no literally no room in the top at all. Um you know for even turn truck some sites that had been cast here where they literally provided with salt
the soil um they ran the size truck so that we literally ran out of space to put in this case that's not being proposed. you may appear to be from the plan, but you know, if they were to maximize it, it probably has, you know,
another 30 plus feet. And so we're trying to say that this is proposing. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Please come to the podium. State your name and your address. Yep. [clears throat]
Deb Wow, Sycamore Drive. Um, we we heard that multiple attempts have been made for repair. So, how long has this actually been an issue? >> I don't know answer that, Dave. It says in the report multiple years and I don't
know if you know. >> So, it was probably actually leaking and they didn't say anything the last time they went for an extension. >> So, that's a question I had. So I was actually reviewing Marilyn's answers to some of the questions we had previously asked. Those are also posted on the board of health website. One of the
questions was you know this was approved in 2017 2018. Her reply was it got approved by D in 2020 and they started work in 2021. So I share the same question as if this was failing at the time that they started taking on soil. And I don't know if Dave knows the answer to that as an independent
reviewer, but I share the same question as to if this has been failing for that length of time or if this is something that's developed over the last couple years. >> I don't know if you can speak to that or not. >> And it only comes to light when they're looking for another expansion. That's convenient. I think
>> I what I can say is that I've been in the industry for a long time. I've been aware of this land for a long time. Indeed during the big dig aware of the SLex look at it we're aware that you know the side slopes that there's differential
settlement on the top there storm water settlement on the top of the site side slopes I'm just I'm not aware of the details of how the attempted fixes were made but I am aware historically of the the longevity of the these needed repairs.
>> Okay. Thank you. So, it's needed to be repaired for a long time and they didn't tell anybody. >> Interesting. >> Well, they didn't they at least >> I don't think they notified our health board or anything like that.
>> No, no, they didn't. Um, and the other question I have was we heard the there's no health hazard in the dirt. And that kind of puzzles me because why can't all the contractors um from all over New England,
why can't they sell that as fill? Why are they having to instead of making money pay substantial amounts of money to dump it here? If it's safe and healthy.
So as a health agent, the responsibility is to look at federal, state, local guidelines for what is permissible and not permissible. When you do that with this project as a health agent, matching up the activities
with what is federally, state, and locally permissible as far as I can tell and as far as my in-depth investigation and any other knowledge I would have of the matter, it would be and I said this to you, Mr.
Winterwitz, in uh in an email in writing, it would subjective enforcement would be irresponsible. So as far as enforcement activity from a health department, there would be absolutely nothing I have seen that I could go out and say you need to cease
and desist immediately or there's nothing I could hang my hat on. So even it would be again subjective. It would be an opinion. It would be a perception, a personal opinion. There's there's nothing that's in the laws or the regulations or the thresholds that would
enable me as a health agent to say there's a threat is it's a subjective statement that and that's my answer John Bau 165 and actually zero Highland Woods I'm going to Okay. Um, kind of disappointed we just
got this today, but >> Well, it's dated, we've said this before, it's dated the 5th, so I just got it myself today. >> I know. And thanks for asking the tough question. Um, are there other alternatives? Okay, cuz that was a big question of all of us. Is there an
easier way to do this? Obviously, you didn't get contracted to answer that. You did kind of cost. Why does it matter to anyone in this room how much it costs to fix it? Right. Okay. What I'm
concerned with, we're taking the easy route out here again. Okay. This thing's been repaired how many times now? So, you know what? Maybe the answer is pull that cap off, recompact that dump, and then cap it again. Okay. Maybe it does
end up a little higher, but all eyes are going to be on it. Okay, they're going to be watching everything and this thing's going to get done right. I'm afraid we're taking the shortcut here. Okay. Um, as far as we never got any
answers on why can't we use better soils to cap it? I mean, I realize these are approved, but you know, I went down Pine Street yesterday and it was windy. I was
like, "Holy crap." And I live on Walnut, so I feel for anyone that I got the wind going the other way, thank goodness. >> But I I could not believe the amount of dust coming off that. And I wouldn't
want to I'd move. I'd leave the town. Um, I don't think you guys should vote on this tonight because I don't think there's enough information here and it hasn't been digested yet. I appreciate you for doing
your job and I know you probably have a opinion. I'd love to sit down with you and have a cup of coffee and get it cuz I'm sure it'd probably be a little different. Um, let's not take the easy way out here. All right, we haven't yet with the
MBTA. You know, let's stand up, Halifax. Let's do this right. And if we're going to cap it, let's cap it right. Let's not just put a band-aid on it. Maryland's trying to put a band-aid on this. All right. Um, trucks coming in through the town.
