ready. >> All right. Uh, good afternoon. Today is June 10th. Uh, this is the Lunberg Water. Uh, it's 400 p.m. So, we'll start by saying the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I'm going to send out some meeting minutes. These are from the special the June 3rd meeting and the May
27th meeting. Okay. We also will be seeing around the warrants. Um you know down here, right? >> Yes, sir. This or mine?
>> Doesn't matter. We can share. >> Oh, yeah. I got one. That's yours. >> Hey, Fran. >> Guess we paid West regional retirement. >> Yeah, that's our annual appropriation. >> Sure. Sure is. >> Yeah, that's the month. Well, this comes out of our pay. That's the month they
out of our pay. But yeah, that's >> would have been electrical. >> Uh Fran will get into that later, but a tree went down and we lost power down to Lancaster. I >> think he's to go over those. Don't worry
about that. um tie and bond. >> Mhm. >> This $4,700. >> Yeah. For the for them to do the grant application for the onetop grant. >> Okay.
Do you have any idea like how much time that you you you don't you don't do like hours? >> I have to pull out the proposal that they gave us for it. >> Yeah, they did a whole proposal >> total pro proposal total cost >> for the total cost of of
>> they don't do like hours service. >> No, it was to to submit it was this amount of money. That's all it was. >> Wonder if could we talk about that at some point? Uh could we discuss that? Yeah, but I' I'd want No, at some point
just I'd like to dig into how they how they bill us. Um, >> I'll tell you what, though. >> Not now. No, don't worry about it. >> No, I No, I But why don't you uh maybe that's something you could do honestly offline first, you know, with just you and Fran or something. I don't think we
all And then if there's something that you see you don't like or want to change, then we could talk about it. But >> Oh, I thought we'd all be interested in that. I mean, are you you're familiar with and you're happy with that? >> Yeah, I'm happy with it. But, you know, I mean, um, doesn't mean you have to be
>> take a peek at something you don't like. >> Or should I should I talk to Christie about that? >> Uh, yeah, I can Well, I'll pull out the proposal. Remind me to >> Oh, not that specific one. I just mean in general about how a consulting company builds.
>> They're all It depends on the project. For example, uh the water main project, if we had them come out and do inspections, it was based on hourly rate. >> If it was the head guy, you'll pay 250. Now, if it was just >> Oh, so that is itemized. That's a line. That's a >> It can We don't see the bill as itemized. The only because this was a
proposal to do the whole >> No, but but for some things, they'll come out and they'll give you an hourly rate and a time. >> Yeah. No, Massav water means water that was very that had like >> even before we went in the when it was all on the table here it was all line
items of like if we need expense the inspections it's this it's this you know it's all >> it's the same like if we any huge project like that it's broken out to >> I don't want to take any more time but but I'll give you a call sometime and I want to just see I had a consulting company for many years and it's just
>> very odd I would appreciate your input on it. >> I bet you would. Um, so it looks like where the warrants were all set and I have a set of signed meeting minutes in my hand from June 3rd and May 27th. Would anybody like to make
a motion on approval? >> I move that we approve meeting minutes from May 27th and June 3rd of this year. I hear a second. >> I'll second it. >> All those in favor? I
Okay. All right. Uh number three, we discuss and vote on the kayak relocation in zone one of the Hickory Hills. Well, now last meeting, uh we had been shown some photos of some violations that have been
going on there. Obviously, we have the ongoing kayak rack situation which we have gone back and forth with with attorneys, etc. Uh, and I did ask all of us to try to come up with a game plan for this. So, I'll
take uh anybody who wants a stab at this first. I came up with a couple ideas. Um, I think we need a gate at the top of the roadway cuz there's nothing to deter people from driving in there similar to
what we have at Lancaster A and what we have a keying so that people can't drive in where the well the zone one is simple can be painted green something that uh
would have to have something so the fire department can have access. >> Uh to me it's it's not just any one entity. I mean there was a FedEx truck down there. Next thing could be an oil delivery truck down there. You don't you
don't know. So I think a simple, you know, doesn't have to be a yellow gate, just a simple gate so that vehicles can't get down to the zone one. >> Okay. Uh and then um I don't have anything beyond that as far
as uh the kayak racks or anything. I would I would uh just suggest we write a letter back to D telling them that uh we're getting push backs from the residents. They and
we're not going to pursue it any further. Okay. >> And if D wants to then come after us and fine us, then we I would turn I would definitely at that that point look at uh
passing the fine to the residents of the Woodlands. Other than that, you know, I'm I'm not going to play the back and forth game. I'm tired of it. If people don't want to do the right thing, then we just report to our authority and
and and let uh let them >> let them either find us or or go to the next level with us. >> You do realize that the fine comes to the Lunberg Quality Department. >> And I have no problem at that point then forwarding the fine to the Woodlands community.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean that that >> I don't I don't know. You think you you think other people in the community are going to be happy that the water district has to pay a fine because they're in violation? >> I'm just I I I I don't anything else to
me is a lot of commissioner said it before he he was trying to avoid uh he he saw this thing going down a latigious road. >> Yeah. So, uh, you know, I think the rateayers in the district
have paid enough on this, I I think they should just move the kayaks. But I think the rateayers have have paid enough. And then until until somebody else speaks up and tells them that, you know, they should follow the rules,
I I don't know. I so unless we have recourse which okay you know that's just my my thought. >> Uh okay thanks for your input. >> Mhm. >> Okay.
>> Um Mr. M I have some input. I'm sure you do. I'd love to hear it. Um first of all I don't really give a darn about those kayaks. They could stay there. They could move them. I don't know, a couple hundred feet from the lake. I mean, they could
hang them from trees. I don't care. Um there's just two things that uh one thing that bothers me and I've said it last time we we discussed this and that is I just don't I think that we're
wasting a lot of time and money and or have wasted a lot of time and money on this and uh I don't see the rate you know the water takers funding a litigation paying attorneys to either you know initiate a lawsuit suit
defend a lawsuit. I just think it's a total total waste of money. And I believe we all said here or at least three of us have said two and a half that we don't really care about the
kayaks being there because they're not they're not causing any problems. They haven't caused any problems. And I think you're when when we talked about it when you were here, Mr. shared you said uh the issue hey that's what that's what the uh D is saying we're going to do it
and then so I looked at what the D has said over a bunch of surveys that's what I that's what I have here um all here's here's one uh and by the way I'm I think this whole issue is to be
laid at the feet of the D based on what I've read u not necessarily the board but the EP so one earlier survey uh >> can I ask you why >> I'm going to explain that okay >> um all the areas with zone one have the
proper radius and properly maintained uh the next one next survey Hickory Hill zone one meets it all the standards the next year uh Hickory Hill well zone one meets the standards um all current land uses or the question
was all current land uses within zone one are limited to directly related to provision of public water system or to other land uses which a public water system has demonstrated have no significant impact on water quality. That was a genesis of the letter that I
was told to write but then was totally ignored at the next meeting. Uh the next survey um what's this one? >> There are no non-conforming activities of zone one. >> You weren't told to write that letter, Bill. just that you wanted to write the letter and said you can write the letter
and we'll discuss if we want to send it. >> Okay, let let me wrote I have the floor now. Then when we're finished, when I'm finished, we could you could comment. >> Um next one, this is now up to 2018 shows there are no non-conforming activities
in zone one. Uh the next one, uh zone one has been observed since the last uh have oh have any changes? No. Um uh okay then then there actually here's one
that says has no uh has kayak access uh and and must that must cease if the well is put back online and dollars of donuts that the people who live there probably say okay that'd be a good compromise but
anyway that's what I'm saying here's a D telling the people I mean just suppose you built a house and they said it's okay you can keep it there and then they said oops I changed my mind now a house is in this kayak racks but nonetheless the principle is the same so I
understand I actually understand why they felt they could invest in the racks they could invest in their kayaks because it's been okay okay okay and then all of a sudden oops I changed my mind so I understand that and I I really I think it's that falls under DP so in
that context it als also into context whether I was told to write it or I volunteered to write it for the next meeting um we all agreed that there's no issues and no one here can say that there's an issue with the kaiaks the only thing that we can say is that the
DP says now in 2026 now they say remove them that's all that we can say you can't find any problem with the uh effects on water all the time that the well was running and the kayaks were there I mean none of us good because there weren't any. So the D says okay
take them you know get them out of there but by the way if there hasn't been a problem as I just read we can apply for variance I I don't know understand I don't understand and the truly I am being objective about this
I don't have it kayak I don't care I I don't understand what the issue is of saying D if you said that it's if it's allowed if there's no impact on water been demonstrated and it has been for 10, 15 years, whatever that number is. Uh, go ahead and it's it's okay. So, why
not say here's our demonstration that hasn't been a problem and we we agree they can stay there. Anyway, I still have the letter. If you want to reconsider, if you want to give me an argument, I just don't want to spend money on litigation where apparently that looks like where it's
headed. They may still say no, but if they say yes, the problem's behind us. >> Okay, I'm done. Okay, thank you for your input. Um, Mr. Mcame. >> Yeah, can I just >> jump in there a little bit? So, sanitary surveys, it's not like they >> they usually they hear one day, you
know, 6 eight hours. They just kind of do a quick little survey of things. So in 2024 when we did the first uh SRF funding there was a public hearing and many of the unaffordable water group were at attended that hearing saying all
these illegal activities were taking place in the zone one. Their their intention was to say you can't use the well because these things are happening. Well that doesn't work with DP. We we need to correct those. So this was never a problem. It was brought to D because
of all the other things. So it wasn't so DP kind of this is a law. You guys need to step up your game and and fix these things. So that it wasn't any of us that brought this to them. It was they brought it to them themselves with the golf carts and all that. >> All right. I understand that.
>> So currently as it sits the D in the latest sanitary report says this is a violation. Do we all agree with this? >> Yes, they said that. But that's not all they said. >> Okay. What else are they saying? >> What I just what I just read. years a line to me.
>> No, no. Even now that that that's a regulation. That's actually a regulation. If you want me to find a number for it, I think I could. That's a regulation. If there hasn't there's been no demonstrated effect on the water, >> you can have non water district related
passive activity there. >> I think you need to forget about all head. So look it. So the 2026 sanitary survey states that kayaks in armed water supply related structure were identified in the 400t zone one sort protection area. Okay. So this is
currently where the D's at. Now I understand in years past they may have been saying >> this is even today it's still true today. >> That's that's right here. It says it right here. >> Okay. Now, I can sit there and I can read through this easement and I will
and you have a copy of it which clearly states that these cannot be in here. There shall be no building or other structure of any kind constructed, reconstructed, erected or moved onto the easement area. Okay, I can I could I can
read the whole thing line to line. Uh but it it clearly states in here and this easement is ironclad. Okay. So the easement states they cannot be there. >> Okay. Walking job.
>> Okay. Now now more importantly the D has identified this as a violation. >> It is our responsibility to maintain that zone one. It's not the D's responsibility. It's not the Woodland's responsibility. It's our
responsibility. And for us as commissioners to sit here and to be like, we're not enforcing it because we don't feel like it. It's going to cost too much. We think it's somebody else's problem is not something I'm acceptable with. >> We need to enforce what the zone one is.
