Okay. Uh, welcome again. Today's May 13th. It's 4 p.m. This is the Lunberg Water District Commissioners meeting. We'll start by saying the pledge of 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. >> Is it possible to have these email? I mean, even 10 minutes before the meeting is good >> to read, you know, >> if you want, I can I can try my best. Yeah. Some >> as soon as they're ready, just send
them. I don't care. No, just because it's it's hard to digest it here in just a couple minutes. >> Yeah, exactly what you do. Yeah, >> you're action. Way to throw stuff.
Oh, sorry. You're correct, sorry. I was not on the safe lane on that one at all. >> They just >> I saw them service. I told him they have to come to my
house. >> Probably be the same. I'll get it back twice. >> Yes. >> See, it said warrant and Oh, I know that was Sorry. a second on the wrong line, but still
control. >> I don't think so. I've had enough of it for you. >> I'm good. Is this from our um Yeah. >> Yeah. So is that basically saying 33 minimum we use them.
>> So here you're looking. >> Yep. So we did a quarterly and monthly break out. Yeah. Is >> there another Manner here? >> Yeah. >> Oh. Oh. What does he do? Uh, just a general work. >> You've been paying since you've been here.
Maybe they weren't together like I thought I was seeing doubles. I saw Daniel and >> I went for the ethics and all that. We met with the other staff and >> just kidding. Just kidding. I don't know which way
>> this way. If they're all signed, I'll take them back. >> There was something in here. Ah yeah, people were already out posting comments and I know we talked about this that we were working on what we were going to do to solidify estimated cost
to consumers. So for them to be posting comments premature to us putting anything out kind of confuses things. But I know we I know we discussed it. Mr. Chair, I make a motion we accept the
minutes of May 6th, 2026. Second. All those in favor? >> I Okay. Power. >> Yeah. >> So, third thing, preview PowerPoint and presentation regard. >> This thing feels heavier. So, uh, so
yeah, there's some more stuff on here. Um, >> water worth. Yeah, take it away. >> So, we we we spent quite a bit of time on this, but we tried to go through the the process of where we're at and then through the loan timelines and then the
financial impacts of each of the the customs. We did several different ways of doing it. We did a quarterly and monthly and uh and then we did at the end what what's what's the potential if it's a no and uh
>> I don't think we should go through it. So we did a lot >> we took a lot out just trying to make it simple. I mean it wasn't uh time one made comments on it cuz when Louis he took a copy with him >> he's like you can't have that you need to change stuff. So, >> so we took put some of his
>> took his input. >> Why don't you walk us through it and then if questions we can Does that sound fair? >> Yeah. >> So, so first page why uh you know I see the comments masters of 20 parts per
trillion. That's that's not true. They have to meet the APA. EPA is at four. It's what it is. Possing. We've shown documents on that. So that's how it is. The only thing I will say on page one that that Lou mentioned we we originally had um different dates and he
told us to be correct now we should put plan and design by the end of 2026 and construction by 29 because the EPA has not >> extended officially they are saying we think it's going to but he Lou felt we
should give what it really is. >> Yes. So that's why I've said that from the beginning too. So I want to make sure so give it what it really is with respect to the timetable but don't give it what it really is with respect to the pas requirement
>> because what it really is is 20 >> so APA is four master has to be four or better or worse more strict >> or perhaps even 10 >> no four masters has to be four or or lower
it >> is has changed since No, EPA has set it out. >> I know what the EPA is talking about. You we take our marching directions from mass D >> which has to take from the EPA. >> What my point is if we use today, what is it today?
>> EPA pass four. It's it's >> what did mass D today? What's the regulation today? >> It's it's 2020. >> Okay. So, we say we're not going to we're so 20 today, but we're not going to use what it is today on this slide. But on the other hand, we're going to
use what it says today with respect to the timetable. Even though but even though in fact you you passed out last time even though the OM has already approved a 2-year extension. So I don't think there's any doubt that it's a two-year extension.
>> Uh I I I agree. I don't think >> we can change the dates. This was just suggestion from Tai, >> but I I agree change. >> It's the same way. There's no doubt that EPA has set it at four. So ext
agreed. Extend the PO A and S max levels compliance. >> Mr. Chair, can I stop this for a second? I have a problem. >> Okay. >> You pull stuff out of your folder to have at a meeting
>> that we don't get a chance to even look at >> like this. >> No, no, no. This I've never seen before right now. >> Yeah. and they took the time to print a copy for all of us to review. But you brought you bring that and I don't have
a copy of that. So I don't know what you're talking about and I haven't had a chance to review it. >> This was you bring affidavit from residents stating that there's kayak racks that have been there for 20 years yet you don't send us copies before you bring them to the meeting. If I would I
would respectfully ask you if you have stuff that's pertinent to what we're talking about that you share it with the board. >> Which which one do you want to talk about? You want to talk about >> No, I'm just saying if you have information that's pertinent, share it with the board. >> Let's not speak generally. You you
mentioned the the um affidavit. >> Oh, but we're going to pause. >> No, I I have Let me let me >> We have We have a line out of that. >> Okay. We're talk he's he he asked me about sh not sharing things. I gave I sent you all the affidavit time.
>> I asked you to send those to me after the meeting. He's talking about that you didn't share those with before the meeting. >> I think I think what Mr. Bur was trying to say. >> I didn't get those till after when I requested them. >> Okay. I didn't get this until I requested. I didn't see this ahead of time. >> What he's saying is you came to the last
meeting with a stack of affidavit that you didn't share with anybody. It wasn't until the next day after our meeting that I emailed you and said all those affidavits that you had in your hand, can you email me? What he's saying is nobody was aware that you had a stack of
affidavits until you showed up at this meeting with them in your hand. He's asking you before the meeting at 4:00 to email them to him instead of surprising us with things that we are not aware of >> or that's all >> I think maybe we have to clarify that as
to how much he can email back and forth. I guess >> one of the concerns >> one of the concerns I believe that Mr. Berser has is I I do too. It's just like um before we all come to the meeting and sit here as a board if you have information such as this that you want
to share with the board. I would like just like you said with the minutes to be able to peruse it first and look at it and you know like okay so maybe we can sync up a little bit more and know what each other's talking about or if we have counterpoints we can bring it up versus just pulling out a piece of paper and that's I think that's all we're
saying. >> Sure. >> Is that I understand that. >> Okay. >> Now can I also say that uh one of the issues we were talking about was this lawsuit. I wasn't aware of this advisory until I came here. I wish I'd have had
it. Had I had it, we wouldn't have wasted a lot of time at the last meeting because it was misread. And I'll talk about that today. I didn't have this ahead of time. Surprise. We had a four I think a four-page PowerPoint presentation that we're looking at the entire time. I shared that with
everybody as I was going through it. I was sharing that. Okay. I come here today. I've got a >> what I don't know 20 pages. When you w when you walked through the door, Fran and I were literally printing. >> Okay. >> The pages together.
>> The affidavit you're talking about. Guess when I got them. >> Guess when I got them. Okay. I mean, it doesn't matter, but that's I I got them before I came into this meeting. I hadn't even read them. I didn't even know what was in there, too. You ask about it. I was looking at at the dates. So, let's be clear. If sharing
information ahead of time is two issues. Well, biggest issue I got to be care you would all have to be careful about how you share it. >> Absolutely. >> We've been using our clerk here as a conduit. But even if you lo use the clerk as a conduit, you still have to be careful about how you share the
information according to the open. So I'm very sensitive to that that open meeting law. So I can't share with with Christie things that we have to debate because if she moves it on to you, that's actually a violation. you can you
don't you don't share things that are hey here's why here's how that's a whole separate issue. So I I agree information that we have should be shared before the meeting so no one's surprised but that goes for everybody. Okay.
>> Okay. But now well to Bill Hold on a second. We had discussed last meeting about several of these additions that we want to put them in here. So >> I I I don't think this is blindsiding. You talked about doing cost breakdowns, etc., etc., which is why we were having this.
>> I told you we were meeting with Waterworth and getting the tiers. >> Absolutely. I totally agree with it. Annette's in here somewhere. Okay. >> Okay. >> And we we had two two things we took away. You were going to talk with them about getting these tiers so people know exactly what or almost exactly what they
would have to pay. And I would go away and work on that slide that we debated back and forth, which I I had to totally get it out. I couldn't make it was getting twisted around like a pretzel to try to fit what we were saying and and into that same format and I don't even
so replace it with another slide which I don't see in here. >> So why don't we go back to the first one? Go back to the dates. What would you guys like to put for the dates? Do you want to go back to the original one that we had on there? I don't have a problem with the old the old dates because I I with Bill I I
agree that they will change. >> So what do we have? >> But they're anticipated >> as as is the and I don't have a problem with putting 20 parts per trillion but in red the same way as here. So you want 27 and
>> you know it is it is almost automatic that we have to we have to follow EPA and EPA is at four >> right in and Massachusetts is not at four right now because they asked for an extension. >> Sure. >> Otherwise if they didn't ask for an extension we're at four. So, and I feel
like this is an issue of contention because it kind of goes back and forth, back and forth, even though the fact is is that in April of 24, the EPA put out these mandate guidelines for PAS regulations. >> Okay. Regulations. Correct. Thank you.
>> And when they did that, they said to the states, you have two years to write your laws and comply with this or more stringent. Okay. Now, Massachusetts has yet to do that. Okay, they are still writing it or whatever in that that you
know. So, >> I I just when it keeps saying 20 and yes, that current as of today it's 20. >> But as a water department, we have been told by everybody under the sun that you need to be start start your preparation on how you're planning to be in
compliance with this four parts. And as a water department and a board, we're doing our due diligence to do that. So, I feel like this comes up like we're just making stuff up that we, you know, like, oh, it's it's it's not. We have been instructed, as we should, to
get our game plan together of how we're going to enforce and be able to use our water at four parts or less. I mean what what do just just put at 20 parts per million likely to go to four uh at two
years likely to go to like now 2029 likely to go to 20 2031. I think both my statements are true. >> Sure. >> All right. >> And just we had a hearing with D. This was quite a while ago and they they mentioned that if you're above two
pounds per trillion you should start looking for doing treatment down the road. Okay. So, so many benchmarks. I think some I think we're kind of I don't want to go too far with it, >> but it says it right here without even
saying it. Meet requirements for water quality determined by the EPA and DP D. >> Why do we even have to say four parts, 20 parts? It doesn't matter. We need to meet the requirements. >> Yeah, but the point is we do meet it now. This is all about putting a whole new treatment plan in. >> So, the manganesees, we have to do a
treatment of manganesees. So, we'll build a treatment plan. Yeah. >> Whether PAS goes or not, we are building a treatment plan. Everybody hear that? We're building a treatment plan. Do it now, do it later. The longer you wait, it's going to cost more money. >> So, whatever you want to do, >> D would never let you just build a treatment plan just to remove iron
manganesees just because without POS removal. >> No, in PAS they want at zero. >> Yeah. >> Shown harmful effects to humans at 02. >> So, so if you have more than zero, you're you're you're not healthy water. Okay.
>> So, back to we can agree we're going to have to build a treatment plan or do you not think we're going to have to build a treatment plan? >> You talking pas or manage? Sounds like manganese a treatment. >> A treat manganesees for sure. It sounds based on I mean I haven't seen it but I believe what you're saying is true.
>> She told me it was it was coming with the sanitary service. >> You know a lot I want to extend this like 10 o'clock tonight but things just pee punk popping into my head. I just I'm I'm just so anal about about having things on paper
and so I don't do well with phone calls. I really don't know. >> She said it right. >> Well, even she was sitting here, whoever she is, I don't do well with that. So, I mean, I understand what you're saying and that's that's a path we're going down. But I I just uh >> so we'll get this. She was hoping to get
the sanitary servant before this meeting. >> Okay. >> But uh she she they it takes them a long time. They they go through every little nitpick. She won't have it. So, you won't have it in writing before before meeting. So, but I understand exactly what you said. >> Bill, well, I might make gest by all
means. >> Voice your I voice yours while you're here. Like, you know, I don't want a 10:00 meeting either, but if that's what we have to have, I'll yell at Mr. Bur. So, >> we'll tweak up the first page. I got >> I sense that you'd like to get meeting. >> I like to be efficient. I am. I do like him being efficient.