They're donating. All right. What we found out com uh finance committee said no no no money's been passed to them. They [clears throat] make donations I know for a fact to the food pantry. They'll do other things. That's their way of donating. All right.
How about a per ch uh truck charge going in there? All right. They're using our roadways. They're dumping fill in our town. Um, other thing is independent testing on the soil coming
in. Does this address it anywhere? I haven't had time to go through this report. >> It does. Specifies that there's four >> four >> levels of LSPs that that that >> cuz there right now all the testing's
been being done by people that they have hired. All right. Correct. I mean that's what we all heard, >> right? I think I think you can look at that in a certain way though as far as so for example I work for a financial company when we have an audit we're
paying the auditors but the auditors have to do the audit according to their requirements and their licensing. So even if you're going to say they're paid it it it doesn't matter the payment is >> how about an independent contractor selected by the town. How's that? the
town selects who's going to sample the soils going in. Okay? So, you guys get to pick it out. So, that way we know they're totally unbiased and there's no funny business going on. How about that? >> You know, I mean, there are other ways,
you know, to cap the dump and protect our town. So, I just think we should look a little more in depth because this is really big, people. All right. The only reason I moved to this town and built my house over 30 years ago was
because that dump was being capped. Okay? I know a lot of other people feel the same way. You know what? The way I feel right now, it's reopened. It really is, you know. So, we need to close it. We need to close it right this time.
>> Thanks for your comments. >> If I could just make a comment. So, um, as I mentioned before on our website, you can find some of McDonald Industries's responses to some of these questions we have. Uh, one of them, comment 7, was about generating profit.
And this is a her response. Our goal is to get fair revenue on corrective action that can be shared with towns by the negotiations with Republic Services and yes, a fair operating agreement from McDonald Industries as well. Um that to
me says that they are considering their cost and profit in this solution. Um which is why I'm wondering if there are other alternatives just to address the cost. >> Thank you. >> Stephen, did you want did you have anything you wanted to share? No. Okay.
>> I can detail what the money was at this point as far as how much has been raised and where it is. >> Yeah. $250,000 over the last two years and it is in general fund in the form of donation and cash. So that is not >> Thank you.
>> I'm sorry. So you're talking about the tipping fees that she had mentioned have been >> donations contract since they've started. >> Okay soon depending on the future. >> What does that include? Does that include like the ice skating ring that
they put up for holidays now? >> It does. Does that include the food pantry? >> It's also very large component of cash. >> Does that include the food pantry donation? >> Includes all donations in kind. Includes the review they did for the town back.
>> That's not donations. That's ruining. Okay. Maybe take ahead. That's the last one. >> Take Chris's thing. >> Yep. Okay. >> Uh Chris will take one last comment or question.
>> I know several times Chris 129 Circuit Street. It's been mentioned that they need the so much soil because of settlement and I think you briefly touched on that too the settlement but also in the CEC report they did a settle settlement and stability an analysis. Uh
the final cover system located with the postclosure used area may be subject to stresses resulting from the settlement of underlying existing waste. The type of settlement is influenced by the weight of future soils and the compaction of underlying waste. The BFI Halifax landfill was filled with
municipal waste to an elevation uh of 141 ft commencement construction of final cover system in '92. Most of the consolidation has already occurred and minimal consolidation is expected and the DP followed up when one of their
own documents gave a summary too that basically explained the same thing that's been there for 30 something years. Over 30 years, all the compaction that's happened has already happened and they don't expect any more. The engineer calculated the maximum strain in the final cover system due to the overall settlement was calculated to be less
than allowable strain of the HDP membrane. And then it goes on to saying that basically settlement isn't going to be an issue. And then another thing for declaring it a safety thing. Uh >> what are the dates of these documents?
>> Yeah. And if you can if you can forward those on to us that would be great. And then we can also be sure to >> possibly share them with >> David which Stroberg references right up to the last couple months on their reports the D LSP is they're working towards this document.