Do you disagree with that? >> Yes. I mean, yes and no. like what you say is true, but the the part you left out is that I I don't know how many times I can say the same thing over and over, but they there is a way out and it's stated it's stated in the regulations and I'll dig it up if you
give me a couple of minutes and I read it last time and I think I actually have it in in the letter. Uh I think I have it here, >> but there were letters written to D recently and I asked about it with the sanitary survey. Did you get all the
lettuce from the woodlands? We got Oh, yeah. We saw it all. He answered in the same survey. >> They they it just doesn't it it doesn't it doesn't matter. It it just doesn't matter. >> Says they got to go, they go >> unless >> doesn't matter. There is no but so just
in the easement it does there doesn't say unless anything >> it shall be there shall be no building or any other structure of any time constructed reconstructed erected or moved onto the easement area >> except yeah no I'm I'm looking for
regulations >> are ordered for the operation of the public water supply >> or other such shall be specifically permitted in writing by the grantee okay >> okay you finished Okay, I don't want to interrupt you. Okay. >> Uh,
this request is made in accordance with three. By the way, I really don't care about the kayaks, but now we're into into a a right and a wrong and can we or can't we? And we want to spend money that I think is wasted. So, uh, 310 CMR
22.213B 213/B uses uh zone 1 may include activities not directly related to water supply operations if it can be demonstrated that such uses have no significant impact on water quality. That's the clause that I'm talking about.
>> Okay, >> we have no demonstrated use of impact on water quality. Thus, I'm suggesting that we go to DP and say because we have no impact on water quality, we're seeking a
variance. That's all I'm saying. I don't know what what the problem is. >> Look, I I understand what you're saying completely. I understand it, but I'm going to counter you back saying that
the has already been, you might say, brought to the D to ask if we can keep the racks here. This was done back in 2025. Okay. Twice and said, can we keep the said, "Hey, yeah, D, you send them a letter. You can have the scarfly report. You can send it all to the D." Which was
done. and the DP came back and said, "No, more importantly than that CMR is our easement which clearly states these things." Okay. So, not to mention the fact that we haven't even started talking about the vehicles down there,
etc., etc. >> That's that's relevant to this point to this. >> Well, okay. Do you >> can I can I propose uh Mr. Chair? >> Sure. >> If Mr. MIP as a commissioner wants to
write some sort of another question letter to D and D comes back with a ruling. I would only endorse this if Mr. Mky would take D's ruling and act on it.
Whether it's leave the kayak racks or they tell him that he has merit to what he's asking it again it's what everybody asked before. >> I I I I agree. I agree where where you're at. >> We've asked
>> he's not Mr. opinion is not going to stop and he's going to try to battle this thing all the way down until somebody until until somebody tells him that yes, they can stay or no, they can't. But if D comes
back, I have I'm proposing this as a a solution. You can write a letter to DP, but if D responds to you and says, I'm sorry, Commissioner, we don't agree with you. They need to be moved. Then what is your what is your
>> to me? This is the last resort. I don't >> then what is your action gonna be? That's what I need to know before I would >> Well, I heard something about fines and all that. I mean, I don't I have no I'm looking for a solution. I'm looking for a way to get this off the table,
>> not pay attorneys, and everybody's semihappy or everybody's semi unhappy. So I this is the and I don't know why I don't know why there's an objection to requesting it. I don't I don't understand >> because I agree with I agree with the
chair. It's been requested. It's been requested twice. It's been requested by a hydraologist. It's been requested by their attorney. >> This has been going We've been playing tennis with this for long enough. And from the last response from their attorney on May 13th, it was clear as
day to them. They have no intent of of of moving it at all. The the >> Okay, so from what I've seen from them is they have no intent of moving them. For us, the problem with I have going back to the D for the third time is that
they've said no twice and it's our job to maintain the zone one. So why am I going to go back to the D again being like, well, can we move it? Can we keep them there? >> No. Did you >> can we please move it? Did Did you Did no did you uh request Did you send a
letter to DP supporting >> the assistance of the >> They sent a letter they sent that whole report to the D. >> They had a hydro geologist. >> They had they had a hydro they hired somebody to do it. Okay. The professionals and all that stuff had
been sent to them. D hey man we came up with the report. We had this professional analyze. The D said, "Thank you for the report, but no, it's a violation of the zone one." >> Something with the coding that has PAS, >> whatever. They do me a lot. >> Whatever it may be, it's been said no.
Okay. Now, secondly, >> it's been obvious that there's been other violations of the zone one, i.e. traffic inside there. Now, whether it's intentional or not, it doesn't matter. The fact is is that once again, there is violations being in there. We own and
control that zone one. We have to maintain it. It is my proposal to put a post and chain type of fence on the 400t radius. You know, maybe a post 4T high with the chain like you'd see at
an amusement park or the DMV or something. You know, just guiding people that you can't walk through. Leaving a 42-in walkway opening and also leaving a chain with a key that can be had for the fire department or us to access a vehicle in there. just I don't think
anybody's doing this maliciously or anything. They just don't really know and you could put signs and there's still people that drive down there. So I think it's a low impact solution that just you know reminds people that you can't drive and go in there. So that's one of the things I'd like to do. And
the second is I would like to legally pursue this because I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. It's a violation. They've clearly said we're not moving them. I have a legal document here saying that that's not allowed. So,
and on top of it, the responsibility of this board to maintain the zone one. I simply just don't want to be like it's somebody else's problem. That's how I feel. >> What's what So, what um what is the issue you have with the kayaks?
>> I have no issue with the kayaks with the exception of that. No, no, no, no, no. Let me finish. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> That they're into zone one. Just move them. They can't be in. It says they can't be in that 400 foot zone. Just move them out. >> That's it. >> They can do it in an hour.
>> This can be done. >> Bill, have you gone down and looked at the where they >> I was down there and I was that what did what did you think of the uh the uh placement of the kayak racks? And did you look at the individual kayaks to see
how many >> aren't registered through the Hickory Hills land owners? How many have actually seen use in the last two years? Because there's amount there's an amount of stuff on some of those kayaks that they haven't seen use.
>> It's a junkard. >> So to me, and I'm not one to throw stones cuz my yard's not the prettiest in the world. But if I lived in a community, it's it's kind of disorganized down there. >> I I was down and looked at the kayaks. They looked like I mean, it look like
kayaks and kayak racks. It looked like they've been used there. old ones, new ones, there's all different kinds. Some the tags weren't on them yet. I don't know when the tags I think have to be on by a certain date. I don't know if the tags are on them, but with all due respect, this really has nothing to do with the with the You're right. You're
right. It has nothing to do with it. Has nothing to do with the issue. And that's that's >> and I would claim that no request has made with the commissioners supporting the request. And that's what this that is what this letter does. >> We support it. And I don't see any I see no objections.
>> Hold on here. >> Hold on. You just said that there's been no commissioners supporting that request. >> Oh, if you show me a letter, then I'm done. >> Okay. This is with attorney uh Riley Stevens. This is when we first met them.
This was uh we met on uh uh February 2nd of 2025. Number three, kayak racks. Mr. Warwood said that the kayak racks kayaks can cannot continue to be stored within the zone one. So the current kayak sorted rack would need to be moved by May 1st unless the woodlands could
obtain a waiver or permission from D to keep them in the current location. If D gives permission, the Lunberg Water Department has no issue with them right there is exactly what I is you just said there. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's been done.
>> The Lunberg, it says here I I'm I'm with you. I don't want to belver this point. The thing I want to kill is just extending it. The Lunberg, where was that again? >> Number three. >> Number three. It says the Lunberg uh water district us
uh have no issue with that. >> Yes. If the D gives permission, >> if the D says, "Hey, man, we're cool. You can leave them there." I'm going to be like, "Okay." And that was the original thing. The D says that we don't you can't leave them there. All right.
>> And and that's it. This is You want to talk about a simple solution? Move the kayak racks. >> And that's where we are. If the if the D if the D gives permission, therefore you're okay. If they don't, if that's what this says. Y >> So all I'm saying is here's one letter
saying please or not please. We're saying these kayak racks per per this code says that we have not had over 10 or 15 years what never seen an issue with impact of the kayak. Therefore, will you please give us a variance? Then
if they come back and say yes, but that's been done. >> That's what I'm asking for. I haven't seen this. This is very specific. It's saying that this is the three there's signatures here for three commissioners. >> Based on Mr. Empty, my my question to you would be based on what it says in
the deed. Then what what do you think about what it says in the deed? Because the deed was done originally. Yeah. >> The deed was done originally prior to >> the um the construction of the well and everything
clearly on the top here. I'd like you to read that please. >> Clearly states right out loud. >> I don't know. You have to get the attorneys on that. >> No, I'm asking for the attorney. I'm ask I'm asking for your interpretation of that what you just read.
>> Well, there was also something in here as I recall about passive activities. >> I'm asking you, Bill, if you don't mind >> the passage you just read. Could you interpret that for me? >> Construct. >> How about we read it >> directed? >> Would you like to read it out loud onto
the easement onto the ease? Except Except as ordered. >> I'll read it in its entirety. There shall be no building or other structures of any kind constructed, reconstructed, erected or moved onto the easement area except as are ordered for the operation
of the public water supply or otherwise as shall be specifically permitted in writing by the grantee and its lossal successor andor sign acting jointly acting jointly I want to emphasize that with any other public authority charged
with regulating public water supplies. Okay, that clearly states that you can't put anything in there unless it has to do with the public water supply >> and it it it flies in the face of the other it flies in the face of the one I
just read here. So I I don't know which one this is an easement. Okay. Would you say it's legally binding? >> Yeah, but I would say this is too. I'm I'm not an attorney. Don't ask me to make a decision on this. All I'm I'm reading what the D said. >> All right. So you're not an attorney. You don't want to make a decision on this?
>> No. No. Let them make >> Well, I would like to have an attorney make a decision on this >> so we can press forward. >> I I don't I don't think we should discuss any further. I I'm still supporting a variance based on that. >> We're not No, we can't not discuss any
further. We need a solution to this. All right. So, I don't understand the request for ver why you don't want it. >> I'm going to break this up into two parts to maybe so we can make some progress. >> One, my proposal of putting a post and chain around the 400t zone seems Does
anybody have a a problem with that? >> Are you looking to the border of the whole 400t? >> 400 foot, you know, which has been marked out >> just the access way in that area right there, you know, with where we've had the problem of vehicles entering and whatnot. a low impact, you know, I'm not
putting raised wire look nice, you know, granite post, whatever. >> Just I mean, just simple, you know, just a post, a chain going through it. And, you know, maybe you can have a sign there like this is a zone one protected area and with a with a not chained opening so people can passively walk through there.
>> Isn't there at the top of the hill before you go down there, isn't there enough space that we could put uh like a pipe and like a gate? I'm not a big >> Yeah. >> chain guy >> that if we could put a gate with a couple larger boulders on either side to
make sure nobody goes around, it would have to be a locked gate so that we can access down there. I'm just thinking wintertime and everything. >> Uh and and and I like the idea of signs. >> We do have all public water supply signs.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> I prefer Mark's solution. I just put something across the road. Uh yeah, like a super. >> My my main concern is uh vehicle traffic. >> Correct. >> With some boulders on the side to you know, so you couldn't, you know, like you see at the edge of Keing so the kids on the dirt bikes don't go in there or
something to that effect. I'm okay with that. >> That that would >> something you would see like at a national park. Sure. >> Go down to Willard Brook. The >> Exactly. So like a swing >> wouldn't pull down there. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And then signage on that. Exactly. >> Again dictating that, you know, it's a a
public water supply area. So, are we in agreeance with that? >> Yeah, I think Yeah, fine. >> All right. I would like to hear a motion on that. >> Excuse me, fellas. >> No, I can't. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> I think before you vote on that, you'd have some in input from
>> I understand, Mr. Espazito, but public comments at the end. I'm sorry. >> So, I'm I would make a motion that we put uh I don't know what you would call for a date. Call it a swinging post gate. >> Swinging post gate with
>> protection on the sides and signage to um reduce vehicle tra to eliminate vehicle traffic in the zone one from from the the uh the access point. >> Do I hear a second? Um, I'll second
>> and I would favor first of discussion. Quick discussion that there's a road there's an access road that goes down to their docks they need to to deal with the boats and right I mean that those that road is very close to what I saw it staked out as zone one.