>> Well, I got one in here. No, we only change that one too. >> It just says central water. That's all it says. Lancaster central water treatment plant. >> Like I said before, I like Mox arrows better. >> So, this was from the survey. So, we
just took the only piece out of the survey and it was only uh for the residents that >> did the survey that they supporting all resources. I'm sorry for laughing, but but there's a thing when you do graphs and bar
graphs and things like that about making your point stronger is that you don't like zero to a 70%. It's it's not zero to 100% because zero when you put 60 what is it 63%. But if you terminate the
the the x- axis very close. >> Oh, I got you. So So you saw 100. So >> it's it's a I just laugh because this takes me back historically to some things that happen when people are trying to make a point with me. >> I this I didn't I didn't make this. >> If if it won't even make less of a point, you can put it on log graph on a
log chart and then everything shrinks. It doesn't look they look the same. It's just little things like that. Just I'm sorry. I didn't want to divert it. Sorry. 63% of the people said they support all >> is this is this fine because this is comparing the three so we we have to space out to here which I get don't really think it would make a difference
right yeah >> the the only comment I had about and I saw that I went through the I went through the survey is that when people when they preferred the three wells they don't know what we know
you know all all of the information behind a three well solution is very complicated. We go through it all the time with respect with respect to cost primarily with and operating costs. And they they said, "Yeah, I'd rather have three wells because three sounds like, well, gee, that's an extra well, you
know, uh it seems like we have more redundancy or something like that." So, uh I understand what they said here. I understand it, but I just don't think that residents who are clued into everything that we are clued into about the issues surrounding each of these um
>> well I left one out the hardness that that was pretty clear that they all have issues with the hardness. >> There was only what 4% that didn't have an issue with that. So So to me >> Yes. So to me uh the cheapest solution
for the water for lunar is to limit the use of the heating well. That that to me is the best or we because we can't we can't control the hardness. >> So well another way to look at it versus limiting because you're diluting the hardness by utilization of the other two
sources online. >> Gentlemen, we're going to we're going to stay on point and we're on this. Okay. Are you okay with this page, sir? So we can tweak it if you want. >> I don't have the survey in there. >> Not the ones involved. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean just the words that go with
this. I just would want to qualify the words that go with it. >> Okay. This was a page that you already had on there. >> What I was just saying is 63 want this solution. They want three wells. Do they want that solution? It's more complicated to say I want >> this this I I agree that's very
complicated what we do but this was sent out to the public for their for their input. Not everybody spends their winters in Florida to crank it through the water convers. I'm just saying you know so just go and see what people want >> and that's that's why that's why they don't understand a vote for three wells what it means. >> Well, okay.
>> Okay. So next page is just going over the loan. So this is what this is what is the article that was proved at the warrant. $41 million loan 2.2% 2%. >> Do we do we want to add the uh >> we we could
>> this I mean just in parentheses 0.15 admin or something like that >> and then there's this one standard one that Hickory Hills and Lancaster have wells and to construct the iron and manganesees and Pete Pass water treatment plant and then also that this
vote is to uh also do the interconnecting main to to keep and then if they passes the timeline. Uh, so this one probably go back and change the dates on this one as well. This is the one Lou mentioned. So we can
change to October. Well, actually, >> yeah, these are >> October 26. So if it's a yes vault, the engineers are going to start hammering the quickly to get it ready, but they October. >> Mhm. >> And then the the February design uh march up for bids contracts awarded by
June. And then this is estimated, you know, they said two two or more years, but construction, you know, if we go out the bid, when's the contract begin? So >> we we didn't really know what to put for a number there. We would get two and then like could be a little over. So we two and a half years.
>> I'm okay with that. >> Okay, sir. >> Mond beyond current standards, but acceptable if they extend it. >> Uh correct. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So we'll be in pretty pretty close to 20
2030 right before. So let me get went over the the rates. So we uh this is for both the SRF funding and the the interconnecting man to keep. So this is for both of them. So we did a comparison the current rates
>> to the 41 million SRF and and the $6 million bond. So, we did it compares the minimum user, the average household 2,000 cubic feet, and then the high end user 5,000 cubic feet. >> Okay. Could you walk us through this? I don't know.
>> Yep. So, yeah. So, on the left side, the counter rates, that's a counter rate structure. Yep. Top. And then on the right would be what they're proposing for a new rate. >> So, someone who's paying $75, this is a quarter, right? >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Next is monthly, just so you know.
>> Hm. ups. Yeah. Another one. >> Yep. That's exactly what you're looking at. >> This is a current structure >> 12750 a quarter. >> Yep. >> So, if I multiply the the the tier one or wherever it's $75 or wherever the
number of people paying $75. I want to make sure that this is number of people playing $75. I multiply that number times the 127 and then these initial ones the number in each tier times whatever this rate is
it comes out to the number we were talking about last week >> what oh the 800 number the number 830 yes it does that >> yes yes because yes it came out very close because it depends if you go quarterly or monthly like Fran and I
were running numbers >> so we did two this First page is quarterly. So we kept the billing process exactly as it is now. >> This is what we >> we've been talking Fran has been talking over time and Christiey's been talking over time that the thought for the future may be to go to monthly billing.
We've been discussing it but currently everything is done quarterly. So every 3 months uh a bill is sent out. So this is this is uh based on our current billing structure and they wanted to show an option if we did go to monthly because a
lot of people some people like to build their finances monthly versus >> some people. >> Yeah, some people I'm not one of those people. I love the quarterly bill but >> I think this this middle one is just way too much information. I mean >> the tears.
>> No, no. This not so many so much per gallon or what is it plus CCF? >> Yeah, that's the cubic cubic feet. Nobody's going to look at all of that. I mean, you can make the big one is the one at the top. I would make that even a little bit bigger. >> Okay. >> So, it's stand alone cuz now they see
what >> what they would end up. >> I mean, I guess it's not cuz >> I disagree, please. Just so you know, like I that's the first thing I looked at them. I'm like, oh, all right. Yep. Yep. Yep. I mean, and I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but like to me, I I like those numbers. I'm like, it
it it ties in mentally to to what my house usage is. Like, oh, okay. Like the cubic foot rate. That's just me, though. I, you know, >> the only thing that we had a lot of res residents talk or had brought up was, well, the tiers, it's not going to be a flat rate like the mass water main was. It's a flat $15. We weren't going to
say, hey, this is what our loan is divided and everybody pays the same. We wanted to show that as people who irrigate and use 5,000 plus and in that tier, they're going to pay more. >> No, I understand. I'm just I'm just saying I think what they want to see is
what's my new rate going to be. So >> just just >> Yeah. So that's what those tiers are. >> I know. But this is by per cubic feet. I don't know how many cubic feet I use, but if there is >> on your bill. >> So jump into looks like it's this one here. >> Yeah. >> This one. >> 5,000. >> The one down here at the bottom.
>> Yeah. 5,000 cubic feet >> more and the one at the top looks like it's more instructive >> because you have minimum user average user and hey how much I'm one of these >> right >> and and now is what I pay they know what they pay and they look down this is what I'm going to pay I'm just saying that middle part is just
>> this too >> it could cause confusion I agree I agree with you Bill that's what they want but some people might want that information and then when you do the presentation you can you can kind of because some people like when we dial
dial in >> exact, you know, might want to know exactly what that information is and where it comes. >> I think we added it just because we did have residents question it to make sure that we were going to make the higher users pay more to tear this up. >> So, we just wanted to prove that that's
what >> that's not a big point. I just thought it but but that does as you just said it does clearly show the more you use the more you pay. >> Yeah. So that for some that that that could help them understand. >> Are you okay with that page? >> Yeah. I don't see that.
>> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. So the next page is the same information just on the monthly. So it's just broke down divided by by three. Uh if you do the math though it's not a >> no quarterly. So >> we're going from quarterly to monthly. So this was every three months is what
your bill is. This would be what you would get every month. >> So we ran all the numbers like well these are wrong. So, we ran all the numbers again and it and they don't always work out. You can't just take the numbers from the first page and divide by three because they're going by the elevated usage numbers for the different
blocks. So, when you do the monthly, they hit them differently. >> Yeah. >> So, so we ran them because we didn't agree with them. We reran them and and confirmed these all accurate. >> This this is good, >> but we don't currently use this structure. So, I don't know if I'd put a
lot of emphasis on this. >> Yeah. a monthly. >> Yeah, >> we don't we don't currently yet. Somebody wants to know >> what if we did it some What if we did it? What if we simplified it on this page? >> Only kept the quarterly page, got rid of all of this and simplified it and said
>> um you know like minimum to me like a small box >> in the end say hey we included this should we ever go monthly? But I don't think it should be a part of the main body of the report because currently you get rid of this one.
>> Get rid of the whole monthly. >> I think so too. It just it it adds a little bit of level of confusion to something that's already you know I don't think it it's I appreciate you doing it but I just don't think it needs to be on the side if someone ask. >> Yeah. If someone asks you can throw it out there but I just there's a lot of
there's a lot of appreciate all the work that went into it. I know you guys where your thought was, >> right? >> That monthly is is a way that we're thinking of going in the future. I just a little too much. >> See if I can see. >> Yeah. Can I do that too?
>> So then the next So then the next two goes from the quarterly to monthly. So let's get rid of the second monthly as well then. So I'll cross that one. >> So the other quarter >> the first one is comparing the the SRF and bonds to just bond. So that that
really doesn't that's not our focus here. That's more so just to show people it's going to cost more. And we could easily toss that one out as well. And this one the same thing. We have a quarterly and then we broke it down to a monthly. >> So monthly is definitely going the quarterly. I don't know if you even want
to show that what it is cuz >> well I mean we could do it we could do not as big a slide. We could you know put it together not the same thing but just saying >> you know I'm sorry I interrupted you. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> If we go from the the SRF to the to the
bond, you're looking at roughly these differences, >> right? I I I think since they're going to make one vote on one amount, and that one amount is SRF plus a bond, I think the only one that we should be putting in here is the one
>> the quarterly. Where is he? Quarterly for the 47 million. Okay. >> Wherever it is. >> I agree. >> Once one slide, the whole picture is right there. Once again, good work though, but no, I mean hold on or
you know um >> so on on those calculations that that water people they did a whole presentation. >> So and they they are willing to come and present it to you if anybody wants to
see it. It had the very good the the the u the money in the bank maintaining a specific revenue the the rating >> the rate increase showing that the the loan came in and the payments it was uh >> yes >> it's it's it's pretty intense they did a
great job and they're very quick and then we they're talking Monday they called >> Tuesday y >> pick it up >> okay I I think I'm misinterpreting this the one this one that says compare the quarterly building >> I thought you said just to take that out. >> No, I I I think the only one we should
be presenting is is the one that's for $47 million. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> What the SRF plus plus the four and a half or whatever it is. >> And so, but then I look down here and I'm trying to understand. >> So, I thought we just agreed to take that one out.
>> Taking that right out. >> Oh, I thought this is the one. >> No, no, no. But I did >> the comparison monthly billing. Did you get the wrong rip the monthly out? put that one out too. >> And the only one the only one that is
left is the water treatment 41 million SRF 6 million bond quarterly. >> Yes, >> that's it. >> That's the one I was just looking at. >> No, that's >> Yeah, that's the one I was just looking at. This >> No, this is not >> No, you're looking at a comparison.
>> Comparison. Go. You got to go backwards. >> Be the very first. call it this one. >> That's the guy. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, so that one. >> So, now I'm I'm a I'm a water taker and I want to know, okay, how much more is it going to cost me quarterly with with
what I'm voting on? >> And where do I find that? >> At the bottom. >> So, it's going to cost me 100 for the average household cost me $123 per quarter more. >> No. >> Oh, you're using average household. Okay.
>> So, then rip that page out. I'm going to rip the next I'm ripping the next two out. >> Yep. >> Button right there. >> Okay. >> We going back four times. >> So that's >> Oh, a year. A quarter. A year.
>> I'm okay. >> Yeah. >> I thought we decided we were good on that. We going back to it. >> Yeah. No. No. Okay. I couldn't find it. >> All right. So, this is one bill. He switched this one way up from what what that you had for the mill >> time bonds.
There's a little little bit of everybody kind >> and this is always the one that we end up spending an inordinate amount of time on. So, we probably will again. >> So, this one is pretty pretty basic. I mean, this is our second time going for the funding. Uh if it gets voted down,
uh there's no guarantee we'll we'll get it again next year. And I think we didn't go into a whole lot of details, but I think four part trading comes out there's many more municipal public water supplies that are going to be going after that money so I think it's going to be very much more difficult
>> could we go through each of the bullets >> sure okay so so what happens if there's a no vote this will be the second time the water district forfeits SRF funding no guarantee that we will be eligible in the future for low interest funding
second bullet we do not intend on applying for SR RF in 2026. >> We we switched that to intend because we tone it down to we don't know what you guys going to do. >> I had on here do we're not going to apply for that. >> Well, we don't we don't I'd like to
leave it open ended because who knows what could happen after this meeting that may spur us to want to reapply >> by July. >> Who knows? >> By July, right? It would be have to be like a licky thing. >> I don't know. I just I don't have any problem with saying we do not intend
because I don't know if some law comes out a D drops a Massachusetts drop I don't know right but we we realize that it's almost impossible for us to do but >> now that the pilot testing is done to keep and then we could do a submittal for all three
>> you can do one without but you're not going to get any funding if you >> these are the kind of things we would talk about >> after okay third bullet Are we good on the first two? I just want to check these. >> Mark, you good with the first two? Okay.