>> I'd be glad to >> What's that? >> I'm asking >> Yeah, we'll have to let you know on that. Would you like me to respond to that? >> Right. Right now. >> Yes. >> Yes. That'd be great.
>> Um the the top of the landfill um has received soil and there's been some settlement of the underlying waste from that soil in the places on the top. However, the size slopes that are in question um have received little to no soil. Um and it's the side slopes that
that from my inspection and knowledge at the site are the the largest issue. the synthetic on the top if I understand correctly from CC's correspondence. They're referring to the strain on the synthetic on the top that is that is
undergone some settlement as a result of the soil on the top. The sides slope nevertheless has not gone under full settlement and it will continue to settle as weight is put on it. um in order to fully cap that side slope in order to repair the side slope, it needs
to have some level of soil stabilization on top of it. Unless one were to go and restrict the entire cap and that that whole kettle of worms would be the subject a whole another report. Um so I I guess what my response
to you is that um that there is future settlement that that needs to occur in order for that size slope to stabilize and this soils [music] is an effective um solution that's been used on numerous sites across the town wall you know Millennial Park and Rex Ro spectacle
island harbor great links the golf course there's numerous sites that have successfully used these types of soils to stabilize the cap to to create a site that no longer settles and becomes a final stable cap solution.
>> And one final thing tonight, uh, for our health agent, does he consider this soil a danger to the public? >> No. So, were you part of the middle borrow ban on contaminated soils, the same COMM 15 soils? And it mentions you writing an
article as being part of this, putting the ban in effect that it's a danger to the public. When I was the health agent in the town of Middbor, I was tasked by the board of selectmen functioning as
the board of health to work with the conservation commission and other people in town to uh draft I believe there were COM 97 contaminated soil regulations,
something to that effect. But I [clears throat] was part of the conversation. I was not an author of that document. >> And there's a difference between COMM 97 and the RSC's. >> Well, I I spoke to MBA recently and looking into a bylaw and they said it
included COM 15 too. It included all contaminated soils under the DP. >> Yeah, these are the they're not termed contaminated. The ones that are being used, they're the RSC's >> in the D documents. They are referred to under COMM 15 as contaminated soils.
>> I'll have to look into that, but from what I've read, the RSC is not considered contaminated. >> Well, if you look under comm 15, they use the reference of contaminated soils. >> Okay. >> And middle bar says this is the only way
to go to keep people sleep at night and to protect people. Well, since we're going down this path, sir, it might it might also enlighten you to know that I left Middleboro voluntarily. And again, I was tasked by a board of selectmen functioning as a board of health member.
So, take that information as you would. >> But you didn't stand up and say you were against that regulation that this isn't a danger to the public. You went along with it, >> apparently. >> Okay. I think we're going to um close the discussion
and I would move to postponed until the next meeting to vote. Is the board comfortable with that? Okay. I'll make a motion to um postpone voting until the next meeting. >> So moved. >> All in favor?
>> I. Okay. We're going to move on to the rest of our our agenda. >> Sorry, >> just uh Ted Benner, Cranberry Drive. Just uh procedural question with that. So, this plan would have to be approved
by the board of health. They just can't come in and just do this or they can. >> They can. >> They can. Yeah, >> they whether we approve or disapprove this, they're going to do this. >> Okay. >> Yep. Thank you. I believe and tell me if
I'm wrong, the D has the final approval. >> Yep. D. >> So our vote is whether or not this board will provide D with a letter of support for the project. >> Right. >> Correct. >> In all other phases, this D in the documents say shall which our town
lawyer months ago gave a little speech on what shall means in legal documents. Shall needs a letter of support. So is this phase going the same requirement that they required for every other case and if shall if you don't
give one then it looks like D can't approve so this is different because this is actually corrective action um this is not you know this is different than the other phases so basically D is saying it as you know it needs repair it
needs to be repaired um and so that's how it differs >> so part of close to 8 ft 170 177 what it is is filling the valley all across Halifax in the Bridgewater level is a plateau