>> So you have to be sure that that is on the other side of that other axis. You know what I'm talking about? >> I mean right at the edge of the 400t radius. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, at that point, we may have to look at whether we put larger boulders or something else because of of of Mr. Woodward's that's why he wants
the chain because when you go from the landing area outside the 400t where I felt was a more than adequate area to put the kayak cracks, but we won't beat that. That we won't belabor that. That we should uh if you get down, the further you get down, the wider opens
up. So, the more protection we're going to need. So, we're going to need a gate along with larger boulders placed at uh intervals so that vehicle traffic can't get into my point >> that we don't move that gate up and block that
right at the border. >> So, if we put it at the 400 foot and I know exactly what you're talking about it gets wider there. So, we may need more boulders placed there so that so people >> because someone could come down and go around it, you know. >> Okay. So, >> ideally it should be at the top of the hill because the traffic comes down. I I
don't I don't the top of the hill. >> There should be plenty there should be plenty of room to turn around right there. I think >> I mean if we put it closer down I want to put it so they don't access the 400t. They should they can access all their stuff but just the 400 foot's a no no. So we'll put a post gate down there and
the appropriate amount of large boulders around it to prevent people from driving around and driving in. >> Okay. >> Y can we is there further discussion on it? >> No. I just think that we've let the superintendent come up with an idea and
a plan and present it to us and we can but I we're voting on it now. >> Oh no. Yeah. I mean when the gate I'll come up >> give it to you guys. You guys can give it the go ahead >> designwise and when it comes time to implement I'll I'll run it by you guys. >> Sure. >> Any further discussion?
>> All those in favor. >> I Okay. We got half of that done. We're still sorry. We're beating the kayak thing to the dead horses. I mean, we have to come up with a solution. >> I'm not compromising on our
responsibilities here. >> So, one of one of the residents of the unaffordable group made a comment to D that we do we do not enforce the easement, so therefore it should go away. So, I think they gave D a kick in the butt to say, "Hey, you need to step
up your game." So, again, this isn't wasn't us that brought this. I think I think D's being the the strong force that they they are. And I think people need to accept that. >> And I I only have one point. I mean, I only have one point. Get rid of this.
One possible way of getting rid of this is taking advantage of of the uh of the fact that these do not interfere with the water as stated and so we're asking for a variance. I just don't understand, >> Mr. Chair. Back to my if Mr. Mky wants to send that,
>> but not as a not as >> I'm not going to send it as a board because I agree with the chair. We've already extended that courtesy. >> No, this nothing like this has been written, Mark. This this is this nothing like this has been written. We're saying we're we support that because of because
of that. This is support because that's what I heard at one meeting. You don't care. I don't care. Fran didn't care. You weren't here. Um >> Mr. didn't um Sorry. >> Yeah. Um, in the original
request from the Woodlands to DP that included the Scott Horesley's report and everything, didn't he reference all of everything that you're talking about the 310 CMR? >> I don't know. Probably Probably referenced it in there was another this
letter. No, not this one. You had sent another letter that the attorney there sent. No, the actual letter that went from um >> oh from >> the report that Scott Forsley or what I'm not sure what his name was presented
>> but more more importantly I think it was cited in the letter from their attorney to D recently it was cited in there this what what this says is the the board of commissioners would support that based on that one that one clause that's
that's the difference they've already requested and cited what I read. >> So they so the woodlands already requested everything that you asked for that. Yes. >> So I think >> what by >> No, this is a strong >> this is a strong just saying that the
that the three commissioners support that and I'm hearing no matter what. So >> well then just I think because the chairman had given the lawyer and the woodlands represent him as the chairman the blessing that
yeah, please go ahead. We we have again no problem with the kayaks. We support this. So then when Scott Horesley and the lawyer put together their letter to D, it basically said according to 310 CMR, everything that you're referencing and everything else, this is why we feel
it shouldn't be there. >> And I and reiterating, I guess this is where I think the frustration comes is that um >> everything that you're asking for we felt was done. we've already given the blessing that yes, we have no problem if D says okay 310 CMR which is what you're
talking about was referenced and D still said no. So I and then to make a phone call afterwards when they sent the second letter with all the affidavits and everything else and Fran spoke on the phone with them and he said, "Hey, did
you receive everything, you know, including the affidavits and and that request again?" And they said, "No, the answer is no." So I guess that's kind of where the >> frustration. >> This is a stronger letter showing support of the three commissioners and I
I don't want to beat a dead horse even and under the one condition that I that I read there too if to be removed in case the well gets reactivated. I I think they would go along with that for for sure. I mean it's a silly position I
think quite honestly. But if I'm not if if you guys aren't going to sign the letter D I'm not going to send it. So >> No, I'm definitely not going to sign that. >> Okay. I And I just don't understand why. That's that's the only the only >> Well, I can tell you why. I mean, because I've been I when this initially
came up, I went down there in a very neighborly fashion like, "Hey guys, we got a couple problems. Let's fix them." All right. And I you can read the trans, you know, transactions since then. It's been a firm push back all the way. It's
a violation. So even at that time when I said hey if you can get a letter from the D great that's then honestly my position now is no move the racks because it says it on the easement that they need to they they can't be there. They should have never been there. Okay. And I have D who is my reg regulatory
governing body above me saying you have a violation. It's our responsibility to correct those violations. If they sent down a fine, I can't pass it on to the woodlands. What do you think they're gonna do? I mean, >> and the simple solution here is to move this rack about 40 feet away or whatever
it is and be done with it. I'm not trying to get at anybody or anything. I could care less about that. I just want a clean area like it says in the easement. That's it. It's a simple solution. >> Yeah, I think this is a simple one, too.
But I mean you say I don't know what did I read six times I said there's nothing wrong in >> that's great but that's not today that's not that's from past >> yes >> I got to go off with what I see today the 2026 report
>> well but you do understand if someone gives you the authority please let me finish my thought someone gives you authority someone in power who has the authority gives you authority for you to invest in something and you go ahead and do it and they say, "Oops, I changed my mind sometime later." That's
>> I'm sorry, but nobody gave them the the the power then to to invest in putting those kayak racks there. Nobody. Nobody gave them that. They did it on their own and it shouldn't have been put there to begin with. Period. >> Period. >> Did they see these kayak racks when they went down to look at the
>> I think I need you to acknowledge that, >> huh? >> That these racks were put in there and they were not supposed to be put in there. Can you agree with that? Well, I can't because I'll tell I can't because they're down there doing the inspections that say everything's okay. >> Those kayaks were put there. They were
put there illegally. >> They were not supposed to be placed there as it says right here. >> And no one knows how how many kayaks were there in the past. Was it six or eight that really didn't really catch your attention? There's got to be 50 of them now. >> Right. Then it catches your attention.
>> So, I'm not Let's Let's move on. I'm not getting anywhere with this. So, >> I'm sorry. We we we we need to come to a solution. There's no pass in the bucket. >> Okay. No. Well, then let's go. Let's talk about the solution. >> I had one, but you don't want it. >> That's I don't view view that as a
solution. >> You're asking the same thing overall. >> If we got a variance, would that be a solution? If we sent this in say, "Yep, I agree that hasn't caused any problems." Would that be a solution? >> At this point, no, it won't be because it's still a violation. >> You would ignore it. >> You would ignore it if they came back and they said, "First off, I've done it
three times with them. They're not going to. So, I'm not going to >> That's not the question. What the question is, if they came back and said, "Yes, you're approved for that variance." Would you accept it? >> I'm not even gonna go into that speculation category. >> Okay. Well, I'm saying it's a solution, but then you you say you don't accept
it. So, >> before the kayak racks, this is the first document that we have to go off of. this document was violated whether knowingly or not. To me, a deed
has to, you know, all of that doesn't matter. The deed states there will be no structure within the zone one. To me, none of that matters. This was the first document. >> So, you're saying that if D came back
and said, "Yeah, it's okay. it hasn't problem with the water. You're saying you would ignore that. >> DB has already DB has already come back. >> That's not the question. I think you're avoiding the question. The question is if they came back and accepted the variance, you would ignore it. >> D came back and our next sanitary survey
said, >> well, kayak racks are still there. We don't care. It's really good. Says in the sanitary survey, then we're good. But D has not said that. They have said we need to move the kayak racks. Let me see if I can >> I know what you're doing. You know what
I'm saying? You're what you're doing is you're trying to lead us into an answer and I don't I don't like it. >> Okay. This is a document >> that's been here very strong and very worded very properly for the reason of it. Okay. The kayak racks don't belong
there. They should have never been put there. As to why they sat there that long with nobody noticing, I don't have an answer for that. And honestly, it's got nothing to do with me. I'm not a commissioner then. I'm a commissioner now and there's a violation in in in in a zone that I'm responsible for. Just
like any commissioner across any other board, whether it be conservation or anything like that, if something was brought to them and said, "Hey, here's a violation," I would expect them to do their due diligence to fix it. And asking the D for the third time for a variance on that is not us fixing it.
>> Okay. >> I don't think I don't think a variance was requested before. Not what you showed me. That wasn't a request for a varian. >> That's exactly what it was. It was a request. >> Did it have the commissioner signatures on it? >> Did you do you did you request a variance through the commissioners? I
don't think so. >> Okay. Well, >> and you know, again, I'm looking for a solution. Uh you don't accept it as a solution. I Nothing that I can do. Let's move on. >> Mr. Bur, you're kind of the tiebreaker on this and I'm going to need your
input. I go back to this document and I think it supersedes whatever the D says. >> Okay. >> It does. >> Okay. So, I'm going to the deed which I think is a stronger document than whatever is whatever our regulating
authority or anything says. So, I'm looking at the violation from here and and I agree with the de I agree that the D has ruled on this and I don't believe that the D will change their mind. >> So, >> that's separate. But >> what do you mean that's separate?
>> No, that's the first thing you said I understand that's an answer. But the second thing, what you believe they will do is irrelevant. But what you said in the beginning is this supersedes matter anything in your mind. Your vote is no. >> Why? You get the you get to believe. Hold on. Hold on. I'm not even going to go there. Let's let's wrap this up.
>> Yeah. No, I I uh the kayak racks need to move. >> All right. Well, I would like to take legal matters and have our attorney either I don't know exactly how it's done, whether it be, you know, put a demand. We've already put a demand in for them to move it. They said no. We we
need to make take the next step. I don't know if that's suing them. I don't know how that works, but I would like our >> we'll pass on the KP law and we'll see what what actions we can take. And I believe it's just taking the core, >> right? That's what I'm trying to avoid. >> I'm trying to avoid it, too. Move the racks.
>> I'm working on it. Myself. >> This thing is This is This the problem is solved and we're moving on in life. So, I'd like a motion on this. >> I make a motion that we uh send this to to KP Law for resolution.
>> All those in favor? Yes, we seconded. I'm >> sorry. You're right. I second that. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> All those opposed. >> Okay.
Next item. >> Uh we're at Do you have a copy of this bill? Cuz I >> What is this? >> This is the >> Yeah, he has the agenda. >> You have the agenda. Just so we can all follow along. All right. We review open meeting law complaint file I Andy Saraski and discuss with the council.