>> Um, >> so >> I may want to embellish this a little bit. >> I just want to make sure that these are that we each of these. >> One to two is good. Go to three. >> Mass D will be issuing the need for the district to submit a corrective action
plan to address the elevated levels of iron and manganesees. >> What does that have to do with this vote? Uh mostly if we do know we're building a treatment plan anyway. So maybe that's where we needed to. >> Well, we could we could take this out because like you said, you don't you
want it in writing. So we understand what's going on here, but you could put this out to iron and manganesees. Why? I thought this was pest. I mean, I'm thinking of clarity for the people in the audience. I don't I don't not sure what I'm not sure actually what to read into this regarding the vote. I I
understand where what you're coming from, Brand, like in looking at the big picture here. >> Um, and I know why you want this in here, but I I I tend to kind of still just want to compartmentalize this to PAS treatment. You know what I'm saying? That's the focus of this. I'm
not saying you're wrong or anything like that. So, I I I think maybe we should take that out because it may >> it may have some shoots coming people. You know what I'm saying? >> If anything, one of the positives and I don't know where we put it in here. One of the positives to treating PAS is we're going to get SRF funding to also
treat iron and manganesees which is probably going to come down in come in the future where we have to treat it >> right >> I once again >> that's only it's not a >> you'll see in the next page we can address it again so get rid of it on this >> page that's yeah we
>> when we get to that page then you can decide but on this page when Massachusetts adopts EPA's MCL four parts per trillion for PIFA in yes many more public water supplies will be eligible for funding making okay no
that's true absolutely true um the next state making low interest loans much more difficult to obtain um so right now the there's they're limited they can't fund all the SRF sure >> okay there's fact at that that hearing I
remember people saying, "Please, please give me money." >> Um, so if they drop this from 20 down to four, there's going to be a lot more to your point, a lot more people asking for money, >> right? >> I personally think they put that mandate
out there, there's going to be they're going to have to put some more money on it. >> They're going to have to do it. It's just absolutely insane if they don't do that. >> There isn't there isn't any right now. So, it's tough to really kind of speak to the facts on that's kind of a yes, I
would agree with you that you would I would hope, >> but there's nothing that says they're going to >> No, there's nothing that >> and and historically it's getting hard. It's everything's going up. It's on an upward trend on on
costs and and less and less availability on things that are going to assist us. So >> and then there is still we never talk about it there is still principal forgiveness as part of this SRF funding they don't come out and say the exact
number right I mean was what 25 30% a lot of huge >> little was 20% >> so I mean that that would be that was the the money coming from the government so this was the last year of the government uh in construction money going out so that's kind of one of my incentives of doing this thing
>> and and I think there might be more I don't >> we did the emergency >> right um >> focusing on here making low interest loans much more difficult. Do you not like that line or do you think it's misleading or >> uh it may be it may that's
>> So you want to say only because I I I just can't see them not funding this thing. I mean I'm sorry I I I once again gez I hope they do. Do you want to say it may make making low historically we've seen rates go from >> I think we should say it may make
>> low interest loans Now, what I'd personally like to do is overlap this with what I had for the no vote and see if we could. >> Sure. >> So, I think we've had the same things that some of them not apply for the SRF in 2026.
Um, the final mass D pas MCL we determined. I don't know other than that very first slide is where that's even discussed. Um but um if we if we put that parenthetical comment up here along
with this one at the bottom uh currently at 20 but likely moving to four then I think that would that then people would know that that's probably going to be determined for sure. >> So changing that to if Massachusetts is currently at 20 >> that's true if it's a yes or a no
>> and will adopt EPA's four parts per trillion. >> Is that something? >> Yeah. Mass now at 20 likely to go to four to four. >> Well, not likely. They have to. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, Massachusetts, we're going to talk
about that because I do have something to say about >> So, you want Massachusetts currently at >> Where are we putting that? I don't have in front of me. >> So, we're going to take I sent this to you. Come on. >> I did. I sent this to you. So that was
the the one I think two two ago >> right >> from last meeting. >> I just cleaned up my I had my >> uh the AW may awa litigation will be over >> and that I think is significant and
that's the thing I wanted to talk about because there was some some confusion over this and and I think it's critical and I think it addresses whether we go to four and I'll I'll explain why. Well, why don't we end? Should we just jump? >> I think we should just do that now.
That's That's my So, we all We all This is going to take five minutes. So, so we all know we all know that EPA, you know, put out these regulations. I think it was in 23 and and these regulations there there
three parts of these regulations that are relevant to what we're discussing now. One was the extension uh for by two years from 29 to 31. Another one was a I call them the group of four. >> These that that that the EPA put
together and established regulations on that group of four. >> You're talking like the P >> P for this, P for that, all these different. Yes. So then they put that in there. Um, and the third one which is really critical to what we're talking about is the uh the regulations on FIFA
A and PIFA S. Call them ANS. Okay. They put them in as for this outfit. By the way, we a member are we a member of the American Waterworks Association? >> I don't think we're with American >> New England Waterworks tied to the
American Water. So if you apply for New England, you're part of the American. >> Oh, okay. So I mean that's good. Um, so then in April of last of 24, they came out with a lawsuit against the EPA that challenged that group of four and they
challenged the uh PIFA A and O going to four and there were the big challenges those two and they challenged it based on process that EPA used and they challenge it uh because of cost which is also a consider consideration that EPA
has to use. Then in September uh in September of uh where the heck did I put here of 2025 uh EPA basically caved in I mean maybe caved in is wrong but they agreed with
the uh with the uh uh the petitioners uh position on the group of four and so they said I'm rescending that altogether. They admitted that this is not >> the EPA resended >> the EPA. Yeah. and opposite. EPA agrees with petitioners that parts of the rule
making it was a process related thing. The way they did it um were actually unlawful and parts of the rule are thus invalid. So they agreed with that and they also uh extended the 29 to 31. They said,
"Okay, so now we fast forward to what what the clerk last week handed out and and you position this as this is saying that the lawsuit is no longer going to deal with ANS." But what this is is is the office of office of >> people and people.
>> Oh, so I'm sorry. >> What this is is is not that statement. What this is is just an an announcement, a memo from AWWA saying that the OM, which is the Office of Management and Budget, which apparently when a when an agency changes a regulation, they have
to go to these guys to say is it okay? And then they say it's okay. So what they did, and I I'll read this, it says extend FIFA A and FIFA S maximum contaminant levels compliance deadlines by two years. So this was nothing had nothing to do with agreeing with their
as lot what this is say is say is we agree with the extension of two years and then the second one is basically agreeing with EPA when they when they caved on that group of four they said it's okay you can do that so that's that's that's what this is
>> now what else is going on this is the EPA stuff is like on this side of the wall and then the legis the litigation's on this side of the all and they they just h they meaning uh the EPA and the AWA
just last month put in their their final brief. They put the final brief in and I just want to read a couple of just quick things that they said. >> I would just agree to quick things unless you kind of read the the article in its entirety because something might be left out.
>> Let me have the floor. Okay. I'm just saying I think a lot of people like to read like a little sentence of a greater report to fit their needs and I would I would definitely love to get a copy of that after the meeting so I can read >> if you read you can pass your opinion on
after I read it. This is number four. So So the EPA is challenging they're challenging the the 4.0 for the A and the S uh based on excuse me on cost and the process both things. >> The EPA is >> Did I say that? No. Awa. so many.
>> Um, so it said EPA's defective analysis drastically underestimated the rule's costs. Even EPA's own erroneous analysis demonstrates that it should have set the levels for PIFA A and PIFA S at 10 parts per trillion rather than four parts per trillion. This is in their final brief
last month and this is and the oral arguments for this I think are scheduled for this summer. So this should all be finished by the end of the summer. And similarly down here they they make a similar argument. This one primarily based on the cost it would be going from
10 down to four and a difference of I don't know was a billion five uh $1.5 billion. So they're making the argument you didn't do it right just like they did with the group of four. And they're making the argument you can't even look at how much it's going to cost people.
So now if you read these briefs and by the way I don't I have them if you want them but I don't suggest it. I mean they are painful. They're really painful. The the uh one is over 150 pages long. I mean it's just it's torturous. So I mean
lawyers might enjoy this. But anyway uh if I I do have them uh and if you read this one wow that's pretty wow that sound pretty darn convincing. And you go over here and you read this. Oh this one sounds pretty darn con. So, who knows how that's going to end up? I have no idea. So, the importance what's the
importance to us? What's what's important to us is that it comes back at 10. Holy cow. We don't have to do we don't have to put the pie in the PIPA treatment in I mean, we do not have to do that. But even if it doesn't come in
at 10, the four opens up the possibility for yes, the money will probably be less. uh but opens up the possibility of including Lancaster and Keading for an SRF request. So
the ruling in that regard for the four is kind of independent because if they lose it'll be four. Okay. >> Right. I think that's the tough part is like you said everybody can read everything because the last thing I printed from the association of the state of drinking water says the motion states that now after further reviewing
the statute pursuant to a publicly announced reconsideration process EPA agrees with the petitioners that part of the rulemaking process were unlawful and parts of the rules are thus invalid. This is because EPA departed from the statutory scheme by proposing and
finalizing a regulatory determination and regulations simultaneously and in tandem. However, this is not applicable to the MCL's for PFOA and PFOS in the rule which EPA intends to keep and defend.
>> So, I'm just saying like you read something. >> No, no, that is absolutely true. That's the EPA's position. >> I know. So >> there's a lawsuit over here. >> I understand that it's challenging that position because I know the EPA's
position. They haven't moved from the for >> but if you're talking about the lawsuit and only the lawsuit that's the only thing that >> Yeah, that's what I was. Yes, I know. I'm glad. >> No, I don't want that's not I just want
to make sure all >> my point was that you can read one thing. I can read one thing. It's everybody's perspective. I read I read exactly where you read it. >> Okay. >> I read exactly the same thing. EPA's got their heels dug in on this. No question. They didn't move on that. They when they when they caved in on the the group of
four, they didn't cave in on the on the four parts per trillion. They they just they're there. They're not they're not going to move. Thus, that's called litigation. These guys over here, our guys, AWA, so to speak, uh they're saying, "No, no, this isn't right. You
didn't do it right. and you didn't think of what what's going to cost the water takers. That's the issue. And and that's the only thing I'm talking about is is that lawsuit, >> right? So, they're they're basing the lawsuit on cost, not >> cost and process, >> not on not on the on the hazardous
health effects of PAS in the water. >> Um they're okay with drinking contaminated water. >> Okay. So, let me go back with uh if you read the lawsuit, all kind of medical information is there. >> I agree. Okay, the this study, that
study versus this study and that study and quite honestly that that is part of it, but they're not making their argument based on that. But they are debating and challenging some of the the results of the uh medical findings. So there is even that part in there and
I'll send it to you if you want to read it. But uh >> but there's no there's there's no treatment to treat PAS down to a lower level. The only treatment eradicates PAS from the water. Correct. >> True. >> So even if they set a higher level of like 10 parts, I understand what you're
saying. We're not now that we can just kind of sit and ride this thing out. >> But you kind of get >> but it doesn't change, you know, >> keep we keep track of it. I can give this to if you want to see it or keep it. But uh Keings Pass, uh we have a
high of 9.35 people of 56. So I mean we're we're past the halfway point that does go to 10. Usually they start they they start getting concerned. Well number five fails. Well number one fails. Uh well number one >> when you see what well number one fails we
>> uh P FA 4.9. Oh yeah. That one hit the tens. >> Yeah. But but the superintendent did say earlier that they're already talking to us that we need to have a plan if they if we were showing levels of two parts per million that D already wants us to start considering what we're going to do
for the future. So I I don't I where I I understand the information that you're giving out. I don't think it's going to change what we're going to have to do for the future. >> Well, I think it comes back to what you were saying too, Bill. like you you said at the beginning you wanted the dates that were now you wanted in this part
for it to say well currently it's at 20 well what we know right now is EPA is at four so if you want to sit here and say that all these other details need to be exactly what we're at right now then we need to follow through with that for EPA EPA is four right now so we can't
hypothesize what's going to happen with this like you're telling you're saying that we can't put when Massachusetts you want us to put Massachusetts currently is at 20 because you wanted what it's right now. Well, right now BPA is at four. So, we can't all the other points
you were saying that you wanted it for today, >> but by you putting in AWA stuff, you're hypothesizing what it could change. So, it kind of >> No, I I think you're apples and oranges. I'm I'm here talking about what happens if there's a no vote and how the
litigation plays a a role, >> but that we don't know. So you're talking about things that we know right now. >> But that's your point. You want things in this in this of what is right now. >> What is right now is litigation. >> But we don't know what the answer. >> Sure. You know what? So you want to put
it in a WWE litigation will be over. You want that in this in this no thing. >> Uh okay. So >> that's where that's where it's either no or yes. But it only becomes relevant if it's no. You follow me? >> Oh, sure. I got So I'm with you. I have no problem putting that line in in the
in the in the no. You know what I'm saying? >> Uh, AWWA litigation will be over. In other words, if if with the no vote, >> if you present it the way you present it, that to me, it sways people to vote no because this could actually be a possibility.