way out to thin air where it never existed. That's part of corrective action with this proposed plan that they want to do. If you look at the engineering documents for the other side, it looks like the Grand Canyon and they're just going up the thin air in the bridge. >> Yep. I don't remember what goes to which
phases, but my understanding is the corrective action is basically for the sides and I don't know if David if you can comment any further on that but I I believe the correction the corrective action is basically for the mainly for
the sides. >> That's my understanding. >> Yeah. >> So I think it goes back to our question Chris of is this the only way to do it? So this is their current plan of as a corrective action. Is it the only or the
best corrective action is the question, but it's termed as a corrective action. >> Okay. Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your attendance and we're going to move forward with the rest of our agenda. David, thank you so much for joining. We appreciate you being on
Zoom. Guys, any anyone in the room too, you guys are all welcome to go up there and take a tour of everything that has to be fixed. >> I think the last two days at the end of the day, you can feel the sand on your face. You can see it. >> I I I get what you Chris, I get what
you're saying. I understand. >> But I'm just I'm just has to be fixed. It had to be fixed 10 years ago. We understand this isn't the only way to do it. >> No, I'm not saying that. But I'm what I'm saying for everybody, if you want knowledge, >> encouraging you guys, you know what,
don't take the easy route out here. >> If you guys want knowledge on what needs to be done up there, they're more than willing to take you through. It's about two hours of your time. If so, you're putting it on us, then it's that important for us to figure it out. Maybe
>> you guys should fail after they do this. Mark my words in five to eight more years that we're going to pay and we'll be sitting >> this I'm not trying to argue what what I'm saying is if we stop her right if we
don't support we don't find the correct way to do this and she walks off this project who pays for this >> who why do we keep saying it's BMI's property at least they own the project >> I understand >> BMI >> so you're going to do
>> so who's going to sponsor So she's respons. So basically you're telling us that she's the one that's solely responsible for making these repairs that it's not BFI. >> It is not BFI. >> And if the >> So if she goes bankrupt, we're screwed basically.
>> The cost would then probably >> the cost will go to the town, I'm sure. >> So the DP's documents. So BFI has close to a million dollar bond being held to prepare this. So that kind of an excuse either. >> Chris, we're not making excuses for anything. I live in the town, too. I've
been here 55 years. So, I I'm not trying to make an excuse for anything. It does have to be fixed. I'm just saying take two hours of your time. We did. >> Yeah. If you want to take a tour, >> take two hours and just just be open-minded. Look at what the problems
are and and maybe maybe you guys might have an idea. >> Well, I think this is suddenly >> I agree with you, >> but and she has not put forth any corrective plan before now.
>> It just so happens and it's still for profit. It's still for profit. All right. >> I listen everything's a business. I get it. And >> and our town is struggling. Still for profit. >> But like I said, if you if you want to get some knowledge, then you might come
up with a plan yourself. Who knows? I'm I'm not being a wise guy. of being dead serious >> cuz I didn't know till I actually went up and looked. >> I spent a couple hours up there going around looking, you know, >> and how many times they switch the stories on this. You have even question
stuff. They say one thing and come back and say another thing. >> Yep. >> I mean, I've spent hundreds of hours I've called EPA Boston. I've called other places. A lot of places don't agree with what they're saying. >> I know, but none of them have stopped it. I'm just I just don't want
>> Do you see what I mean? If it's a if it's something that's restricted by them, why hasn't she been stopped? Why hasn't she been fined? I mean, the DP for years won't even acknowledge his air quality standards. They told us, came up to our house and
said, "Residents probably should just shut their windows and we're not going to look into it." He asked them, "Will you go to the air quality division?" Because he goes, "That's outside our cate. We're solid waste. We don't deal with that. and he goes, "No, he's not going to look into it. We're more than happy. Us are
more than happy. We can call him ourselves." I called the air quality division once. It got forward to solid waste. Uh Doug Kopi called me back and basically reigned me out when I went to another division, getting called out >> and he blew it off again. >> So, it sounds solid waste division is
just looking the other way. A lot of things. >> It could be. >> Last time they got called out, sent them videos. They say, "Oh, we went out there for 1 to two. We didn't see any. I have pictures of one to two dust blowing off the top and they sent me an email. We didn't see anything. >> Have you taken a tour up there, Chris?