>> One second. And I have that right here, >> Mr. Sarvasi. Oh, what? >> That's the question. >> All right. Yeah. Listen, I'm not going to deal with back and forth between any of you. All right. If you can't sit there, be quiet and be professional throughout the meeting. I'm going to ask you to leave.
>> Okay. Um, >> sorry, I have a lot of papers in front of me here. >> Oh, it's this. >> Uh, yeah. Okay. Okay. So, >> I'm sorry. >> Nope. That's not this. >> You gave it to me. I >> take mine. >> Okay. So, basically,
um, >> got back on it. Yeah. May 22nd, 26 of we received an openly open meeting law, um, complaint filed by Andy Sarvasi. We have uh basically met with our legal
counsel and you know we discussed this multiple times at the meetings. I've discussed it that nothing was done wrong. We spoke to Mr. Mor individually. This is involving the SRF funding. Um and basically I don't need to reiterate
the whole thing. I don't need to read it all. I can give you a copy of this if you would like sir. um no be sent to them once finalizes with um >> all right >> can be >> in um so we'll be submitting our response when this is available I'll let
make it available to you and that's where we're at with that >> Mr. Mr. Chair, this goes to the attorney general. >> Yes. >> And as long as have they have they ruled on it or how to >> No, it will be sent tomorrow. >> Okay. >> It is just our response.
>> Oh, so our response So it's been filed with the attorney general. >> We have our respect response that you guys this is a direct but there has been a there has been a complaint that has been filed. >> I'm so sorry I misunderstood. Yes. So >> the complaint
>> what what we are now sending is our response to the complaint. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Which in which case that will be sent and then the attorney general will review >> and make a rule decision on such >> All right. So there hasn't really been a
decision on this. >> Correct. >> So everything I see on Facebook that we're already guilty is is not true. >> I wouldn't put any faith in that. I I'm not sure how they because it says I violated the open meeting law which I >> So we didn't but I can't. >> No. So you can't
>> there's nothing against me. I can I can talk to whoever I want, you know. So >> So I I think that's kind of part of the >> So it's not it's not on us. It's on you, >> which I'm not part of open law. So yeah. >> So needless to say, this is uh now >> so we didn't violate the open mean law or
>> we don't know until we get the ruling. >> We simply are, you know, we're going through the motions here of Okay. >> of that. >> Gotcha. >> Um So, does the board um with the draft response send it all to you guys to review?
>> So, the time is 14 days. >> I have to correct I have to give them the dates tomorrow today. >> Okay. So, this is the draft response that's been prepared by KP Law. >> Yep. >> Um but >> you're going to want to change the date on it. >> I just want to make sure Yeah. There just said it to me that you >> Oh, yeah.
>> specifically addresses two are good with this. Uh. Oh, yes. Cuz uh Bill's not part of this, correct? Because it was before sending. Um, okay. >> No, this isn't this is not this is listing us as well. >> Yes.
>> In summary, the complaint alleges Mrs. Wood and Mr. Bur engaged in serial deliberation. call. >> Okay. Is that Froot Loops or Cocoa Puff deliberation? Serial deliberation.
So, this is >> Oh, sorry. I knew you gave me >> too many legal. >> There's a lot of stuff going on. >> Yeah. And >> if you put a computer screen in front of me, it would be even worse. I'm fine with that.
>> Do we want >> Do we need to make a little motion? >> He didn't say anything that you guys had to put on. >> I'm I'm good with it, Mr. Bur. You're good with it, correct? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. pretty much summary. >> Um, okay. Uh, item number five, we have
review and discuss the 2026 sanitary survey. >> All right. I I don't want to get the whole thing. Uh, every year each D person has their focus things and this particular one all the monthly reporting the we do all kinds of testing. Uh, this
new one uh had more intense detailed testing. So that's why there's a lot of stuff in the same fish survey. So all but all all the stuff that we do was approved in the past one. So uh the key things I want to bring up in the Sante survey was they mentioned the manganesees
PAS and redundancy three issues that someone needs to deal with. I did my thing and the rest is up to you guys. So >> PAS redundancy and the iron amenities issues. Is that >> Yes. >> I I missed the redundancy
page 22. God, you have it memorized. >> 21 22 somewhere around there. >> Let me see what it says. >> So, typical >> 21 or 22 >> valuation checklist. Yeah, it might read
one of those >> over here. >> Uh, that one. >> You have a copy in front of you, just so you know. >> Well, I have it open I have it open to the two pages that I mentioned. I just want I I don't recall what they said about redundancy. That's all uh maintains two storage tanks
uh which is more than two average days of demand. However, lumin LWD does not have additional wells well fields which can provide the equivalent volume of the highest producer producing source heating well per luminar rings man water uh maximum deal authorized volume.
So whenever we do anything like even when we did the Lancaster project we tried we had to meet the demand requested uh with the kitty well offline. So that's a typical thing larger sources offline. Correct. Can you meet your demand?
I'd like to note too that there was a lot of comments about that that >> you know the survey went out and you know all the water operators are incompetent and they don't know what they're doing all these violations that I guarantee the people who are commenting that didn't even see the
survey. So it's not they >> but I was kind of disappointed that I I didn't work on Friday. It came in Friday and I had her send it and uh I was kind of disappointed that I'm seeing Facebook's comments regarding it and I haven't even seen it yet. So, I was kind of disappointed
>> and I only sent it I only emailed it to the three of you that Friday and then somehow come people saw the sanitary survey over the weekend. >> There's a there's a sanitary survey I heard that it somehow through the board of health. Does the board of health get
a copy? Uh, not not by the time it got >> at least within 12 hours. >> Well, somebody got it before I got it. Uh, and and he said he got it from the board of health. >> Someone from the board of health. >> He sent it to the super before I've read
it. Maybe it was in my inbox. I don't know. >> So, we have because I sent it the day we got it from D. >> The same day. I don't know. Somebody's >> cuz you usually when typically when stuff like that comes usually it goes to us and we we forward it to them. >> Sure. >> But but maybe maybe they changed it up.
>> Well, so >> I mean it doesn't matter. Um, >> yeah, I'm not quite sure what they're there is this violation cit or what non-compliance or this >> the redundancy thing kind of just making
a note that you know if at some point we we should if possible we should address that. >> Yeah. So they have different uh levels of deficiencies ABC you got to do right away. That's stuff we're working on now. >> Uh the B's is more of a long-term effect.
>> Sure. So, >> so like by manganese you you guys got to come up with a action plan. What are you going to do? >> Is that a A, B or a C? >> They give you a date. I think it was September 26 >> to come up with an action plan. So I don't know how you're going to do it.
>> Tell them what we're doing. >> So either you certain pe that group can tell me what to do. I don't because I don't know what to do. >> I think we could talk about that. >> Okay, that's all I got on that. So, we're working on stuff. We'll we'll uh
stuff comes up, we'll we'll talk about it more in detail. >> Yeah, the guys have already there was so many minor things on the sanitary survey that like literally were fixed the day we got like that Monday, they painted a little area, they fixed something immediately, corrections, little things have been fixed. So, it's all good.
>> Any further discussion on the sanitary service? >> I'm going to go with a no. Move on. All right. Uh we're on item number six. Discuss PAS remediation possibilities. >> That's me. >> Yep. Requested by
>> Yeah. Um I I saw these sheets out here. I mean, what what they weren't for me or what you want to cuz they're about to Yeah. Okay. All right. So, >> I'm going to I put together some slides here. Uh, I asked just let go through
them one at a time because they can be a little bit confusing. I know what they're doing, but that's cuz I uh uh Oh, this one seems thicker. Oh, that's why. So, this this Okay, so the premise of
what I'm going to talk about here is that the EPA has come out. You need a bad listener. >> Well, it says 2020, Bill. >> I know. I'm going to tell that's why I said you're going to just confuse them. If you if you start if you start going
if you start going through that you get confused. Um so if if the EPA uh um standards hold the only thing that they're going to come into mass D with are two two uh PIA numbers the A and the S. PIA A and PIA S. PIA S we knock it
out of park. Not an issue with the four parts per trillion. Um it's a PIA A that's that's the shaky one. It's it's uh it's on the edge, but it's a little bit shakier. Now, as a as a sort of a um not a disclaimer, but uh if
Massachusetts decides for some reason to not go with those two from EPA and does their own thing with PIFA 6, then you know what you can do with this? You just put it in the garbage. So now this whole thing, the premise of this is they're
going to follow EPA two two pas A and S. What you're looking at the very top chart is the raw pump data uh uh from 2020. The reason I picked 2020 to show you this data, this is absolutely the worst uh worst meaning the highest
capacity I could find from all the pumps all and and the highest Pa numbers. So this is the worst case you could deal with. And if you look at the chart, I mean it's pretty self-explanatory. It's uh it's the well output. And this is for uh each month from well one, well two,
well three uh well four, well five and the heating well all the outputs. The only thing that's different here is the right side in red where I actually logged in what the PIFA A would be for that year. >> Which well? >> No, all of them. >> They all ran together.
>> All no, not yet. I'm getting there. Okay. This is just your this just right off the right off the chart. Right off the machine. This is raw data. I didn't do anything with this data. I just took the data and I said if this were exactly what was happening, what would the A look like? >> Okay, >> I have a question. Sure, that's okay.
So, this this number right here, like I'm just looking at I'm assuming this is January, the top month, right? >> Oh, shoot. Yeah, I'm sorry about that. >> Yeah, I figured that out though. >> Yeah, good. All right. Um, so but this PIA uh PFO, we'll just call it PA for you know what I'm saying. All right, it's 5.8. >> Yeah, >> but uh like I say, is that
>> I'll tell you >> where did you get that number from? >> Okay, so I took the data that uh Fran gave me. I think it's I think it's was passed out here. This data right here. This data. >> Yeah. But that's 2026. >> I looked at I looked at the A's for all the wells.
>> Okay. >> And I took an average. >> Okay. Thank you. Got it. Got it. >> And then the waiting factor. You had to put a waiting factor in because each well is pumping at a different rate. All of that stuff >> is how this number was generated. >> That's an average number. >> Got it. >> All right. It's it's a weighted average.
>> Sure. Okay. >> Gotcha. I understand. >> And so that comes out to 5.2. doesn't pass. Okay. Then I took 2025. Again, the reason I took this one is the I can't do any worse than this. Then I took 2025. Now, what was interesting about 2025 is
the first four months because the the Keing was down for the uh pilot study were only >> Lancaster. >> And that's a great piece of information. Only Lancaster. And over here on the right, you can see again not I didn't do
anything with with this raw data. I just this is what it is. That comes out to be 3.9 for Lancaster. And then the rest of the year from May through December comes out to be four. So there's when I say hairy edge, this is a 4.0 parts per trillion. Okay.