>> And, you know, I I it's not my intention. Just like I I I pointed out earlier when you're putting the proposal for trying to sell this. Remember, I objected to that. I I'm not trying to sell it in any way. No, that's a that's a bad word. We didn't say sell.
>> Well, the word was sell when when I was notified about >> it was gain public support. There was no sell. >> We're not selling anything. >> It was Well, you're right. >> I feel this is us sitting as commissioners here is is for us to put
out the best information to the public. So, that's what that I do agree with you that I would put that and this is I'm just part of the board here. Um but meaning that that that is a uh to coin to we don't know that's just we're just
awaiting litigation >> and the litigation doesn't change what they're saying about the the hazard of this chemical in our water. >> It no not at all. Well it it does actually but it's they're not making the case on it. There's a whole lot in
there. Again I'll I'll send it to you if you want to read it. >> Again you tell me to drink gasoline whether it's this much or this much. gasoline too to keep things fluid and moving. >> I'll let that one in there. >> All right. I'd like to have that will be over. >> Okay. All right. All right.
>> I'm I am not for it, but I'm I'm >> team player. >> All right. Keep going. >> Uh then I have the the fully tested heating adjunct wells. Um, this is something I wanted to talk about
separately as it as uh u why we didn't write a uh an article for that. >> I >> and I don't know whether you want to throw it in now or or wait till later. >> So I I can speak on it if you'd like. This had come up prior when we had done
testing. And the reason why we basically never did it is because we don't know if this is going to solve a problem at all. And that's why we didn't, you know, even
even if we drilled this, we don't know if this like I feel like if if this did magically help. It's not it's >> it doesn't allow us to pump any more quantity or quantity of water out of that site. >> Mhm.
>> So therefore, if it's if it's it it's it had maybe le less PAS in it. >> So it's like two two parts of the track. >> So you're you're already meeting the the MCL that they want us to start consider treating or having a plan. So
for the the money spent, I I one of my my vote on it was no because it wasn't going to have a significant impact on our supply. So no, as we as we sit here and we do this, the whole reason why we're doing
this is because we have all been in agreements at somewhere at some point in Lunberg's water future, we will need a treatment plant to be compliant. We all have agreed on this on one level or not. Okay. So, what we're trying to do here is basically get the best bang for the
buck for the treatment plan. >> That's really that that is, you know, and put this out to the public. And if if the public says no, I want to wait. Yes, I want to do this right away. This is our job to put it out to all these are other very like hypothetical situations that I don't think apply to
to this. I'm not saying they're not valid, but to what we're trying to do here with this vote and getting getting basically the funding option to do this at some point somewhere Lunberg's water future involves a treatment plan. Okay. Now, it's up to the public how they how
they want to deal with it. So, the the Keings well thing I I don't think should be in this. I don't think it's part of it because it's it's a completely side note that's not going to permanently solve the problem. That's why. So, we want we we do want to let the uh voters
know what what the options are or what might be the case if they vote no. That's who we're talking. >> But it's not an option that's going to solve the problem. >> Let me let me finish. Um you know, we often times we I've only been like what four meetings now and it
seems that we talk about something at one meeting and like the next meeting is suddenly different changed. If if I can take you back to when this this was uh discussed this heating well uh it was agreed to I wasn't on board but the the
other board agreed that you would allocate $30,000 for the full testing of this weld trans well um at a future special meeting that was an agreed to and now I'm hearing not
only you don't want you don't want to talk put it on that uh at that meeting, but now you're even debating whether you want to do it at all. So, I'm a little bit confused by that. >> There was a subsequent meeting which you must not have been must not have watched or or seen that we discussed this in
depth and then at the end of that meeting kind of came to the realization that this was not going to be a problem solver. >> We the word was temporary. I think you use that word. It looks like maybe something that we could use temporarily. And so,
>> but it was that same meeting. Same meeting more where you voted and agreed to $30,000. I remember that meeting. >> No, it was a different meeting we had. >> Oh, so after that you changed your mind. >> Yeah, because I dug into it a little bit more and we discussed it again and then at the the second discussion we had
>> we all agree. I think >> we didn't all agree. I think you were >> we were we did know but we I needed to have a little more information and a discussion and we had it at a subsequent board meeting which we decided not to move forward with that because it wasn't going to be a solution.
>> I remember the discussion about long not being a long-term solution, how much more water you don't know and all that, but I I do remember the vote for $30,000. I remember when when now I was on the board, we talked about putting it on on the uh this upcoming special
meeting and I remember >> you you were a stronger advocate of it than I was actually, Fran. So if if if it was discussed to go go on to that meeting then why didn't you say no, we voted it down? I'm I'm really confused
about this 30 meeting that you I guess didn't see which I would have to go back and look on. did have a pre-involved discussion about it and we did and and we voted to table it for now >> to table what so so
>> we weren't we weren't moving we weren't moving the the last discussion that we had on this I believe we tabled doing anything with those adjun wells >> well we have any idea when that meeting was because I I I don't I don't remember
that I was pretty good about watching the meetings or being here. >> I remember the board in fact had a pretty good discussion about it between me yourself and and John. >> So if if the board decided that to kill it then there's nothing to talk
>> I don't think it was in a >> kill table. So my my my thing with the well and is that the the peass came at a lower level than the actual well that's in now. And uh so my >> that's what got me excited what I
remember being well with you. >> My my right. Yep. So my my thinking was that if we go and do this further testing we can pump it at a high capacity rate to verify if it's going to p the PAT's going to stay low or they they're going to rise right back to the other one. >> Yeah.
>> And I know one of one of my main focus was to uh get a different water quality with not high water and then pass through. This first I recall this these first discussions again before I was here. I remember the first
discussions were were like a backup for keying. I remember you guys talking about the casings the well casings for Keing. What happens if they go south? You got nothing. That was started. I said wow that's a great idea. Get that well in there. >> Then you ran the initial test and it was actually when I was there it was 1.7. I
said whoa let's go for it. >> And then there was all this support for it. Uh and now all of a sudden there's no support for it. I mean, or it's tabled is indefinite. So, I I'm I'm really confused. So, uh yeah, I'm confused. Again, if there was a vote to
say we're not moving forward with this, then then the discussion is over. Okay. >> But, uh All right. Well, that discussion is over. >> We're going to just try to wrap this puppy up. I'm not in favor of putting any of the
any of that fully to test the keeping the junction wells on here. >> Would would you have a different perspective if in fact maybe that meeting were decided the table was like a figment of your imagination? Definitely not.
>> That was that was that was very much here. Either way, it's not it's talked about and in and in the long run we all decided as I recall and don't quote me on this is like it wasn't going to fix the problem. There was nobody this would this would >> but again this is another hypothetical
thing. This is not a a thing that you guys have. >> By all means, it's something that after this we can revisit and and and go look at. But >> how about we consider another future special meeting for for maybe this and a couple other things cuz to me this
>> going to cost us $4,000 more is it to have this other special meeting? >> Yep. >> Uh just to post it post it and publicize. Yeah. We won't do the postcards and stuff like that. >> Um all right. So why why am I interested in how this might affect and people who are thinking about it know and that heating well well first of all the
redundancy of the backup for for the existing heating and I know it takes time to to first I got to get approval to connect this so as a backup for it and and these darn pa levels are so low on that I said oh my gosh it could make a huge difference if we start using that
I don't know what the calcium looks like in that if if you had a test on that >> we just did our own little uh on-site test kit I think they were on 180 where the kidney wells 220 so >> oh so it's not that much better >> a little better >> all right so I was thinking primarily so
that's how would impact say gee gosh if we had that it' be nice to know when we after the no vote because we're assuming you know after the no vote it would be nice to know if uh what we have there and that's a good thing it's a good thing to have that data um all right so
the other one was revise the process initiate in 2027 so I I think we all said probably will have to do something by July of 2027 if it and I said July because of the SR correct deadline. >> So what are the then then I went down because we were you and I were going back and forth.
>> So you want to put this revise the process and >> option to revise process and reapply. >> Yeah. And we're going to have to do something right you know. So >> yeah we just modify the second. >> Y >> sure. >> So then we're going back and forth about risks and uh I think I captured all your
risks here. So if you say no, the risk inflation, that's not much of a risk. That's pretty much a fact of life. Um less SRF money available. Um if we say no, lower priority on the SRF. These are all possibilities. Okay,
you notice I didn't put any question marks even after, but these are all possibilities and not necessarily facts. Thanks. I appreciate it. >> Okay, you're welcome. Um I I traded your question mark for my question mark. >> Um possible higher interest rate. um uh
tighter timetable uh simply because it's a year later but I think we still would fit into that 31 timetable and then okay so that's a that's a risk side and the other side what are the opportunities uh opportunity I talked about this possibly expand the SRF not possibly will expand
it regardless of how that regards how that litigation turns out whether win or lose by the a the uh AWA it it's going to uh uh uh uh make heating and Lancaster will be eligible. Uh Keating Ler may not need
PIFA treatment. Oh, if that's if it's 10, that's a litigation thing. And we'll have the data from the adjunct wells, but I guess we're not going to have the data from the adjunk wells if if you guys had killed it. >> I think there's a
>> I think there's a lot there. And you're saying we're we're we're saying one thing and then the other thing. So you're saying it it seems like we're just back and forth talking on that. I don't >> all of that you have you know you say at one point we have less SRF available but
then we're going to expand. I think it's a lot of confusing information that probably doesn't >> well >> doesn't need to be out there. >> This is a presentation. is a slide and whoever's giving this slide will expand SRF
eligibility because Keing at Lancaster will be eligible. >> But here >> that's a fact. >> Great. And but that to me the opportunity >> there's a risk that pretty much negates it. So why do why even bring it up?
>> The risk that risk negates it. >> So you say we're going to expand the eligibility here, but on the other side we're going to have a lower priority. So you're you're just giving a a negative and a positive. >> Yeah, >> that was the whole idea. >> So don't they cancel each other out?
>> So why even discuss it? >> You say less SRF money available. >> I'm I'm not convinced it. I think there probably will be more money available. There'll be more more more customers. I mean I said less because I mean that's I was like your position. I I don't think
there'll be less. I think there'll be more, but it would be uh I don't know how you want to capture that. Uh more users chasing the money or something like that. There be, you know, there's not going to be le
actually. Thank you for pointing that out. I don't think there'll be less. I think it's going to be more. But the point is be more. Well, there'll be more people going for it. >> I think there's a a plus one and a minus one equals zero. So why even have the information on the page? because this is a presentation to the to the water
users. They're about to vote on $47 million. >> If you try to if you question I know what I know I'm confused. >> Let me answer the question then then it'll be your turn. Okay. Because you're presenting to the customers >> they're what's going to happen if I say
no. This could happen bad stuff over here and this could happen good stuff over here. It's their decision to to and then the and presenting it and people raising their hand asking questions. It's a slide. It's a slide and and you could just just like we were talking about this well there may be more money
but you know what be so many more people going from 20 down to four there really going to be a lot of people chasing it. This is you're presenting information to them not biases factual information >> and then and then you're presenting this heating land. What do you mean the BSR?
Well, even if it goes even if it goes goes to fourth, they'll be eligible because of the SRF. If they say consistently down at two, these are words that go out to the audience so that they >> I get it. We're we're doing a factual report
>> with a hypothetical synopsis >> with options with possibilities. I'm as long as we make it clear that these are all hypothetical situations, >> I'm fine with that. >> But everything else in this report is fact.
>> So I don't want somebody to look at hypothetical and call it fact. >> Well, that that the one we're talking is not hypothetical. It's a fact. But you could easily say if the if the levels four parts per trillion >> we don't we don't
>> it opens up all the other sources funding >> possible but pos all this is all this could happen should have could have just when I'm when I >> when I'm looking at this a lot of this stuff has factual information I don't
want people to look at those as deciding facts because they're not they're not necessarily you facts. >> So, >> I get it. I don't mind informing the public. >> You're talking to adults. I mean, you're
talking to adults. And when you say if this >> Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. >> Wait. I No, no, no. Let me talk. You You You cranked it up. You're already talking. >> I I I understand. >> What I'd like to do here, cuz we do need to move this along. Yes. >> Is that what if we put a page in here of
like what ifs, hypotheticals, whatever you Because I do agree with you. This report is full with a lot of factual, you know, information and there's like I I'm not disagreeing. These are good points, but maybe we put them in there in a way that like these are things that
could happen. We don't I don't think they should be under a no vote. I think page one more page with with possible possible outcomes or I I don't know. >> You could just use these under the no because we all we're not we all agree with those.