>> No, I don't want to. >> Thank you. Thank you for your attendance. >> Okay. >> Next on the agenda, disposal works permits. >> There we go. ratify agents approval. So, we've got uh
10 and 12 Amanda's Way and 402 Home Street and 23rd Avenue. >> No, I just I'm looking at my notes on those. >> Yep. >> All of them are are good to >> All good issues. Okay. Um, I'd like to
make a motion to ratify agents approval A through C. >> So moved. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Uh, next we're moving to plan review engineer. Kayla Smith,
Middlear Board of Health Agent as the approved Halifax plan reviewer. >> Can you share a little bit about that, Bob? About Kayla? >> Sure. Um so there is a revolving fund at the board revolving fund the board of
health department um and they historically the board of health has been able to send plans out for review. Um right now I know we have Rob Casper >> is one I think um Joe Webbby is is also
I I don't mark my word on that. He may or may not be, but anyways, to become uh one of the people that can review those plans has to be voted by the board. Okay. >> And I would endorse this vote for Kayla Smith to be able to review.
>> Excellent. All right. I'd like to make a motion to approve Kayla Smith as a board approved plan reviewer for the Halifax Board of Health. >> So moved. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Beach permits for Halifax Beach,
Lingan Homes, Anowan, and Twin Lakes Beach. I'd like to make a motion to >> What are weing >> the beach permits? >> So, like, is it the beach permits or is it testing? I know what I don't not
familiar with. >> It's the permits. I was actually just looking. >> Yeah, it's the permits. I was just look I was going to fill you in on the first day for opening for opening. >> Right. >> Oh. Uh May 19th is our first testing and then it's done weekly until September
6th. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So we will be testing all five of these beaches. >> Okay. So this is basically to open them. >> Yeah. That's just the permit. >> All right. Yep. So I'd like to make a motion to approve uh 2026 beach permits allowing them to open.
>> So moved. >> All in favor? I. >> Okay. Affirm bills paid. I'd like to make a motion to affirm the iPad gift account 26-514-4830-2- FY26-08 as listed.
>> So moved. >> All in favor? I like to vote to affirm public health excellent grant account 25-516-5430-189- FY26-22 1 and two as listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I like to vote to affirm
uh public health excellent grant account 25-516-5430-189- FY26-23. One is listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I vote to affirm expense account 01-512- FY26-06
1 WBM Mason 1 and two is listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I. I'd like to vote to affirm revolving account 25-513-fy 26-10. Robert Casper as listed one and two.
>> So moved. >> All in favor? I >> um I don't know. Can Dave vote on those? >> I can. It's not my name. >> Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Um, I'd like to vote to affirm the public public health excellence grant
account 25-516-5430-189- FY26-24 1 2 3 as uh 1 2 3 4 as listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I vote to affirm public health excellence grant account 25-516-5430-189-
FFY26-25 one uh or I Kayla Smith as listed 1 through9 and two Robert Casper 1 through three. So moved. >> All in favor? I
>> I'd like to vote to affirm public health excellence grant account 25-516-5430-189- FY26-261 and two as listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I.
>> Um okay. Uh we I'm making a motion to approve uh the meeting minutes for November 19th, 2025. >> Make a motion. >> So move. Sorry.
>> All in favor? Uh sorry. All in favor? >> I I >> um like to vote >> Peggy. >> Yes. [laughter] For the dissertation. >> Yes. and I'd like to uh make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from March 18th, 2026. >> So moved.
>> All in favor? I um vote to approve revolving account 25-513- FY26-11. One is listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I >> vote to approve the nursing services account 01-522- FY26-09.
One is listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I >> Oh my gosh. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve iPad gift account 26-514-4830-2- FFY26-91
as listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I >> I vote to approve the public health excellence grant account 25-516-5430-189- FY26-28 Cindy Metro as listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I like to vote to approve
the public health excellence grant account 25-516-5430-189- FY26-29 1 2 and 3 as listed. >> So moved. All in favor? I >> like to make a motion to approve the public health excellent grant account
25-516-5430-189- FY26- 301 as listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Oh, one more. Okay. I'd like to make a
motion to approve the condition. and all required documents and fees are submitted to the board of health office. Well discharge permits will not be released until water testing samples from certified well testing companies are submitted to the board of health and approved by the agent. So I would like
to make a motion to approve the permits 1 through 20 as listed. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I >> I >> I would like to make a motion to adjourn the board of health, Halifax board of
health meeting at uh 7:23 on uh May 6th, 2026. >> So, >> all in favor? Hi. [music]