>> All right. That said, I said, is there any way that we could work with these numbers and these on these wells and these pumps that I can bring those number down below four that so that was the objective again I'm looking for a solution sat here with
Fran uh Monday we went through all the wells what they could pump what they can't pump uh and I and I came away with a what I think is a solution that's what I want to run by everybody So the next Yes, you can turn the page. Now I'm on proposed PIFA reduction
system. So the protocol based on um discussion with uh with Fran the protocol is to operate all four Lancaster wells simultaneously 12 hours a day maximum
for every day. Okay, that means and and the objective there is set it and forget it. Start them up, run it at a certain uh, as you can see down here. I'm already jumping ahead. Fix all of the outputs. So, well one be running 150
gallons per minute. Well 2 75 gallons per minute. Well, four 200 grams per gram gallons per minute. Uh, Fran blessed these. We went over, we looked at the recharge rates each and and these these are good good number. In fact, well, before I I docked it down, we were
at 210. I knocked that down to 200 U because it looks like that was kind of on the hairy age edge of recovery. >> Yeah. Well, that one because that that's a new pump. Prior to the new pump, we were pumping like 170 >> and we'd still we burn out. >> So, that that's my only concern with the
12-hour which at 12 hours. Uh like I just looked last night at well number one. It ran shut off and it took more than 24 hours for that to recover. So, my only concern is yes, I I said, "Okay, yeah, they can run 12 hours a day, but but for how long?" Like, when when we hit August, I'm I'm I'm going to get a
little nervous about this. I might >> well regret that I said the 12, but but maybe it's true. I'm not sure, but I'm not going to say it's not true, but I'm I'm just saying it's uh >> Okay. If if if we if we go if we come up, we say, "Hey, this looks like a plan." Y, >> we can dig in deeper.
>> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. No, I mean, by all means, we could turn a pump on to give the town water, but no, I'm with you. Okay. Yeah. >> Um, >> okay. The uh the operating the heating well, so all four lands going at the same rate, 12 hours a day. Yeah.
>> 30 every day of the month. Again, set it and forget it. Well, five and uh and Keing. Um we could set those and forget it, too. But this might be based on when I went through the analysis, this could be something like a winter summertime thing. This could be a
a six-month out of the year. It's one setting and maybe another setting for the the remainder of the uh of the year through basically through the summertime. But they too will be the same the same situation whatever we decide it to be. Now what are the benefits of this?
I think we could reduce the PIFA aid to less than four parts per trillion with this with this plan. And if it is four parts per trillion, then we would not need a a PIFA's uh water treatment plan. And if you look in
boldface type and enlarged if mass DP uses the the EPA's uh four parts per trillion if they accept that. All right. And and not the PIFA 6 regulation, which we would not pass. >> Yeah, we don't know what they're
>> we don't we don't know. But this is the this is the premise. Now what would that do? Now it would also reduce the hard water level. We talked briefly about that. We can talk more about that um when I go through some of these charts. It may also reduce the maganesees issue
and we may have a plan for the manganesees too. And now then I took the 2020 raw data. Yes. Go to the next one. You have to be a good student here. Okay. So I took the 2020 data and I applied this protocol
that I thought was approved but might have to be tweaked. >> Oh yeah well we'll keep plugging away. >> So I took that protocol and if you look I put uh well one at 150 I didn't and well 275 and uh well four at 200 and in
this case I ran well five at 550. So that's down because well five that's that's the bad guy. Yeah, >> that guy's over eight on the highest end. If you look at those those charts that you had here with the green and the yellow, I took the high end of >> wealth.
Yeah. >> Yeah. I went I went >> I'm up in here someplace. >> Yeah, you said it was eight. >> 87 I think I put in 12. >> I'm up here. >> Yeah, but number five. I got you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, these are the dates. Copy. Gotcha. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's up. Yeah. Yeah.
>> And if you look down here though, there's also numbers for five down in here. So I I didn't take the lowest number. I didn't take the highest number. I took a number right about here. So if I did that exactly I said it comes out to 3.4 for the day. And this is this
is the 2020 year. This was the worst year, >> right? >> And so if we ran this with with these uh constraints on the wells on the pumps and the wells if we pass then it took 2025. next page
and I broke it up into January to April and May to December because January to April uh we're we're only uh Lancaster >> only Lancaster A and you look at that number I mean this is 2.6 six. Okay, this is also telling and this this is
addresses the hard water too uh Fran and and if we actually not only January April if you look at the end of the year about approximately six months a couple of years and maybe even squeeze out seven if we only ran if we only ran uh Lancaster
as we did the first five months we get no hard water I mean it's all soft water from Lancaster so that goes a long way toward the hard water issue Yes, you got all the other flip issues, the green water, the brown water. >> Fran, when I asked you what we could run
these wells at, we weren't talking about green water and brown water. >> Well, that that that was what happened when we ran just the Lancaster wells. So, but usually when we talk treatment plant, that was all the talking is that when we do a treatment plan, all that goes away.
Did we >> did we >> we did talk to 12 hours the pump rate, but there's a million things that we could talk about. I mean, we could sit down for another eight hours. Okay, so let's say we go with your plan. Okay, so we got these four run wells running every day. Okay, well number four is out
of water. Okay, Lancaster is out of business. You can't run it because you're exceeding the floors. You cannot exceed four when when this new regulation comes out. You cannot exceed that. So boom, Lancaster's done. What are you going to do? You can't run Kadings. Kings by itself is open. That that's five seven whatever their number
is. So So there's a lot of things and I'm all for Hey, you want to run Lancaster? Let's do some testing. I'm all for it. Let's see what we got. >> Okay. That's that's >> But I mean we on the top of that sheet we cuz that's what we used to run that the sheet that we we have.
>> Yeah. Then we stopped and we started sampling them uh as we operate. one of four above the floor when we ran all four. >> I think I think I hear an agreement here. Um there all these issues. There's all
these issues. Um and you know, you you you you uh you can start and talking about all these issues and hope to come up with a plan. It never works that way. >> You come out with a a piece of paper, you put a plan down, and then you start addressing what I call the noise. And
maybe you're gonna find you're gonna find that you got square peg or round pegs and square holes and they don't fit. But then you know what? You might >> you might be able to get a drill and fix that, you know. So >> I'm I'm okay. To me, I'm too I I think I hear
that. And so u uh >> anyway, so assuming that we could continue like this, it doesn't have to be exactly like that. You could squeeze some heating water in here if you I mean if you wanted to. It's not going to affect that number. 2.6 six, it's not going to affect it at all. Um, and then
May, the May to December, again, same rates that I was talking about, 12 hours a day, every day of the month. And, um, in this case, of course, we add Keings and that comes out to 3.3 with with these conditions. And for the whole
year, it comes out to 3.1. >> How would you get the Keings water to Lancaster? >> Well, I'm getting there. >> Oh, sorry. And then oh then this then the last >> you weren't told to flip the page I'm sorry I saw >> uh so the last page is what other
benefit I put I looked at the man the man numbers that you had given me not me but you had on that sheet >> and I said >> yes I'm on the last page >> sorry didn't >> um I put in all those numbers and average them and in the bottom I put the
worst case I picked the worst case manganesees that that was on that sheet that you had given me that that cited the uh it was cited in the survey >> and that comes out the worst case comes out to 0.19 which is well below the.3 where you get a citation. Yeah, this
would be the maximum number you would get if these wells are all combined as opposed to just looking at that well or looking at that well and getting a violation. >> Now Christie, to your point >> I did have another I did have another
one here. There are with uh I had some my comments in here. What did I do with them? Oh, here they are. I thought I thought I attached it to those. We can start the testing right away. We can see whether this is >> you guys are ready. I'm writing.
>> Okay. We by only of course only Lancaster. can't deal with keing because the pro the proposal that here is uh requires keing to be connected to Lancaster. >> Oh, >> that's a necessary water line. >> So you're you're saying to do what
you're suggesting, we need a raw water transmission main from Keing to Lancaster. >> Yes. >> My Okay. >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Um and along So we start the testing right away. We need to based on that testing based on mass DP um uh we would
then if it works out we then would need that line from from uh Lancaster from Keing to Lancaster uh and we would need then if we went with that we would need a real cost analysis uh on that when I say real I mean actual what it would
actually cost I know there's issues about the line about the main the size of the main and I think I also had a question uh actually for Ty on uh of the uh change out of the drops versus putting in a using a real small line for the return and use the current one as a
as a main transmission line and just and just tap or shut off all the the taps. I mean I >> do but well I I know it would be tough and but if it's a lot cheaper I I saw the the main go up a couple of million dollars to go to a bigger one. So I just think >> Yeah. So that's all stuff we've been
talking on in the background like like >> Hickory Hills to Lancaster we we just down to 8 in line and I think the original line for Key's I think was a 16. I think we're down to maybe a 10 or 12. So yes. So so as with everything we always budget a high
>> um so where I'm coming from is if if those conditions are met >> I mean it's possible we don't we even have to put a a plant in and we could deal with manganesees and even hard water. Okay, >> that's it. >> This is an awesome proposal, Bill. >> I'm not going to shoot it down right
away or anything. Don't worry. U no, I look at there's a lot of homework in this and I and I and I truly do appreciate the work you put into it on this particular thing. Not everything. >> Not these are all legit numbers we absolutely do. But here's a I think look, I'm all for trying anything that
can help out the Lunberg Water District. I think this is a great idea. Let's try it. But I and I I want to see how this thing runs. Let's pilot test this thing out for as long as we can. Obviously, the well levels will dictate how much rain we get. May we may have to you, like you say, meander off this to a
certain point, but does this remediate us in a long-term solution? The thing is, Woody, it's it's it's consistent with if we have to go in another direction, it doesn't it doesn't prelude that because we would still have
to put that connection in. We have to do some plumbing at the other end. >> Okay. But I I guess uh once again, I think this is a great idea and I really want to do it because I want to see what the numbers look like and see how the wells react to running at certain times and whatnot. Um I I got I think it's
great, but and I'm not trying to be negative, but like I do I I don't think this maybe it will, but I don't see how this would negate the need for a treatment plant for the future because you know what I'm saying? And I think this is great and I want to try cuz I want to see what these
numbers look like. Um, but you know, I feel like this might be able to make us squeak by, but as you know, I've always looked at the treatment plant as a 20 30 year out solution. You know, that's how I've I I viewed it and this is why I, you know, I wanted us to try to get this thing in because that's how I felt that
in 20 or 30 years that, you know, these wells won't be sufficient for what we have in Lunberg. You know what I'm saying? So that's I'm all for trying this, but you know, I think in the back in the back of my mind, I'm still thinking like this is great, but like um I feel like if we we dial it just the
right way, it'll work for now, but for the long term, we and we can revisit that as we go, but that's just >> the key is the key is mass D accepting. That's that's real. >> Once again, like you said in here, the big if mass D come back and be like, we want everything zero and
>> whatever. So on on the P the PA fast 6 that was Massachusetts. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh EPA had a 70 pot per train. >> No one was you know few went near that. So then Massachusetts went to the to the 20 and they came up with all kinds of different ones than the EPA had.
>> So now now the new EPA is four parts per trillion for those two the A and the S. So Massachusetts has to take those four. >> Correct. >> But will they put other stuff in there? And that's that's what we don't know. >> Correct. So, >> so we don't start this until we really get that information. >> We need I would start it now.
>> I'd start it now, too. >> So, this this will be perfect because, >> uh, one of the comments that always comes out is that there's no water in Lancaster. This is going to prove it. >> So, you're going to see water. No, I've seen it. I'm tell
>> Get your drill out. Get your drill out. >> Yeah, I've had the four hours. That's all I can run around. So, but anyway, so I think this will be a good test. So, we have a 100 foot tap, right? Uh, so all the wells, uh, they go to injection point, 100 foot tap. So, >> all the heating wells go to one point.