>> We get bone bone. >> Yeah, we have all of these. We have those. All right. So, >> but then but then again, you get twisted around because these things don't fit unless it's a no vote. I mean, it's not it doesn't >> I I think that we should just put these as like possible outcomes or
hypothetical situations that could happen in the future. >> We took we took other factual stuff out. The monthly billing, the the possible comparison to a nonSRF. >> So, I just want to I don't mind that information being available. I I just
feel it's not everything else has like merit. >> So let's make a separate page with I don't want to say merit is not a good word but you know I just don't want people >> because the fact is is we don't know a lot. I mean inflation obviously but like the less SRF money available I don't
tomorrow does a lawsuit gets settled and they flood $6 billion doubtful but you know what I'm saying? We don't know. Those are things we don't know. So, while they're all good points, it's not something we can actually put in a concrete level. That's that's what I'm saying. It's information that's right
and and and the public could take that and they could dive into it more and I think they should have it, but it's not concrete that this is absolutely going to happen. >> Well, let's be specific. What are we talking about here? >> All right. So, I think I think we all can agree that in excuse me, inflation
is is happening, right? I mean, we're all pretty pretty solid on that one. the SRF and money availability. We don't know. >> You know what I'm saying? >> Actually change that. >> Basically, >> lower priority on the SRF. I mean, it seems more than likely, but you know, uh
that I feel like we would be lower priority pro possible higher interest rate. Of course, it's going to be higher. >> Well, we know that because Lou said this 2.2 has been here for >> you know what you're possible. >> We don't know who we would get. We don't know. We That's why I'm saying all that
is not >> possible. We don't know. >> No, what he's saying, Bill, is that we don't know if we would get the SRF, right? >> SRF, yes. He said historically stays at the two 2.3 or whatever 2.2, >> but we don't know if we would get talking about interest rate.
>> Possible. Yes. Exactly. So, if we don't get SRF, we would get a bond at a higher interest rate. Yes, >> that's what he's saying. >> So, a bond. >> Yes. >> This one here, the AWA litigation >> possibility. You know what I'm saying? That's a big one, >> you know. Right. So I I think >> so add all those to the next page of the
hypothetical. >> Yes. Or just what I have is risks and opportunities put on another page and call it hypothetical or considerations. Yeah. >> Yep. >> I like I like risks opportunities. That's that's exactly
>> considerations and then risk. >> And here's another good one. I think we we we talked about this last time too. There seemed to be some coming. I don't think there is now because I think we talked it through about delaying the resident's cost increase. That's another be another two years basically they have to show.
>> The only thing I don't like about that is I feel like delays residents cost increase. Um but by delaying this the the cost increases more. In other words,
>> so back you have to think about Can I Can I I got a little story and maybe somebody may correct me if I'm wrong >> because I was a little younger when this happened. We had a town manager in town that put together a comprehensive plan to build a a new library, uh public
safety building, and something else. And it was a the plan was put together and it was voted on and it got voted down. Subsequently, in future future years, the town went and built a new public safety building, a new library, and I think there was something else on there.
And in the end, if you took what we added up to do all of those projects, it was more than the original. And I'm not sure that of all the details, and maybe I'm wrong, right? But that's kind of what I I see here is if if we um push
this thing down the road that we're going to be we're going to be building a treatment plant anyway from from what we're what we're hearing. And I think we're either going to get less of a treatment plant for the same money or we're going to be spending more.
>> So that's that's kind of what where my >> So I think your vote would be yes. >> What on this? >> Yeah. Um, I am leaning towards I think it's I think it's a good plan and and uh I think that they're working hard to
make it affordable at all levels. >> So, I mean, what your mental gymnastics right now demonstrates to me is you would vote you would vote yes on this 47 million. And I'm all I'm saying is we should give the town's people the same option to think it through like that.
>> I I agree. >> Let them vote yes or no. >> But you've said it yourself. They don't sit at these meetings and see what that's amount that they come to us. >> No, that's true. I mean, but that's what this is all about. >> So, we're going to bring us to put these items on uh opportunities and risk
considerations page. Okay. >> Next page. >> That's my second one by the way. >> Lunber I just want to point out that I am I am I am compromising my views in >> this why we don't see them. >> That's why we work together here on this
board. doing a great job, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Carbon PAS and M maganganesees levels. >> So, this one because you guys didn't like the manganesees. I mean, we could pull that out of here. I don't even know if we need the screen, but uh this page >> I think having the current PAS levels would be relevant here, but not the
maganesees. How about that? >> But the only problem is is what he was trying what we're trying to get across was at the bottom is that the residents need to understand we're building a treatment plant regardless. Not
>> even if it's not just part of us. I >> right. We don't have that. >> We don't have it as a fact. >> It's all got to be facts. >> Again, hey, that could go on the the opportunity. >> You could put that on a risk and opportunity. In >> what context would you put that on the considerations?
>> We get SRF funding to to treat iron and maganesees, which we may have to build in the future with non with no SRF funding available for iron and magnes. >> Yeah. If we had a verification of of that of that we >> but we don't and for right now for moving this ahead we're going to NYX the magnes levels off of this page. Okay.
>> So you want everything else on there. So you want manganese. >> No I'm going to I'm going to get that in writing. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Get this all ped. >> I appreciate it. Okay. >> Actually on the on these numbers how often do we report uh contamination levels? >> I I look at the portal. It's called uh
what's it called? >> Bill. I'll just pause it right there. Okay. I understand it's a great question. We got to get through this. So, all right. So, Nixon Nixon the magazine's office. All right. Next page. >> What is the future finances redistric looks like? >> People might not like this. >> All right. So, this just just where we
what happened in the past, we're at now and what's the future? So, 2024 we went for zero interest loan and uh so the total cost was the cost of the loan. So, in this case, I had 41 million number. >> I thought that was 32. It it No, I think
it was more because we added we had Hickor Hills and then we had uh Lancaster and then we had the transmission main but yeah it wasn't it wasn't 41. >> No it was 32. I remember that >> it was 32. >> That was in the master plan 32. >> Talking with the engineer there was a
possibility that they would allow us to add on the expense of the transmission main to Lancaster AB I believe. >> But but the vote was the vote was on 32. So we can put 32. >> Okay. And then now currently uh
>> same 41 million. So the total cost in the 30 years 56 million it's going to cost us. >> If we vote it down and we go bond it's going to be current rates 4.5% total cost 87 million. So the point is we almost double the cost from what?
>> Yeah. I'm not you're right. I don't like that because you >> I want to show the people that what they voted >> voted cost us. >> You can vote. You think you're not voting for the the future? I mean, what we said, the first two are accurate, except that should be 34. >> I would I can look up the real number,
>> but 2028 it could be zero. >> I would I would agree with um probably I think it's confusing to have the 41 million at 0% even 32 million because then, you know, we're not
talking apples for apples to the 56 million. No, it was just what >> it was just the at that point. So, you know, you could say we had uh a 0% interest availability, but I don't know if the total really makes a difference at this point.
>> I agree. >> I also think that the um second line is a good line. And I kind of agree with Bill. We're being hypothetical. So, see how I'm agreeing with you, Bill? >> This might be number three. But but I
think the residents should know that if we were to go out for a bonded project that did significant savings and it would be a possibility of you know that that's part of this >> that's part of
>> that's how I feel about the last page. We're just going to admit this. >> Was that the last page? Great. So, while I appreciate the work and thought that goes into it, if we're trying to stick to factuals, let's just stick to it because there's a lot of hypotheticals there. And if someone has a question about it, by all means, we can verbally
respond to it, but there is just some confusion in this. Okay, great. All right. Who's presenting this? >> Not you. >> I honestly I all of us. Maybe we could just take a page. Be like a team. Pass mic.
Um, okay. >> So, are you guys okay? We really need to get this very much so done. And I know you're not here next Wednesday. >> And then the following Wednesday is literally the week before. >> All right. So, >> are you guys okay with I'll we'll work
on that hypothetical page. We'll make these changes, everything that you had. Are you guys okay with me sending them out through the email? >> Could you could you send them out for for review? >> Yes, that's what I'm saying. So, over these next couple days, can we try to
um I mean, are you >> Yeah, we got we got to get this finalized and figured out. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Please put it together. >> And then and then what's our what's our plan for the present? >> Do you want do you want us to book the
town hall >> or or or we do it at at the actual meeting? Maybe we do it. >> Well, we still have them. I mean, I was going to bring this up for the action items. We still have the public access TV. Um, >> I think it would be behoove us to do the
public access TV briefing on this. Um, for for absolutely sure if we want to have some sort of meeting beforehand, uh, like we we've done in the past with this, you know, we absolutely I think it's a good idea. You might get Q&A from
the public, you know. That's how I feel. By all means, I don't think we should be presenting it at the meeting and getting the vote. No, >> the votes already. >> I think I mean the way this is at multiple pages, you could put a link to it on the >> say not present this at the meeting.
>> I don't think it's first time it should be presented. No, no, no, >> no. I think we should take every >> So, all right. So, if we finalize this this week, >> then I guess >> I don't know if you're not here on the 20th, maybe we can try to finalize dates
of >> Do you want access? >> Let's talk to public access to see if we can get some an opportunity with them. >> Yes, we can. >> Just to, you know, just to have a video out there collect and read on. Um, I don't think we need to present this at our meeting normally because we've
presented it to ourselves for the past >> million times. Million times. >> Um, and I mean >> I think you could post this >> and somehow put it either on our our Facebook page or something to give the
the public the opportunity to just read through it themselves. >> Yep. Um, >> and actually we could probably do if we're doing um the postcards. I could have her do a QR code on it to or even just state something on the postard. Go
to >> do the I would do the QR code that that links to this presentation and give some gives people an opportunity to kind of scroll through it. >> Yep. Um, and then I think that one of the >> Oh, that's the >> another another way is to attend a
couple of the public meetings in town and present it to uh the boards >> and also have the QR code like available that >> links to it probably uh a quick little thing in the ledger that maybe links
some QR codes because didn't we have the QR code? Did we have it in the ledger for the survey? My >> my concern though is that we We are our timeline is so short like we we need to get these postcards out like within two weeks which means that this presentation needs to be done with that
code before this design gets sent to the printers for the postcards to be more important to get the postcards out in a timely fashion and not get a QR code on a postcard then you know >> yeah that's kind of how so if we put the link to the website and Facebook and
that say for more information and then go to the website and bring it up would be great somehow to get the postcards out. >> Yeah. >> Did we close with them on the postcards? >> That's coming later. >> Okay. >> So, the idea is to finalize this and get
final approval from all of us so that we can >> Yep. >> Okay. >> make it live. >> Yep. >> And then try to figure out >> who can go to what Yep. >> meetings and get public access. I'll get dates and times from her and then >> email out.
>> All right. Excellent. Moving on. Hour and a half. >> Uh, next is a vote for approve the warm special meeting. We already did that, so we're going to pass over that. We did that last meeting. Okay. Uh, next thing on 905 discussion regarding the
Woodlands Kayak rack. I know that we received >> I got an email from their whitener stating I invited them again and the I don't think I printed his email but basically said they are not sending anybody oh right here thanks for the followup no representatives from the
woodlands will attend. Uh we respectfully decline at this time this invitation to meet. Um, moving forward, I guess they have two new um um lawyers working that we have to communicate with and he will no longer be working with them. So, um I have
that. And then I also received um an email from their lawyer from this lawyer before he he says he's gone next week, I guess. Um actually, the email was sent to our lawyer at KP Law and it was CC to me.
Um, I think you have the copies. Basically, a letter going to our lawyer and to D stating that I didn't literally got it at the end. I printed them. Um, I told them I believe I had told the last last
time we spoke that I thought the board told me not to have go through legal counsel, right? >> So, I replied to them and said any and all communication needs to go through the superintendent before you send stuff to our legal counsel. We our residents don't need to pay legal fees for things
that we haven't approved. >> Correct. >> Um so I don't know. I haven't even had a chance to go through all of it. Um I'm guessing by brief briefly looking at it, it basically states they're not moving it. Um and
I don't know. I I honestly I didn't read that. There's multiple pages. I saw a bunch of attachments. The affidavit that Bill um brought to the last meeting are there. Um, but I didn't read word for word what they what it is. >> Um,
okay. I Mr. Chair, I think we need more if we're going to review this. >> Yeah. >> I don't think we want to try to review this tonight. I think we want to go through it and >> maybe table this till the next meeting. >> Sure. Uh, I agree with that. However, I
did have some questions about the affidavit. >> They're all They're all in this package. I literally just printed that as we were walking in the meeting. So, you can take it and I can print that copy. >> This copy that >> No, there's two. There's one letter to D
and one letter to our lawyer >> that Christie made has the affidavits on it that >> Okay. So, tell me what what this is from. >> That is from the Woodlands attorney, Nathaniel Steven with McGregor Law. >> That's a Woodlands attorney. McGregor.
>> McGregor Law. Yeah. So he said he >> this is being sent to D. >> One there was two attachments. One attachment was to D and I think one attachment was to um um Brian Riley who is our um legal
council for KP Law. >> Can can you give me the uh executive summary? What does it say? >> I don't know. I I just I literally just got I literally just got it. So that's a lot. I definitely I I want to very much read that and analyze it before we just
dive into it. However, >> uh I did have some questions actually for you, Bill, on the affidavit. >> Um they're in here. >> Yes, the ones that you uh Thank you for submitting those. How did you get those?
>> Um I asked uh I I think I asked John. were in a discussion with no Bob I asked Bob in a discussion with him fact it was Frank when we were talking about the 17-year versus the 10year something remember I
said these these were kayaks were there for 17 the whole time that Hickory Hills was running and you said no it wasn't because you were there and you didn't see anything when they were building when they're digging and I mentioned that to Bob and he said he had affidavit of people who were there so he must have
must have done this long before I I too. >> Well, let me let me let me just let me let me just I just I just I just have some questions here. All right. So, you got them from Bob Keys. When did you get them?
>> So, right after that discussion whenever we had that discussion. Oh, this was after a meeting discussed doing the email >> or doing the letter and you said you you would >> I would do that letter >> probably after that. So, >> I spent a lot of time on it. So, I guess
what my I I just need to wrap my head around this a little bit more is throughout this process with the kayaks, I have very specific instructions from the Woodlands attorney to not contact the Woodlands on this and that you need to speak through the attorney whenever
you want to talk about this. So I I don't really understand how it is that you went directly to the to Bob Peas or whoever you you know you contacted there or vice versa if we're
explicitly saying told not to do that. >> Oh that what's that last thing? Explicitly told not to do what? We have a letter from their attorney saying that we cannot we cannot approach or discuss this with any resident of the
woodlands >> per the woodland request per the woodland. Well, that was before my time. I didn't know that. >> Okay. So, now >> but all the residents of the woodlands knew that because they told their lawyers >> to tell us that. >> Oh, well I didn't know that.
>> We it we just need to be a little careful. I have people that approach me a lot for water district information. >> So, we're not allowed to talk to anybody from the Woodlands >> specifically regarding >> Where is that? I didn't even see that letter. I'm sure we can take it out. >> Yeah, we we'll get it to you. But I just
>> Please. >> So, that's why I I guess I'm my curiosity. Did Did That's what I'm saying. Did you reach out to them or did they reach out to you? >> Oh, no. I mean, I I've done I've done research my whole life. I I so and and so we had this debate, right? Was it 17
years? And I said, "Okay, it's it's been 10 years instead of 17 or whatever." And I said, "Well, how do you know it's been that long?" I have I have uh >> Okay. >> I mean, it was a conversation about it. So that seems weird. I can't talk to anybody from the woods. My daughter
lives in the woodlands. >> I'm not saying a full stop. I'm not saying you can't talk to anybody. It just we had to specifically from their lawyer that we are not to go out and ask like hey guys what's going on with this if we have any conversation regarding
this kayak rack it has to go through it through their attorney. So that's when you showed up all of a sudden with these affidavit I'm like whoa that means that means you talked to them about the kayak racks right? >> Yeah. um which we're not supposed to
>> which I don't like this whole time that's all I've wanted to do is just have a conversation with them and it's been like no >> um so anyway I I have to kind of just look into that more I just it just seemed to it caught me off guard but it came off and >> back to my my
comment I was making earlier a lot of times people approached me about things in the district >> and when they had information that they wanted to bring up they brought us up each an individual envelope and that's the way to do it. I normally point people in the direction of call the district, talk to superintendent. You
have information for our meetings, bring it up to the clerk treasurer so she can prevent it presented at one of our meetings. It's it's just it it it's really the way things are supposed to, I guess, go. You know, as much as we want to try to have a quick conversation,
which is what the chair tried to do to try to resolve the situation, it's great. Um, but yeah, we did get a letter from them saying we couldn't discuss it anymore. >> I really like to have a talk to you about it. That does I mean I'd like to read the words behind it. I know we
can't talk to anybody over there. I mean >> about the kayak rack >> about Okay. >> I'm not saying no Billy you can't talk to your daughter. I'm just saying it's >> I can't talk to her about kayaks. I guess just um >> you know it's actually since we're since
we're talking about subjects like that. Um >> no we're we're discussing the Woodlands kayak rack. >> We're we're also discussing who you can talk to and who you can't talk to. Is that part of what we're talking about about what's allowed and what's not allowed? >> No, we're discussing the Woodlands kayak rack. If you'd like to bring that point
up later, I' I'd love to hear it. I just want to try to stick this and move on. Okay. So, uh basically on that Chrissy, yeah, we're going to table that. We will take the chance action item >> to to um review that letter and move on.
Next thing we have item number six is response to resident's questions regarding the submission of the SRF. So, I'm sorry. Did we close on that? We close on the kayak piece. >> We closed on the kayak piece. We tabled it until further. >> You guys all got to review those letters?
>> Yeah, because there's a pretty thick, >> right? I'll agree that I'd like to be able to process review that look at it and we will revisit that at the next time. >> I believe I just emailed them all to you this morning. >> Okay. >> Let me know if I didn't. >> We're good there.
>> Yeah. >> Yes. Okay. All right. Next thing we have respond to resident's questions regarding the submission of the SE SRF application. This is you, Mr. >> This is me. Andy Stasi went to Green Court Luna. Thank you. This has been very important
to me if you haven't picked up on that. So, um I'm trying to get an understanding on how this SRF application came to be. It's my understanding that last May, May 14th, 2025,
the Lunenberg Water District Commission decided they weren't going to apply for SRF funding. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> So, and everybody here was in attendance and it was decided we're not going to go for the SRF funding. I believe you
stated it was because you wanted more information. you wanted to get the survey out and get the results back and we weren't clear on the way to move forward. >> Um, yes. So, I actually have a copy of your your letter here. >> Sure. And that's just to help us have a
conversation. >> Sure. I can I can read this down and give you the response if you'd like. Um, what do you want to do with them? >> Well, I don't want to just be limited to yes or no on the questions. I'm trying to frame I want to get an understanding. This is very important to me. I want to
understand how we get from point A to point B. I think it speaks to a lot of things that are important to me. So, um, yeah, if you want to go down that list, maybe that's a good way to address this. >> Can I just jump on one? >> Sure. >> So, the commissioners are ultimately
responsible all the financial long-term plans. Uh, the base level authorization uh of the projects begin with myself. So nothing comes from the commissioners mostly to me to to do a project. Usually I investigate I look at the grants
myself and Christie look at the grants and and what kind of funding sources are available. Then it goes to the commissioners then then it goes do they do they approve not approve they approve then it goes to the voters. So the ultimate decision for like this SRF is on the voters. So that that's kind of
what took place. point of my question on that first one when I asked who holds the legal responsibility for financial planning and the authorization of major projects is that the commissioners now no doubt that you and Christie provide expert information on that you run the
water district dayto day Christiey's the treasurer but when the water commissioners make a decision on what's our financial plan for the next year what are the projects we're going to invest in who has the ultimate authority on that is it you Fran Um, commissioners overrule everything. Everything.
>> You made that decision on May 14th not to do that. So, >> correct. >> Great. >> Okay. >> So, >> that was it. I'll answer the number one question. >> Do you want me? >> Yeah, let's >> sure. Uh, so your second question
regarding the May 14th commissioner's meeting. I think we've answered that question that yes, the commission decided not to to apply for SRF funding at that time. >> Just trying to make Yep. >> Okay. So um all right so the next thing you had the regarding the December 3rd 2025th commission's meeting did the
superintendent Fran Mcame the commissioners that he submitted the SRF application did he state that this was done with without the prior knowledge or authoration of the commissioners? Was this the first time the commissioners were made aware of the submission? Did the submission of this application
contradict the decision made by the May 14th not to apply for the SRF funding? And why was was there a delay from July to December informing the board about this application? Okay. Commissioners were notified individually that the application was submitted for SRF funding. The vote of the commissioners
are not was not taken at a meeting. It was discussed individually with members. is common practice for the superintendent clerk treasur to apply for every grant available to the district. Yes, it contradicts the commissioner's original applying for the SRF, but when everybody became aware that this was the last year
for the infrastructure money, we felt it was worth a while attempt. It was not anticipated that Bloomberg would even make the funding list. It was mostly stated so that everyone was aware that IP would soon be released. So, I'll tell you personally, I came in and talked to
Fran, as I often stop in here and do and talk to pretty much everything. This is after time bond uh had talked with Franch over certain things and saying like, "Hey, listen, you know, it's kind of a no-brainer to to apply for this SRF." Again, it's pretty much the same
application as last year. So when he talked to you each of each of you individually or you weren't here, Bill, but you talked to each of the commissioners individually, Fran, is that >> Yeah, I'm not I'm not sure I ever spoke to John, but uh I know I talked to Mark and and >> So you talked to at least two of the
commissioners individually about this >> that I submitted. Yeah, that was going I wanted to. >> So in the meeting on December 3rd, why did you say, "Hey guys, you don't know this yet, but I've submitted the SRF funding." >> Yeah, I I don't I don't know why. I think it was more directed at John
because I don't think >> No, you might have misspoke. >> I You You misspoke. >> Might have. >> You might have. This is important because December 3rd, nobody else knew about this. The public knew as of May 14th. You weren't going to do it. There
was no other discussion in any of the meetings. Nothing mentioned in any of the meeting minutes. I've gone over them. You're saying, "Oh, no. No. Privately Fran met with you. Met did he meet with you, Mr. Burch?" Yes. >> He told he told me the situation and I
told him to go ahead and apply for it. >> So you knew before December 3rd that he was applying for the SRF funding. >> Yeah. >> Cuz in that meeting he said you guys don't know this and you looked a little surprised cuz you didn't even know what option he applied for. >> I don't know how I look surprised but I
had a meeting prior to him submitting the application with Fran. We were in here. He discussed the fact that the SRF eligibility and that the going from zero to to 2%. And some of the things that
were going on and I and he said it was uh basically taking the submission from last year and resubmitting it. A lot of the work was done. I I said you should go ahead and do it. >> You knew all about that before December 3rd. >> Yes. >> When do you think he spoke to you about that?
I do not recall the exact date and time. >> I can't cough. >> You do it all the time. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Very good. >> Before it was around July one night. It was a last minute thing and it was tied to the >> We had the meeting. We were I remember we were in here. It wasn't a phone
conversation or anything special brought up and and I said I think he should do it. He should confer with the other commissioners. >> Right. I got distracted there. When do you think this happened? It was before the December meeting. I I >> July. >> Yeah,
>> it has to be before the >> I'm I like like Mr. Woodward and chair. I'm in and out of here. >> So, it was before July before he actually made the submission. I >> think the submission was the middle of July. >> The submission was July 24th. >> We had the conversation before because you hadn't submitted, >> right?
>> And we don't talk about it all the way until December. and friends. >> To be honest with you, >> I was like, "Sure." I I thought they'd laugh us off the table and us not. So, I was like, you know, >> yeah, you said that in in December. You said, "Man, who knows what's going to happen." Maybe
>> I think Fran did the right thing and that's why he came to us and different question. But so, you're saying before July 24th, between May 14th and July 24th when he made the submission, he had meeting with you. He had a meeting with you and you agreed. Yeah. make that
submission. >> Yes. >> I don't I don't >> my from what I remember I've had a long conversation with Table on questioning and making >> and we don't talk about it for 5 months and as you're still going through it cuz you're still talking from July to
December about let's get that survey. I want that information before we make a decision. you're having all those conversations after July about the survey and how you need to get that information before you make a decision because this is confusing.
>> It's not before we I I wouldn't I wouldn't say >> it's confusing because he comes in on December 3rd when you're talking about that survey and he says and I'm quoting you guys don't know this yet but I've already submitted for the SRF funding. That's a direct quote from you on
December 3rd and now you're saying no no no way back in July he told us about this we that's a great idea >> there you know did Brian come back and say I applied for it no he said I'm going to now that's that was the conversation I had with him and on top
of it with this I think he did the right thing by applying for it >> why wouldn't we talk about this in the meeting and let and let the public probably >> it just never came up. >> There's lots of times that things are applied for and until they come to fruition,
>> we we don't we don't necessarily >> This isn't buying new pipes. This is a $42 million highly contested SRF law. >> Whoa, whoa, whoa. We're not spending $42 million yet. That's coming up at the meeting. >> But that was the SRF application. >> Yeah. >> So, it's not an everyday thing where it's like, well, we're always talking
about spending money, going for loans. >> Grant funding is an everyday thing here, Christie. talked about buying a $200,000 tractor for 2 months. >> Christiey's went around us and saved the residents all sorts of money on on uh because we I can't recall whether they
did approve or not. The lead copper, >> you know, I don't think the grant applications are are something that the whole board needs to >> on the same thing. >> You don't think the SRF funding is not something the board should have voted on? I think SRF funding and and and
approving it that 42 million. Oh yeah, we need a vote on >> but applying and putting in to the mass D an application >> but weeks before you said don't do it. >> So that's what I'm trying to understand and I'm still confused.