>> Lancaster. Yep. >> Sorry, Lancaster. Go. >> So, we So, we run them all 12 hours a day and then, uh, we could sample that. And you guys tell me how frequent of a sample. Once a week, once a month, once every two. >> How long does it take to wash out the line? >> Uh, actually, because it it's it's
always trickling. So it never stops because it's controlling our pH and chlorine. >> So if you fill up the tank one night uh and you want to take it out the next day >> out of this tab, you you'd have to at least run that that No. So So all four wells are down in
Lancaster. So when they pump, they pump out one transmission ve and this was a 100 foot tap right on that. >> Oh, right on that. >> So when we we're running them, so we're going to run every night 12 hours. So in the morning we do a grab our pas sample. We grab a sample. We we flush that line
and uh make sure it's clean sample and then uh grab the PAS bring to the lab. So it's it's a that's how we did the the ones on that sheet. The top ones. >> Um I so I would if if I would do the P A I mean you could do S2 but just it's
just a P test six. That's what it is. >> But manganesees. >> You want manganesees? >> Oh no. I don't want six. Six doesn't help us. does everything on the >> when you send out the sample they just test it all >> a it does a >> does them all so you'll see you'll get the A just you know you can't be like I
just want the A >> but can you do bands with that too that's because yeah >> piece of cake >> so my my question we're trying to run these this way if this works it does D tell us how how does this affect the PAS testing do they >> I'll have to call them and tell them
>> yeah because they I thought they wanted to test the individual wells >> so they would have to accept They would have to accept this run process. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But I I know exactly what you're saying. >> There's no there's there's no reason why
we can't try this. Right. The DP says we have we only can pump so much out of these wells. They're not regulating when you're flipping the switches on. >> And if you define your system to be that that's the system. And by the way, it's also not only is it operationally convenient to keep the wells running at
a fixed rate, known as set it and forget it for a fixed time, but it it also could define your system. >> You don't want a system you can go in here and turn this knob and turn that knob. >> So I I don't know about your term operationally convenient. It's operationally convenient on this paper.
Those wells react in a very different way. And we'll find out. Well, I'm saying as a as an objective as an objective when you do the testing, if you can run them at a level that you feel you can run continuously. I mean, it
doesn't it it doesn't it would help if I if if you go just turn one up because I could always I could always check the number to see if it makes sense. But from a point of view of a of a system, uh it would be best if you can't run if you can't run it at 150. We talked about
the variable pump on on number one. If you had could run that down say at at 100 or whatever it is, it would be nice if you could put fixed rates on each of them even though they might be a little just a little bit lower than what we have here. >> So your proposal is to run them at the
weight the the flow rates that you have >> initially >> 100 100 gallons. Okay. >> Yeah. >> And then and then so we're going to run those 12 hours a day. We'll do the sampling. How how often? Weekly twice a week. >> How much how much it cost? >> $400. $400 per that's just for the
people. You have to check manganesees is like I think it's like 20 bucks 40 bucks. It's only for mag. >> So I I'd be okay with every other week. >> Every other week. >> Um but also once again let's be fluid about it. Let's see how the wells are reacting and if maybe we do it once a
week or maybe like hey everything seems to be holding. We you know so like you know I think every other week's good but we'll rely on you to see like or once again it could be ah we're getting a bunch of green water, brown water. We have to, you know, >> well, you're you're going to monitor the well. I mean, both things, these numbers and you're going to monitor the wells,
too. >> Oh, yeah. So, so like the the capacity of the wells, the water above the screens, all on >> skated. We could I can show everybody. So, it's >> all I can prove whatever we see. And I mean, if we had to, I mean, I still think we should have a screen here. It'
be great if I could >> have a screening and put it on the screen so I can actually go on the skate because I can log in. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Show it. I can do it on my phone. So, hey, I'm just curious why the numbers of 150 75. Where did you come up with those? >> This guy. >> Okay.
>> That that's what they pump. Okay. >> So, the only one that pumps more is well number five. >> Right. I understand. >> But one number five because of the high levels of peak fast and actually even the manganese. >> I want to crank down one too a little bit, but that's it's not you can't >> Yeah, that's not a adjustable.
>> All right, let's let's give it a weld. See what happens. >> All right. Also, it begs the question about that the other well at uh France well at Keading to get that thing tested because we have a because when we do tie in Keing
we it would be nice to have this other well at some point if the if the PAS are low after the testing I know they're low now but it doesn't >> Sure. Uh, >> I tell you what, and I know where you're going, Bill, and I get it, but once again, we're still in a very, you know, we don't know the regulations that are
going to come out, whatever. And >> I'm all for trying this, but there one thing that we do need to keep in mind even let's as we get done this little test is how sustainable is this for our water system? Yeah. Well, we'll evaluate all that on the way, but let's give it a whirl. See what comes up. >> All right. Yeah, I think this will be
good then because no one likes it. But this is why my top pick is Hickory Hills. Her don't like this rep. This This is And this this will show why. >> Okay. >> So, I'm all I'm all for it. >> All right. >> All right. >> I'm all for it. Hey, Rails, you can turn around, run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. >> Yep. >> And never never
>> never have a problem. >> Um any uh any further discussion on this. >> I I want they'll do a good job on >> Yeah, I agree. Good job, Bill. >> Testament. >> Yep. Okay, we're going to move on. >> You're objective, right? >> What?
>> No, I didn't talk to him. He's objected. I hope >> Bill that was >> No, that was good. >> Bill, that was item number six. >> I I have there's a lot of different things that'll work there work out as we do it. I have a lot of concerns. >> Everything I gave for information, which is what I report to DP and and did his
thing with it. So, it's all legit numbers. >> Let's see. Yeah. See how it goes. Okay. Number seven, discuss your billing software. >> Yeah. So, we had decided a while ago. >> Yeah. Yeah. We're running into so many snags with
them right now. >> So, they cannot provide a lot of the things that we need. Uh we provide final bills. We do um one month, two months, three month partials.
The biggest thing they don't do paperless billing, which I'm blown away by because I'm like, >> yeah, who does that? >> Who doesn't do paperless billing nowadays? So, Laur Well, don't worry. will look into this. Um, and then the
printing was because of the paperless I was we were going to have to if we were going to keep InvoiceCloud, which is our online platform, people could still have their accounts and they could pay that, but it wouldn't be able to and people could still log in
and see their bills, but I was we were still going to have to pay the billing company to bill all 2500 invoices out because they wouldn't link together to say, "Well, they're paperless, so don't mail them." So now we're paying even more in postage. So
long story short, lots of Zoom meetings, lots of stressful things, going back and forth. Yeah, don't worry. Oh, the other big thing was um work orders. That was one of the major parts of us switching. >> They don't have a work order platform right now at all.
>> The company that they had that they were working with >> decided they no longer wanted to do municipality work orders. So they're not supporting that platform. So they're like, "Well, if you know of a good platform or we're willing to work with someone." So they're
there's a lot up in the air. >> All the stuff that brought us to it. >> I know this state advertises like they This is why we went to >> I know. So now that we're really getting down to it, I'm I'm really frustrated and I >> She was going kind of crazy on I'm like, let's let's rethink this thing. You
know, we haven't we haven't bullet yet. >> We haven't paid anything. We're not in contract. We we literally literally were told we can cancel at any point. So I like them. I like their software. I like everything. But right now
they cannot provide what we need to justify switching our billing software. So I know you guys voted on doing this. So my question is, can we just hold off? Can I express to
them listen I appreciate everything you've done but you cannot provide the mi the main things is billing and work orders. >> Yeah >> that that's and you guys cannot accommodate to the things that we need right now. So I would like to
>> hold them off at least for and I know touch base with them in 6 months and then maybe revisit for next fiscal year because the fiscal year seems to be easy. Along with that we had already approved the work orders through NDS but then I said hold tight. >> Yeah.
>> Because we were looking at >> so what does this do with NDS? Do we have to >> I have not said a word to NDS. I have not said anything. So my question is though I would really like to we already have the work order stuff
that you guys already authorized. Can we take what we guys had approved through Vadar? We were going to do the We were going to put everything in Vader accounting. >> Right. That was the whole point of this is to get everything together. They all talked to each other and it made your life simpler which doesn't sound like it's happening. >> Nothing is t they don't have the vendors
that they had said a couple years ago. A lot of things are going on. So, I would like to stick with NDS for now. We I would like to get them going back on the work order program, which you guys already authorized doing that, but I would like to get them going on the accounting software and putting
everything together as one, the same as we were going to do for Vadar. NDS can do some can do a lot of that. So, I would like to update NDS, get us as good as we can, and hold Vadar off. Are there other accounting systems that you can screen
in the meantime? >> Oh, well, yeah. Well, we have QuickBooks right now. >> Yeah, but in the one that doesn't provide what you want, are there others that you could talk to that does provide what you want? >> Different different billing program.
Oh, we look we did a we looked at a ton of them a couple year like two years ago when we thought about changing. Yeah, there's there's a few. Um, and I did a lot of research calling around to towns. What do you have? What do you suggest? And all that and figured out >> Vader was pretty popular.
>> Vader was very popular, >> but it's but like he said, municipalities, every municipality is very different. We we build our final reads very different than a lot of other people do. We do quarterly billing, some people do monthly billing, you know, so everybody has their own. It's not a
typical accounting like you're a town and you have to follow these, you know. So, so he's like, "Oh, we accommodate. We we try to make it." But now that we're getting into the fine details, it's not working. So, >> so um my my recommendation is we hold
off one year, see how things go and maybe maybe we'll look at it again next year and and if we do the accounting and all this stuff and uh there is the work order program, we're familiar with it. We could maybe take that move it to the VA unit and then all the accounting can be just transferred over to a different
moneywise. What does this do? >> It doesn't cost us anything to be like we're done. >> Nope. But >> do we have to reactivate other accounts with like NDS and stuff like that? Okay, >> that's all still going. >> Yeah, that's No, everything's I I >> So, financially, this won't make any impact. No,
>> no, other than purchasing the work order, which you already approved. >> No, we already approved that. It's just getting things going and changing things over and I just needed I >> was supposed to have 4hour training session today on Vadar and I'm like he's like put it on hold and see what the
board thinks. So, this is kind of where I'm at, but I needed you guys to to understand. And I just the accounting was supposed to switch over July 1st and then October 1st was supposed to be the first bill with Vadar. >> It was going to be a nightmare. I mean, people were going to be calling us,
"Where's my I mean, I I pictured like arrive. >> They've got so many accounts. They're all paperless >> that they would be calling us like we need to get on and see this." And it would have been a nightmare for Lisa and I. Wait a second. I know I'm going
sideways here, but I thought at arrive we build one bill to them. >> Yeah. >> Well, but they have multiple. >> That's their problem though, right? >> No, they have every water connection is a meter for us. So, there's about how many What do you have? Like, >> isn't it like two or 300 or 400 units?