>> So I don't answer your question. >> I I've got it. I think uh yeah, you've said that sometime in before July 24th, Fran met with both you guys and you decided to move ahead with this. >> We did not meet together at the same time. Fran had independent discussions
with both of us >> and the decision was made. >> I told him to go ahead and he should apply >> and I I think I did and I told you that I did. I don't think I asked you. I don't usually >> I don't I don't think I asked anybody for the emerging contaminate grant. We
applied for all the time. So if if you guys want me to >> scratch all that and wait >> just when you said you guys don't know this yet. Well >> have we answered your question Mr. >> I think so guys since we have it on the
table is any com? >> This is this is to you. >> I thought it was an agenda topic to be discussed at this meeting but it's only to be discussed with me. >> You're the one that petitioned it. >> Sure. Is there anything? >> I'll say this. Does anybody else have
>> That was my intention. >> Very good. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> I do apologize for the delay in getting this back to you. Been a bit busy. >> Thank you. >> All right. Commissioner, superintendent clerks and treasures addition.
>> Uh my first one last me I I went out of line. I I mean I gota apologize. I I shouldn't have made any comments. I usually been trying to be pretty good. I I do get frustrated. Uh I mean I I this is my life. So I mean I put a lot of uh
energy into it. So I uh yeah I stepped out of line. I just want to apologize and I'm going to zip my mouth and no more of that. Uh so that's all I got on that. But I got a few other things I want to talk about. Uh so we we had a uh
uh a leak pawn street. We dug it up, thought we fixed the leak uh in the process shutting it down. The valve started leaking. So we have another another leak to to fix on the valve. And then uh the next day we got a call that
the same water line we fix is leaking across the street and the person's yard. We got to go back and we're just going to replace the whole line. Uh that was that was one. And then we fixed uh leak on Lemus Road. All went smooth. Ended pretty quick. So went down the Woodland
Drive. Just a leak, you know, at the curb stop. >> Usually no big deal. >> And uh the the curb stop actually blew off. I mean, it's only 1 in line, but you'd be amazed at how much water comes out of 1 in line. So much that we couldn't even pump it. >> So they went to close the valve and
closed just Woodland Drive, and that valve broke. Uh water was gushing out of the top. It's still leaking. We got to got to get over there and fix that. And uh things seems like you take one step forward, two steps back. Yesterday, yeah, yesterday was two steps forward,
only one back. So kind of Okay. Uh so just giving a heads up, a lot of stuff starting now. >> So the the lines on the the reasons for the shut off on in Hickory Hills yesterday, was that at the Woodlands and Hemlock? >> Yes.
>> So it's Woodland Drive and Hemlock. Is that where there's an intersection? No, that well that's a leaking valve that we need to fix. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But the leak was actually at 63 with them >> and it was just they don't even have water. It was just a curb stop potential. >> And when we dug it up, there's the
little pitch uh grippers that hold it to the car. >> They weren't even tightened up. So, it's kind of amazing that it it's 140 pounds of pressure down there. So, it's amazing that it even lasted this long. >> So, we it they were digging up. They didn't even hit it and water started
gushing out. And then you pick up the the curve stop and the rod is still on it and you could it wasn't even connected. So it wasn't so that was kind of a surprise. But anyway, so the valve's leaking. Not sure if the bolts on the top broke. Uh we've had this in the past actually. H drive was brand new
and the valve broke. We knew what the valve was exactly. So we went and bought the exact same one and just did the bolts. Popped the new top in it. Uh didn't write down what kind of valve it was. So I don't don't remember. So, >> do you have a chance to look at that supplemental grant stuff I sent you for
infrastructure? >> No, not not yet. >> You you know what I'm talking about? >> I I you sent it. Yes, I I I did I just did take a peek at it, but I didn't I didn't dig into it. >> It seems like we have a leak a leak a week. >> Yeah,
>> if I can might want to look into that. I mean it did say we're uh we're again tier one I think eligible for it maybe time bonds already plugged in but >> so so the water come out in front of
hemlock drive frame so you are aware of that >> oh yeah >> that's okay that's all part of what all of >> this time we actually will notify all >> well I did notice so I had a couple phone calls and that's how I was aware that something was going on and I went
right to the the book of faces which >> everybody does and I did notice you guys did post that you were working down there and working to try to get the water back on. So I appreciate that and just so residents know that's really the easiest most immediate way to uh to to
look if you don't have water normally it's on Facebook. If if we didn't put it there, then I'm sure somebody else is put. So, >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. So, the next thing is I got a metal lane that helped going up hilly acres uh bill from the DPW gig, you
know, little commission and details of, you know, how he wanted things paved and stuff like that. So, so we're ready to ready to get moving forward with that. Uh the only thing I I want to question is our spec state line, zinc coated duct line. So, we had that leak over
Northfield Road that was PV. We had to replace the valve PVC and and duct line. And when you dug it up and you looked at it, the PVC looked like it was brand new. I mean, the duct line, which was put in the same time, was all rusted and uh it looked pretty ugly. But anyway, so
problem with duct line, it cors inside is fine. So anyway, so I was wondering if you guys would consider allowing us to maybe modify the spec to maybe under certain conditions we allow PVC pipe. >> So when you say that, first off, my
question is if someone runs from their curb stop to their house, are they allowed to do plastic in town? >> We do copper from the main to the curb. Correct. >> Plastic in between, make copper into the house. >> Okay. Yep. um with the ductal
like so what you just did over there on rolling acres and well done at metal lane but that was all ductal last year correct >> okay >> the only thing with the PVC which like I like it and get it but I'm assuming that if you didn't use the PVC you would be
backcoming that with like sand 12 inches round or >> sandal yeah so it would slow down the process >> so no one would not a rock into it or anything, >> right? >> So, but I got some base I just did some base quotes on it. Yeah. So, this is this is the part I think you guys going
to like. >> So, the pricing was uh PVC uh two prices 1721 a foot and 22.85 a foot. Yeah. 8 in PVC. >> And then Dr. Lion was uh 52.90 a foot.
>> So, >> so all right. Couple questions. >> So, it's one one half off. >> Yeah. All right. >> Is this PVC like a sewer pipe gasketed and pushed together? >> Gasketed. Yes. >> Okay. >> But it's blue. It's water. So it's got water 200. >> Is it 20 foot? >> 20 foot is 200 PSI. Uh rolling ink is
pressure is probably 65. >> How do we tap it? >> You could you have options. You could do a direct tap. >> Uh I ball is saddle tapped it. >> You you you do have the ability direct could direct taper. >> I thought that was pretty cool. But if
we if we did do a saddle, I all we do is full stainless saddles. We've had issues with the other ones corroding off fixing. So >> So I I I would recommend that we add a little statement. So because I can't it's not right for me to have a spec.
So I I just feel that maybe you allow us to tweak that. Well, I I guess like so like in this situation where it's going up and around there. Um like I would almost say okay as like a trial, you know what I'm saying? I don't want to adapt the rules to this, but like as
like it's for us to be like we're going to install this second loop and see how it fares. >> Okay. >> I would be in favor of something like that. >> Okay. But before, you know, because I know so um you know, the round road and that whole big project going down there,
like I would be I'd be a little leery to be like, "Oh, yeah, go ahead and use plastic right away. I I'd like to put a little >> I don't mind us doing >> that." Actually came up, >> right? You know, I'm assuming that's in there. But that's just kind of how that's how I feel. Okay. I you know, I'm off of trying it, but I don't think
>> so. You guys will you guys allow me the board to give PDC a try on it? I would >> 1300 feet two hydrants 1300 ft cuts the price probably >> in that area and it does a loop. >> No, we're just going up the top of the hill to the hydrant at the top.
>> Yeah, but it's still a loop all the way around. >> It'll loop the saw last year when you you did metal these are rolling acres and you stopped pretty much at metal lane. >> Yeah, we crossed over to metal lane. So, we're just going to grab that and just continue. >> How up to the top? You're going to grab this. This section's good.
>> Yes. Yeah. >> No, never. >> Never have. >> What's the idea to evaluate? It's like when would we what would be considered an evaluation time frame? 5year period. >> I mean, pretty much anything you put in in 5 years is probably not going to
um I I don't I mean, you you're right. I don't know. Remember the the leak we had over on um on Peak Peak's house? the um >> like that's a I mean it was newer and like the whole pipe looked good but it was just like
>> one >> you know >> that same happened on >> road >> lemonster road >> with those holes and everything on that so I think that's what >> that's what >> that's what's kind of yeah >> and that's why >> drive a ground ro
>> Oh yes uh Dr. Um, you're right, Mr. I don't know like what that trial >> I'm okay I'm okay with trying trying it out. I think it's a significant savings, but I want to make sure that it's >> The other the other reason why I say there is pushing something down the
road. >> It's not a uh connecting line. It's a I hate to say it, but it's an easier place to fix if there was a problem. It's not like, you know, you're shutting down half the town. It's on a dead end. It's on a dead end, you know. So, that's where like I'd be more apt to try it somewhere like there.
It's not a dedicated service line that has a dead end, >> right? Like versus like Towns and Highway Road, you can shut off all Hickory Hills, you know, >> with one bell, >> right? All Hickory Hills. >> So, >> I I'm okay for trying it. I I don't know if we need to put a a deadline on the
>> Yeah. >> No, I don't I just leave it open and see, hey, how's it working? Couple years from now, whatever. >> Are you ready to say something? >> No, I just want Is this a test? Is the question is is this about using PVC or not PVC? Are you talking about the junction? You're talking about the
issues with the tap on it. >> I'm trying to understand what the I mean PVC's been used for water for >> Oh, for years. Um so what's the question? >> Yeah, mostly just specs has duct line zinc coated duct line. That's our spec >> and uh so I I don't have any problems
with PVC. So that was my thinking because of the cost. We can put it in without much more expense. Pretty much just a little bit of sand and tracing. So my question what what's what's the debate? What what what are you guys concerned about? >> Just modifying aspect tell to cuz that's
what I I mean how do I tell that guy you have to use duct line for more than twice the cost of PVC >> and and me not using it. So that's kind of just want to make sure that every is kind of a >> this is this is a trial. This is a trial
for us. It's not changing our spectating to >> to evaluate. Maybe in years to come we find this is fantastic and we can change our spec. So we just kind of want to give it a give it a little try. It's pretty doable. >> Perfect. >> Just in case you don't get to your
email. >> Oh yeah, Mr. Burch. >> Good. Amazing. Very good. M. Uh yeah, I had a couple questions. The data um that goes
on the uh energy mass energy and environmental data portal. How of well first of all how often do we take do we take do we test? Do we test every quarter? I'm think primarily pas but everything. >> Uh every we have a a sampling plan that
tells us you you will test this monthly, you will test this quarterly. Uh but uh the beat fast I think is some of the wells like well number five that one exceeded the 20. So that one I think we're on monthly testing for that one. The other ones I think are uh mostly
quarterly some like like sometimes just once a year. >> Where where is where is that data? >> Uh roster goes on uh EDP and we don't submit it. We we go to the lab and uh it they are they submit everything. So even
though we don't get it, they we just get a printed statement and uh they they submit it direct >> ED. >> That's that's that's who. >> Yeah. Okay. So you you know that the portal I've always been looking at to see look at this at the uh test results
is is uh it's called mass energy and environment data portal. Is that is that >> uh I'm not sure. See for me maybe because we have actually count DP. So maybe maybe I have a different way. accessible, Fran. >> Is there is there
>> I'm I'm not sure. >> You usually when you log into it, you you could see all the different columns for all different >> I wonder if I wonder if it's the same one because I I I I use that one uh again u the the energy environment data
portals got all 20. I see for for PE has 20 22 24 25. So I see it, but it seems to me we're doing more testing >> than actually is appearing on that data portal. >> Yeah, I think I'll check.
>> I'm not familiar with that one, >> but I know DP just called last week uh questioning those manganese symbol because we we had a manganese sample come back at 2.27 27 which is you always have to chew the warper and and we called the lab and said there's something you move the decimals in the
wrong spot and uh they said no it's correct so I was speaking with DP and we retested and uh and I think they agree with me that it was a bad sample because none the retest done week later came back
>> it seems that the data you just sent over here see this seems like an anomaly too I've never seen Lancaster of that that >> so that that's our own little spreadsheet we keep. So we when we go out and do a PA sample the results come in we put it on that sheet. >> Oh. So do we have sheets like this?