>> Yeah. So, but the the not the multi-units are build as one, >> right? And all the multi-units are separate. >> One carousel rose. Okay. That's okay. >> And arrive pays those those people. >> That's separate. That's got it. >> So anyways, I guess I just wanted your
blessing that you guys were okay for me to hold off and not create a nightmare for us in the office and the residents. >> Piece of cake on me. >> Yeah. So, are you okay with it? >> I'm okay with it. I'm fine. Sounds good
to me. You got to deal with it. All right. I look at it. Would you like a motion on that? >> There's if if you want, but there's >> I don't know what the motion is. >> You would know what the motion is to uh terminate the cler contract. So to
>> stay with our current vendor and add the work order. >> We should make a motion because we we >> made a motion to approve >> to approve that. Okay. >> So we should make to >> rescend >> resend. Okay. motion to resend the the Vadar
change and >> stay with NDS and add the work order to NDS as previously approved >> and accounting >> and accounting. >> Work order and
>> are you good with that? >> Yes, >> I'll second that. >> Discussion. >> No, not at all. >> I think we already had enough of that. >> Going to go to do it, right? >> Yeah. >> Throw kayaks in there. All that was seat belt. Where's your numbers? Kayaks woods
up here. >> Okay. >> Action items. >> All those in favor. All Oh, sorry. All those in favor. Oh, I thought we did. We did. Thought we did all that. I don't know. Maybe we did. I >> didn't have any that bill that or anybody had mentioned to me any action
items. I just left action items on there, but I didn't have any. So, >> okay. I have no action items. >> Nope. >> All right. But now we're at number nine. It should be commissioners. That's us. Superintendent Clark treasure auditions. Fran, I'd like
to start with you. >> Okay. So, uh, so we're we're in the process of upgrading the radio system. >> Yes. >> So, the radio guys went down to the tower of Kings, took down our, uh, link system that talks to Sunny Road. So, the
whole radio system works on the the whole town on our link system. So when they when they took it down, powered it off, it wouldn't power back up. So I have backups for for everything we have. So I went down and brought brought it down and uh they had some new fancy demo
unit that he says, I'm going to give it to you. It was a nice with a nice dish. And he says, "Can we use it?" Like, "Yeah, go ahead. It's free. Go ahead. Stick it up." Uh there's a there's a tree right right in the way. So, we were getting a tough time uh getting a direct
line of sight to the tank. So, uh we we got it working, but it it's not a very good signal. It's okay, but it's it's not it's going to get worse as time goes on. So, I I asked the tower company. I said, "Is it possible that we put an an extension on the tower, 20 foot or 40
foot or whatever it is to get a little higher?" And uh they said, "Yes, it's it's possible. We need to do a structural analysis on it." And uh so they sent a proposal to me. It was $5,300 to do the structural >> uh they're not local and do a site
evaluation and and investigate the thing. >> So I didn't I didn't jump on it and say agree to it. So I called McKenzie Engineering out of Lamstera thinking a local guy maybe he could come out and and we could cut that bill in half because all I need to do is if he comes out and say hey the tower is in great
shape then we send that to the it's a ran tower R >> and uh >> so so Ran uses a sub guy to to to verify stuff. So anyway, I'm just telling you that there's a I think a problem that we need to
address in the in the near future. So, I'm not sure what it'll be. Somehow, if we could find that tree and just cut the It's one tree. He said it's one tree and it's right in the direct path. >> I feel like at some point we had discussed doing a structural
engineer on a tank. I know. >> This is the tower. The tower that's at the >> Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Are there other utilities other than the than ours, if you will? >> Uh, just under that tree in that tree. Oh.
You know, nothing on the tree, but but our tower has just antennas of fire and police. >> So, >> what currently? What tower is there? Do is it a ran tower? Do >> Yeah, it's a ran 90 foot tower. >> So, >> so those come pre-engineered
>> for for the 90 foot. So, I gave him the wind load. Yeah. When we built it, I gave them the wind. So, it it's designed for exactly what's there. >> So, what I want to know is can I stick another 20 foot piece on top? But like, can't we go back to Ran and be like, "Here's your pre-engineered 90." >> I did. I went to >> and they said, "Hey, we want another
5,400 bucks." >> Uh, they kicked it to another guy. I guess they don't do the site >> who does the structural analysis. >> Okay. Yeah, that's >> Anyway, so that's just I'm just letting you know something I'm working on. We'll see how it goes. We're up and running right now,
>> but uh >> Okay. >> We'll see what the future brings. So, >> I mean, it's a critical part of a >> a whole >> Absolutely. Yeah. you know, operation and and the fire and police radio system that would kill it. >> How tall is it tower now? >> 90 92. >> Is it a is it like the one out back
here? Is that a guide or is it is a freestanding three-legged? >> Three-legged climb up. >> We had we had to build it. Yeah. >> And then we had our astro crane come in. >> Yeah. We put it together ourselves. It was pretty cool. >> Yeah. >> Do we know where the tree is? >> Maybe go down there with the ladder
truck. >> That's how we That's how we did the towel. >> Well, you got to go you got to go up in line of sight. >> Yes. But I mean there's a tree in someone's backyard like >> I think it's a tree in Kis. I don't think it's close because the tank is 300t higher than >> I mean >> oh actually 450 ft high.
>> I mean is it easier to try to find this tree if it's like >> Yeah. But if we like All right. So when we put the tower up we went down with the fire fire pump with the ladder truck. >> So we went to Okay, we can see the tank. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then we went okay we can clearly see the tank. Oh, let's go let's
go hide in that. That's what we did. So, but that that one tree that that was >> Let's keep looking into it, but all honestly, >> let's find that tree. So, I don't know if maybe we can do >> I don't know if it's like on Kings's land somewhere, they could be like, "All right, cut the tree down." >> I wouldn't tell them. It's cool.
>> All right. Uh that's all I got on that. Just just just a future thing. We're working on it. Uh Lancaster Rav not not this past weekend. The weekend before tree came down, took out the power lines and uh there's another pole that's kind of crooked. So, we got Py Pore is our
our main contact for the the high powered stuff >> and uh so they're going to come fix another pole that looks like it's ready to break >> but uh so just so you everybody knows uh Unito owns the transformers near the road after that it's it's all on us. So we maintain all that. So uh so we have
that's why you saw it in the build. So we got to just one more just replace a hole. Uh well number five uh that's it's got four submersible wells up behind it. uh uh one of the wells failed, the pump
burnt up. So the way that runs way it can run is uh it can if as long as three wells turn on it, you can run the the high higher pumps enough water from three wells to to do what it needs. So then last week uh well four out behind
it started failing too. So now when we get two fails now now we can't run it. So now but we can we sneak two two wells can feed enough for that for that well. So, it's actually a pretty good producing site. So, anyway, just just a heads up, pumps are all in order. They're they're on their way. So, stuff
that'll be uh >> So, so when when will the uh considering the testing we're planning to do, when will those pumps be in? >> Uh that testing won't this won't affect the testing at all. Yeah. >> Really? Yeah. >> It's only 100 gallons a minute. Each
each one of those individual wells does 100 >> 125. Okay. >> So to do 100 >> that ends number five. >> Yeah. Well, number five. >> Okay. Uh so I'm working on uh preparing to do the water man.
Uh spoke to one of looking at sites to put the pipe for stockyard. And I just spoke to one today. He's all for it. I told him we'll make it pretty and stuff. Uh so one of the things I'd like to do is uh uh you we get a good pile of sand up here. you know, rent a screener,
screen our sand because we don't want rocks being put on the pike. So, I didn't know if you guys are okay with me renting a screener for probably maybe a week. >> May maybe Mike, I think a week, probably 20 plenty. Yeah. >> Okay. So, you're all good there. Uh, next thing was a drought. Uh, we get,
this is a Facebook thing. We get our information from DP. DP says, "Here, here's your drought map." That's what we put on on on Facebook. I don't go hunting on other sites and I really think no one else should be doing that either. Go to DDP site and that's what you need to put. So anyway, so so we're
all clear. We don't >> find that map. DP sends us to it. They sent us one yesterday. Boom. That's what's there. So >> I'm going to just piggyback off that if you don't mind. I know that does get brought up a lot. I've seen it on the Facebook about Lunberg Water Department
does not uh is not the one that says, "Hey, we're in a drought. you guys need to stop using. It has nothing to do with us. It has to do with the D regulates that Massachusetts says we're in a drought. Everybody's doing that. Just want to be clear. It's nothing to do
with us. >> The so the focus for the drought uh restrictions is the homeowners, residentials, watering the grass. That that's the biggest use. I mean, so a business, they're going to use it the same amount year round. So when you see
us going from 500,000 gallons a day to 1.2 that's that's the grass the green grass people. So that that's the focus of that. >> I mean you know the the water for pool guys uh I don't know what's it take probably 80,000 gallons a day. Not even
sure but uh that that's not that's nothing compared to what the green grass people. >> We are sure we have it written down just so everybody knows but you know >> Yeah. Okay. Uh, one other thing, another check just was on the way for the PAS litigation
>> today. >> The check came 193,000 >> and we're up to about one and a half million >> uh 1.2 1.3 million so far. The >> hundth of the way there. >> That's it for me. Mr. Bur, do you have
anything to add? >> Yeah. Uh, I would like the So, I've been talking to a couple residents that are concerned about obviously, you know, the the commercial sale of water from the district. There's multiple avenues for that. I buy water from the district for
doing all of my hydro seed work. Other companies in town do that. You have the the the pool company obviously and stuff. So, um, I'd like if I know we have a lot going on, but if the between the clerk, treasurer, and a
superintendent, they could kind of give us a a a quick report at some point as to the the benefits, the the negatives to it, and even like financially, what's uh, you know, the the the gain from
that. just plus and minuses kind of a littleformational thing to the to the residents >> because there there are a lot of and and then I I don't want to isolate anybody. So I want to look at it as large commercial users. >> Um
>> and yeah, you speak of the watering. I mean we can always one of the largest water users in town. I don't know if they if Arrive uses more than my brother does. >> Yes. >> Oh yeah. Oh yeah. He they're the huge they're the biggest. But what's the what's the what's the the
>> benefit to that until the day the D tells us we have to find them and and so forth. I mean we we are obligated to put out there >> Sure. >> what what people need to follow whether they follow it or not. >> But but but you made a good point. I
mean uh it's not just them. >> We have uh Gatsby comes here. The town comes here all the time to the dance for the bushes at the cemetery. Yeah, the pressure washer. There's there's tons of people, but they but needless to say, they all pay the
highest tiered rate to take the water. It's not they don't get a backdoor deal. It's man, they're And the more that they spend with us, the less everybody's bill goes down. That's >> that's it. Rates score. >> I get it. And that's what I just, you
know, a quick uh what are the benefits to it financially? Uh and what are the benefits? Are there benefits to the the system to continue to actually move that water or the operation of wells? Are there any negatives to it? Are we are we
overt taxing our wells? Are we you know >> Well, that you know I'm sorry. >> Actually, I wanted to add to what what you're saying. Could could as our meetings, could you pres present u the well depths each time and they're they're recorded. Could you come in with where they are so we can moni moni is
that the key thing to monitor the depth of each of the wells? Uh well the typical thing is how how far above the the shut off the screen. >> What whatever whatever the parameter is. Does it make sense to >> we could but that >> I wouldn't want to put that that's to me that's a >> when when because when would I look
every >> well you have to look at the same time every time. So >> the aren't running every day at the same time. Well they will be when we do this test but >> there there you go. >> So that might be something to monitor along with the test if if you're already monitoring a bunch of things. >> Maybe I can do a little spreadsheet on
the side. Guys can write down the Well, I mean, I'm just thinking if you just pick that spot wherever it is, if you just just come in and just write those four or five numbers, >> they all start at 7:30, then they all head to the skated computer that we do UV light logs for the tanks and stuff. So, we'll just add
>> Well, one we can do like pump rate uh water level, you know, >> it's since we're talking about the drought, water level seems to be the key parameter, right? >> Yeah. Okay. Not a big deal. >> Yeah. Yes, we can work on that for you, Mr.