>> No, that's ours. We we we make >> we actually have the lab results. >> We take the lab result that comes from them. Take that result put that into the spreadsheet and then that gets lab result. Yeah. >> Are these available? These spreadsheets >> spreadsheets. The lab results are
>> Yeah. That's that's what I'm asking. M >> you want the actual lab results or you want >> this is great. This thing right there. >> I mean I mean I like to see what you just keep on I'll upload that to the commission. >> That'd be great. That'd be great. >> That was tough though.
>> I have a problem with articulation. >> No. I think you you were doing good there. >> The Excel document. So I I had uh actually the discussion you guys had prompted me with with this last point I
wanted to make. Um last month uh this uh this open meeting law I sent you a note on that maybe you want you to talk to it. I don't know if you but >> convers what the thing that prompted me
is conversations with you you can't be used as a pass through for discussions. you can't be used as the pass through for the 16. That's why that's why um when we're talking about this uh 30 30k for the testing. That's why I said oh because I had an issue about that. I
didn't I didn't copy you you guys on it because it falls into that category. So got to be really really careful. So if you talk to him about what was um what was it I forgot already what the talk oh about when the when the SRS and you said
hey Mark what do you think >> and you say yeah go for it and then you go to him and say hey Mark thinks it's okay that so I'm just saying you got to be really careful when when you guys I mean I'm paranoid about I watched that whole
thing that the attorney gave that I sent you that I sent you the links oh my god you is really careful about this open meeting stuff. So this these kinds of conversations and and uh you got to really care. You I'm sure you know that but I just it just prompted me to say I
just gave off this open meeting. >> Yeah. You try you know and it somehow we do our best. >> No I mean it's it's very simple. If I if I talk to them I'm talking to them and they can't be like well Mark already said this or like absolutely not. is
like you know like uh when I was working with Fran on the for the citizens position that's it >> any so that's yeah so that's that's caught my attention that's all I have
>> uh I was going to ask about the um grant for the but I think you already may have >> round road and etc >> any any >> still moving still moving ahead yep we got uh letters of uh support from different uh people in that area.
>> Yep. >> Uh the uh engineering the person who's in charge of from time bond that does these specifically, she feels our application is stronger than any of the other ones she has that she is submitting. Not saying it's better than
everybody else in the state, but >> but we'll see how it goes. >> So, we're applying for we're going to apply for both. >> Yes. cuz she said as soon as we added Round Road to Linster Shirley, she said that because it's covering your
residential portion of it, residential, commercial, all of that. She said that bumped what she felt bumped the project up to a higher. >> So, we talk about my electric cab dream. >> You have a dream electric chase road.
>> Oh, Chase. >> Okay. >> It's tough. is tough because >> the whole left side's conservation at the same time purpose would have been to enable um >> commercial plan. >> Yeah.
>> So that's all I had. >> Um I was going to follow up with um Mr. Mkey's comment about the um open meeting. So we had gotten an open so I've been getting public records requests. I feel I feel like town hall
when they get them a million times. Um I got one from Joan Peas asking about that the open meeting law training. She wanted to know exactly when you guys took your training, your dates, your certifications, everything like that.
So, um I've always been under the impression, but I did confirm with um legal counsel that it's not legally required, which I have said to you guys in the past, it's not legally required that you guys have to do open meeting law training that it's it's suggested and it's everything. So,
the other part to hers, which I will respond to her, but following up with the open meeting stuff was um you know, asking about when you guys were sworn in and done all these dates and everything. So um but you had asked and that's why I didn't email. You had asked if I knew of
other the same that I have always >> Oh yeah, I found two. >> Yeah. So you asked me about other training sites. So when you guys were and I should have given you that when you were um >> well the one not official then I
>> I didn't even open your link. I Yeah. No. No. You there's nothing there's nothing legally that you have to take to be to sit on this board of commissioners of water commissioners. So these are other just trainings that are out there. You had just asked if there were other ones. So I those are the ones. >> No, actually I asked is there a
certificate the certificate or certification because I didn't see I went through it. They didn't say anything about now you can get this. >> Oh yeah. No. Don't buy no. There's no legal requirement that you guys have to get certifications for all of that. Um so anyways that was to follow up with
that. Um then oh I had one other question. We had another public records request from Ballpiece um asking about um >> enabling acts. >> Yeah, the enabling acts. So um an
electronic copy of any amendments to the 1939 acts of mass general assembly that created the Lunberg water district. So I >> as far as I I I don't it was created by legis I don't think we have the authority. You want it there? >> But uh but there are little segments
like for expansion of the water district. It tells you how to do it. Correct. Election of the board. That was collect treasure used to be an elected position and then we switched >> but those aren't but those aren't amended in the actual >> in the actual act. So I in having the
conversation with him is what I wanted to ask you is my response was going to be that you know it's our understanding. So, if there is anything, I guess I'll wait to see if there's further. If I have to have legal counsel go through to prove that there's nothing
in there, is that something? So, when you ask for public records request, like if I have to pay legal counsel to dive into all of this, >> there's a fee associated with it. >> What did he request? >> An electronic copy of any amendments to
the 1939 act of mass general assembly that created the Lunberg water district. an electronic copy of the minutes of the LWD annual meeting that occurred in the 1980s that adopted certain portions of the MGL laws elect related to elections.
>> I didn't know, but I thought that there was provisions for if people requested to record, you know, to have if we had to have somebody research it, there has to be a >> Oh, yeah. There's fees and stuff that can go along with it. So that's that's so I guess
>> I guess that would be something that to to ask Mr. Peas if he if he's willing to pay associated fees with >> with legal and everything to do all the research. Okay. >> And that we can and I don't think we're legally obligated to do all that research for nothing.
>> That's what I'm not sure as far as >> because people could do a public you could get you could get a request that could take you the rest of the year. Yeah. >> And you know so I would look into it further. Okay. Um, >> you have to make sure that they everybody gets the right information, you know.
>> Yep. And lastly, Bill, I did get your costs for your postcards. >> So, she looked back at um we did the postcards for um >> the survey, right? Is that what we did
the postcards for? Yes. So, she looked back and we actually did it direct because she asked who we like using and we do a lot of our printing and everything with Minute Man Press. She wanted to use a local company. So she actually pulled the actual invoices from them. So with the
So those were the invoices. So printing, mailing, postage, everything on there, it was right around $3,400 >> for the printing >> just for the printing, the postage, and everything. She told >> the postage. >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
>> Yeah, postage was like 12. She says $1,234, which is what it was on here. Um, the printing of them was the $1,600 from the printers to go out. And she thinks it would take her like anywhere between two and three hours, $500. So,
she said 300, sorry, $3,400 total to have the mailer out the door. >> Exactly. >> Postage her >> postage is just over 1,200. Printing is just over 1,600. And then two to three hours in that everybody in the district or everybody in the community.
>> So this is where I thought the survey went out to every >> It did 5,000. I mean part of me >> that's the whole zip code. >> That's >> it's tough. I mean we could
>> it doesn't make any sense to send it to people that aren't in the district. >> I know. But the hard part is is then you're putting names like >> Yeah. Now, and and I I would dis disagree because I
think that there are residents that aren't in the district that may want to have input because they use the public water supply. >> They can't still they may want to have some. >> I don't know how you're going to pull those out. >> And I think it's probably cheap. >> Exactly. Cuz then at the same time if
you're pulling them out, see right now you're probably sending one. Right now you're sending one to an address. If I pull out certain addresses and I try to use the data that we have, then I'm sending one to you and your wife and you and you know what I mean? Like is it going to go to more?
>> I feel that we may be splitting hairs over that. It's just easier just to send. >> So but let's make it clear if you're a water district customer, you live in a water district or something. So >> we we have probably have to put something that you have a right to vote if you're within the you know. Okay. Voting. >> There's there are a lot of filters on
that direct mail thing. There's like income. Uh how many people how many families to how many people per household they can actually segment it that way. I doubt they do. >> They can't do this. They can't do water customers. >> Oh yeah. >> That's not one of the options.
>> Um and then she did give me You guys had voted up to 4,000 which we didn't tell her. said to do um uh I didn't go through all this but basically project details working with us um the Facebook all the other stuff
um 2700 >> so we're under what you guys have voted on and she gave me the exact invoices of what we paid last time so are we uh >> the graphics for the uh the wording and the graphics for the
>> for the postcards that what are we put on there >> um I she hasn't given me a draft yet. This >> what what do we want on it? >> Um I mean we we depends on it. >> Well, we did we I sent her actually I sent her one that um a couple of the
residents had actually come in and shown us the one when you guys just had your town meeting here to vote the override like the teachers association sent something out. So we've just been go giving ideas just nothing too crazy because if somebody sees something with a ton of writing they're like >> but something catchy. So, as soon as she
sends me um a draft, I'll send it to you guys. >> Should probably say special meeting. Should probably have the date. >> Yes. >> Should probably say >> Yep. >> water district. >> Yeah. We'll make sure everybody knows it's at the >> treatment >> at the auditorium. And then hopefully
some kind of link or something about if you'd like to get more information, >> go to the website. Um and then last but not least, Bill, you sent me the two Facebook pages that you were interested in. Yeah, that was my best effort. >> So that we are I do already share and I
will make a point for all of our posts to get shared to these. So I went back cuz like just now when when you sent these to me, I went right on and realized I had already shared to this group. >> I always see them like when we're having the meeting and stuff like water >> sometimes I'll just I I >> was the water breaks. I see them.
>> Yes. So it has been the agenda I would just post to our site. >> Which one? Which one was that? Lunberg. Lunberg Independent and then just Lunberg Mass. >> So anyways, we are there and I will make a point to post them. That was one of your action items. >> I know. I know. >> So I will make a point to post there. >> You don't go on that bill.
>> I don't do I don't do >> they campaign over that. You never even look. >> No. People send me stuff. People send me stuff. Like for example, last year did you see this? And it was a
it was out of the blue personal attack on me. >> Someone I didn't even know. >> And uh that one I felt obligated to to uh respond to. >> That's the only time I've ever posted. >> Um but I don't know. Facebook has in my
mind's got good stuff on there. >> Well, you're the one that wants to put it on, >> huh? >> Said you're the one that brought this up. >> I think this is good stuff. Yes, I'll make a point for the group. >> It's easy enough. Right before you hit post, >> it says, "Do you want to just post it or share to groups?" I just literally click
share to group. So, I'll just make a point to do that more. >> All right. I'm kind of expecting maybe Bill should pop up on all the Facebook posts saying, "I am I approve this message." >> Don't they do that? >> Yeah, they Yeah. Yeah, I do. All right. So, on action items, it looks like we hammered out the Facebook post thing.
>> Yep. >> And public access TV. I feel like we already discussed that earlier. Who's going to do the recording? >> I don't have the greatest speaking voice, so I'm not up for it. >> I think >> But you're the best looking. >> No. What do you
say, >> I I don't mind. I'll do whatever you guys want me to do. I don't really >> You do a good job. You You go to quiet places. >> I do quiet place sometimes. Sometimes >> we're just >> Let's get there first and then, you know. Okay. Uh,
>> I'll I'll do it, but I know I have a feeling that I'm not going to be the top vote. >> I haven't I haven't watched the more most recent video that's out there, so I don't know what what kind of a format. I'm not saying we have to use that
format. >> Um, okay. Public comment. and pretend I'm Tom Alonzo 284 Lancaster Avenue. I want to just understand as you were talking about the mailers, which I'm glad to hear you're doing,
but am I correct in saying in in hearing or assuming because of what I heard that the water district doesn't have addresses of all the houses that live in the water district? >> Normally, I would just do public comment and I try not to go back and forth.
>> Well, you know, I mean, okay, >> you don't have to answer me. I understand. >> Yes, I do. >> We absolutely do. >> Okay. >> But is it worth taking every single Is it >> It may not be cheaper to do it that way. >> Yes. That That's the only option that I was trying to say was that it may not be
to take that list and have them print that instead of just here's your here's the Lunberg resident >> to every address. >> Okay. Well, for what it's worth, I didn't I I didn't understand that part. I'm I'm sure that the mailings that you can do can you don't you can parse out
the just the addresses. So duplicate addresses that have spouses or multiple members that can vote. You can just send one to an address and just give them the address. I think it would be bad form to give people because there are addresses that aren't part of the district and if
they get something and come to vote then it's going to be on incumbent. Somebody's going to get there and they're going to say well you don't get a clicker because you're not part of the district. And say well you sent me the mailer. Well, I just send you the mailer. So, for what it's worth, I would be very accurate. >> Second invitation.
>> Yeah. >> Anybody else? >> I uh I move that we adjourn. >> Oh, thank God. I thought you were going to talk about something else. tell you too something else did cross my mind but also that town meeting Paul that