>> Bush. Just just an idea, justformationally. I understand the and I I have my own feelings on the benefits to it and so forth. I' I'd like to see if there is a negative side to it. Um, you know, or are we are are we o overt
taxing our system, which I don't think that's the case. I think the system is the system. I think the regulations on on um water restrictions and so forth are just automatic
>> and just so Zach's been taken before I was a superintendent. Uh >> okay, >> I'm going to guess 1990. >> Yeah, at le commercial commercial sale benefits the district, but just I just want to go over
>> Sure. >> I understand at some point. >> Sure. Uh, that's all I got. >> Mr. Mki is a super commissioner. Do you have any >> I didn't have one, but I just want to make sure that uh that we're all on the same page. The program that I'm talking
about here, >> Hickory Hills couldn't do that. Okay. I mean, they they would have a chance. Okay. All right. Because you mentioned something about Hickory Hills and Lancas. You couldn't do this with Hickory Hills. It's it it is a good producing well, but not with the the
quality that you >> Yeah, we can never delete. Well, actually that had come up. >> Oh yeah. >> years ago. >> It's it not for me. >> This is This is We're here. Just want to make sure. >> Don't fight. >> Um Okay. I did have a I I had a little
bit of stuff. Um so obviously we had our special meeting last time. and a lot of residents uh came up had questions and stuff and um I'll tell you right now sitting up there in front of that board in front of the the crowd it's sometimes tough to be able to have immediate
responses and the correct information to give back out to the public. So I want to take this time to readress some of the questions that were asked to the board that uh we didn't really get the chance to answer or whatnot. Um one uh a couple of things. One of the residents
uh several different brought up different points. One of them was could we run uh Keings to Townsend uh to have Towns and treat the treat our water and send it back. Um
just uh just as off a couple of things and and and the reason why I want to kind of go through some of this is you know I feel like some of these these comments come across as like we didn't do our due diligence and looking at we've looked at every possible solution to this and the realization is is like
sending water to towns and back just the transmission main alone is almost $20 million. Okay. Not to mention the fact that we'll now need them to to pay them to treat it and then after further an investigation they can't treat it. Okay.
So, I just I want to kind of put that out there that like that was something that got brought up, but I >> I feel sometimes these these these questions are asked, they're asked almost in a baiting negative type of way and like we didn't look at that. The reason why we didn't investigate it and
we have engineers that are hired to do this is because it's it's just not possible. >> Yeah. It makes no sense. Another thing that was that was said and it kind of just kind of it just caught me a little bit. It said something to the effect of like the financing shouldn't drive the solution or something to that effect and basically implying that we're taking the
SRF funding and we're trying to like build a plant and nothing could be further from the truth. The realization is is that we have a problem that we're trying to fix. The SRF funding was just honestly a tool that we could use to lower the cost to the residents. It's
not like we said, "Oh, there's some SRF funding. Let's make up a use something to use it for and let's stick a plant in here." So, that also kind of just it kind of caught me off guard. I didn't really I didn't think that was that was a way to do it. Um, point of use PAS
treatment plants under sinks. I know this has been brought up. I believe it's been addressed several times, but any resident can get a point of use PAS, put it under the sink if they want. That's great. that we as a obviously as a water district bound by the DPA cannot pump
out poison water into the system and sell it. And for the people that say you should, you know, uh go to the legislator and argue it and all that stuff, to that I say good luck. I mean, there are plumbers unions. There's everything else in the world that's going to stop you from stop that from
happening. But if they want to do it, by all means do it. We have done everything we can to work with us. We're just trying to come up with a solution to treat PAS here at home. Um trying to think there's any other
question on that. So that's just kind of I want to at least address some of those um those public comments uh to hopefully help out the people. >> There was one comment that came up about conquered. >> Oh yes. Yes. Uh correct. >> They didn't get into the PAS details uh
but it's a $50 million plan. >> Correct. and and they're doing it and I guess the capacity is half of the capacity we went to, right? >> So, I'm not sure how this capback stuff works out. If they're 50 and we're only 41, well, you know what what's what's going on. So, there's always that other
stuff like in our case I was so high because we had >> $13 million in water man. So, take that off and we're down at the 20 something range, >> right? You know, I like I I saw that also being out there like, "Hey, you should look at towns and conquer's proposal and they did this and I did look at their proposal and they have a a
nice proposal, but if you went uh numbers to numbers, they're paying more to treat less >> in their situation, you know, and everything's different and we've said that from the get-go, like you can't it's not apples to apples." So, I just kind of wanted to, you know, at the time
it was, you know, it's a little a little hectic during those meetings and it's tough to get the right information out there when you just asked point blank and I just want to address some of those. So, that's all I have. Um, >> uh, do we have any public comment? >> Yes,
>> Mr. Make a note that >> you are who? >> Sorry, sir. Oh, my name Dave Rogers, 82 Highland Street. Um, a couple of comments. Um,
I I think from an accounting standpoint, it would be wise for us, the district, to uh keep uh a separate ledger for the uh PAS uh that we're getting because >> Good. Perfect. Um,
You you talked adnauseium which you had to do about the canoes. That that is a key issue in my mind and I say that because what if somebody comes by and torches those uh
canoes. Okay. Um and my point is we should look at the concept of of custody and control. Do we have custody of those? Uh uh help me. >> Kayaks.
>> Kayaks. Thanks. Uh and do we have control over the site? And you know that can be a a real sticky thing. So So your your law firm has got to come in and tell you what, you know, uh direction
we're going in. Um I uh like a whole bunch of other people um were at the the school when they went over the uh um the presentation uh which uh I uh
I don't I don't think um you were prepared as you should have been. Uh and it's a tough tough thing to do, but um there there are a whole bunch of questions uh that that people have and you know the 47 million or whatever the
hell it is. Um you know, there's got to be some some financial uh analysis on this thing. Um, I know I'm preaching to the choir out here, but um, you know, we we really need to put
the my point, we really need to put the the the pressure on our congresswoman and the the Senate and and the people uh in Washington that can give us uh
direction as to, you know, what this is going to sort out to. uh because it's you know and and I don't want to oversimplify this but it's it's going to be a huge number and we didn't get in at
all with the maintenance aspects of it and it just goes there's a whole list of things. So um I >> but the numbers we showed for the increase to residents was including the maintenance. Oh, it was. >> And then I have spoken to to state reps
and every time I do, they said, "You need to go through the SRF program." >> I can't hear. >> We need to go through the SRF program to get any of the finances from from the federal government. They do have that new emerging contaminate grant one >> and uh that one we did apply for. We applied for $41 million. So,
>> yeah. Well, you're you're at a a disadvantage because you don't have the wherewithal to refute uh some of the allegations that that people are making. and and let's let's call a state a spade, can we? At the end of the day, if
the vote was on this board that we uh are going to uh tear down uh the Hickory Hills, well, there'd be a lot of non-issues, okay? And we all know why it's a a prudent thing to do is to keep
them for as long as we can. Uh but you know and and the the other thing is that you know financially um you know we we have uh borrowed a lot
of money a lot of money and so uh there comes a point of diminishing return and after a while uh I'm I'm not so sure that even as as a freebie socalled u there's going to be support for Yeah.
So anyway, it's my two cents for Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Any other public comment? >> Yeah. Jonas Spazto Road. Um,
I've got some questions for Bill. Um, Bill, I you know, I like you. You're a good guy. I think you're an upstanding guy. I think you're honest. >> Then there's a butt. >> There's always a butt. >> Well, it's time to where you suck. Yeah, there is a lot. You got yourself into a
conundrum here with with the special interest group that I don't think you even want to be in. I think they taught you in the run for commissioner and you accepted and uh and now they're expecting you to go back and tell them what they want to hear and they're going to tell you what you want to say and
blah blah blah. >> Oh my god. and back and forth. And and as far as um you saying that um you're not interested, what happens to the kayaks? Leave them there. Whatever. Well, that's that's coming from them. I
don't know if that's coming from you or not, cuz you're you're in that special interest group, unfortunately. And I don't know why you're luring yourself to be in there because they're bringing you down. >> Believe me, I'm not done. Um, and I
think that's why you say what you say. I don't know if you really mean it or not, but you don't think the kayak should be there. Well, I don't Well, you think they should be if you want to get a variant of something, but I >> Mr. Espo, I'm going to I'm sorry, but I'm going to pause you just for one second because while I I want you to
have comment and I appreciate your input, uh, I'll tell you right now, if I was sitting here and there was any type of personal character attack to me, I wouldn't stand for it. And I'm not saying I'm not attacking. I said I think he's an upstanding nice going. I'm just saying he belongs to a group that I
believe he shouldn't belong to. That's all. I I didn't attack him. I didn't say he wasn't a bad guy. I didn't say he was lying about anything. I didn't say he was doing anything wrong. He's he's doing what he believes and that's fine. Did I clarify that enough? Are you stupid?
>> I'm just I'm just tread lightly, please. That's all I'm just trying to keep it professional. That's all. >> I am treading lightly. But, you know, as far as um uh hiring an attorney, I think the water district should spend every dime they have to to fight this because
I know that the Hickory Hills residents on the special interest group don't have any money to hire a lawyer to fight this because they're out >> they're out begging for money for an attorney that they don't have. >> So, if we spend any money for a lawyer,
>> I'm going to applause you also for one second. Mr. start asking are you recording him? >> No, I'm just timing how long people are speaking. >> Okay, carry on, please. >> What I was saying? >> Uh I think that uh what was I saying before?
>> I'm sorry. I don't >> Oh, lawyer. >> Yeah. >> Yes. I I I I think the water district can spend every penny they have to to to get these kayaks out of there because they're in a they're in a zone one. There's not supposed to be anything
there. So, I mean, why are we even considering thinking about leaving them there? Yeah. >> The other thing is if you go down there, put a fence around that place, leave the gate open, you go in there with a half a dozen guys, pick up them kayaks, put them on the other side of the fence,
which I think you can because the DP told us to get them out of there. They're leaving it to us to move them. >> So, I believe we can get down so people can go down there and move them long as you don't damage or anything. Just move them off the site and put them over on
the side and they can have them. >> I rest my case. Thank you sir for your comment. >> Talk >> um yes. >> So >> John I will try to just and I >> let me say that not only do I disagree
with what you said about me. I resent it. >> Okay. What did I say about those kayaks? I don't give a damn if they stay there. I don't care if they move them. I don't care what else I said. Oh, I don't care if they hang them from trees. I don't
care. All right. I don't care my argument. If you can attack my argument and say what's wrong with my argument, then I'll listen. Respect your opinion. I might disagree. Probably will. But the other thing I want to say is I speak for
one person. I speak for me. What comes out of my mouth is what I believe. Nobody else. And more important than that, no one speaks for me. Okay? I speak for exactly what I believe, what I think to be true, what I what my
interpretation of facts, it comes from me and only me. And you don't probably may not even believe that. And I I really feel badly about that. Um because the one thing I have I believe my whole
life is integrity. And when someone challenges my integrity, I get very upset. So if you can show me where I have not shown any level of integrity or I have lied or deceived or misled, let me have it. Bring it on. But the implication is that I am speaking for
another group and I may not believe that. I am not I'm whatever I speak about is for me. My argument on that kayaks is based on only one thing and that is that the DP gave us an out and that out is if we three signed a an an
application for a variance it all goes away. My two fellow commissioners didn't agree with that. Done deal. Okay. But I'm only speaking for me. >> Okay. I got just a couple more >> n public comment if you've exceeded your
three minutes already. Public comment is over, sir. And I don't definitely I appreciate everyone coming in, but I is is sitting here in this chair, which is a hard job to do in case some people don't know. I'd like to avoid the back and forth because tempers flare, people say things. Okay, so no more public
comment. That is closed. At this point, I would love if anybody would be willing to adjourn the meeting. >> What does that mean? >> Oh, that you you would like to attend. You go to recogn I move that we adjourn the meeting.
>> All those in favor I I