Okay, welcome everybody. Today's January 28th. This is the Lunberg Water District Commissioners meeting. And we will 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. We have some minutes floating around from last meeting for you, Mr. Bur to uh
we will review those review those also. >> Yeah, feel free to >> view and sign. >> Yeah. Lots. >> Lots. Got you. Got you. We're such
ready. >> Yeah. >> Just a chair. Minutes for review for you. >> I thought that's what we were taking. >> Which one? The surplus. >> Well, technically it's Don't you have to vote?
So, do you want me to change that right now? >> I can change it and print new ones right now. >> No, you just change the change and then I'll just I'll just note it on here. Just do it on that one. I'll read it and >> Well, yeah, you don't need
>> Oh, okay. I got you. Yeah, we're going on that. circle. So that's basically how it's been. As long as there's one one that we vote on, >> Mr. Chair, are you good with the meeting minutes of 14th?
>> Uh, yes sir, I am. I was not present for those. So >> So I would make a motion that we approve the minutes of January 14th. So >> Okay. All in all those in favor. >> Oh, sorry. That's your I I and you abstained. I abained.
>> I had it so moved. I had I had a lot of lot of action over. >> It's okay. We we got a lot of things afterwards, right? >> Yeah. We did a lot of stuff while you were gone. >> Yeah. Yes. One the one meeting. >> Uh all right. Next thing we have is the uh review of the June 30th, 2025 audit
with Mr. Mark Mueller. And we're going to delay that till next meeting. He wasn't available. Um, next thing we have is the review to vote the appropriate articles for the special meeting on February 25th, 2026 at 6 p.m. is what we have in front of
us. Basically, this here's the three articles. Um, article one is see Lunberg Waters District will vote to appropriate the surplus from the surplus revenue account the sum of $25,9867 $98067
to pay pass through IRS medical payments from employees. Number two was received from Bloomberg Water District will vote to appropriate uh the sum of 73,000 to purchase and install the Neptune 500 Neptune 900 gateway data collect as we talked about
this last time in article three was to see if the Luna district to a vote to appropriate the sum of up to or $200,000 to buy a rubber tire excavator. So those are the we have talked about previously on many occasions. So those are the uh
three articles that we're pushing forward to this >> special meeting. >> Mr. Chair, in your absence at our last meeting, we went over this and multiple other articles in depth and anything that we felt might have some controversy
to it. We were we were going to push to the end of the meeting. All these were very straightforward. Um we had discussion with members of the public that were here for it. Um and and felt that um
some of these were timesensitive. That's why we put them in. Um you know, we owe this money to the IRS for for the Medicare payments. um getting the the the data collectors which will allow us to um read the meters from a more
central location um and get it online for the billing periods that we want to. That's why that was put in there. Um and we also felt that um the rubber tired excavator would be something that would I mean if if everybody wants to vote it
down, it's just going to be on the next next one anyway. It's it's one of those things that we need. It's very versatile. It really helps the guys, especially with the the the future projects that we would like to do as far as uh capital um main replacement and
for uh water main brakes and so forth. It's just a much more versatile machine. And our backho is 20 years old. >> Uh 2009 2008 when we received it. It's 2009 model. So it's almost >> 20. Yeah. And that's the machine that we
rely on the minute we have a break. So definitely due to be updated. Um that's all I have on that. Mr. Chair, >> you have anything to add on that, Mr. Espazito? >> I'm all for it. >> Uh do you want to take a vote on this or
motion to approve the warrant? >> Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve the warrant for the special meeting of February 25th at 6 PM uh for uh the articles as listed. one, two, and three. Um, as we went through them, uh, and then this is all going to be posted,
correct? >> Yes. Has to be posted. It'll be in the ledger. February needs to be two weeks before. >> Yep. Um, and just, you know, the the changes as as put um for article three. >> Correct. >> All those in favor?
>> I >> I Okay. Uh, next thing we have is discuss mass D letter regarding the kayak rack zone one at the Woodlands condos. Okay, so this has kind of been an ongoing back and forth issue since last year. Uh, after
the last meeting, we did receive a letter from a mass D. Um, stating that the kayak Rex does does in fact is in fact a violation. It needs to be moved within 90 days. Um,
this letter has been sent over to the Woodlands attorney. >> So, they are in possession of this. They know what to do. >> They have it. We've not heard any response back from them. >> They don't really need to. >> They have 90 days. >> 90 days.
>> I was hoping we'd have a few of them in here tonight so we could get a response, but I guess they're not going to show. >> So, just delete this. We got everybody's got to realize they brought this to DP. It wasn't like we brought it, hey, the kayaks are a problem. They brought it to
DP. They brought the golf carts, the kayaks. They brought a lot of stuff and this was nothing that was brought on by us. It was them that brought it. Now they have to deal with them bringing them home. And the right thing has finally been done. >> The reality is is that we've spent a lot
of time. Both places have spent a lot of money on something that could have been fixed in probably 20 minutes. They could have built up a giant kayak rack of how much money we spent on it. >> It seems very insane. >> It's just wasteful for for all everybody involved. It's just it's literally moved them 100 feet or something like that.
It's not that big of a deal. But okay, that's where we're at now. The D's put the final stamp on it. >> Um >> Okay. >> Hopefully they get moved and we all moved on in life. All right.
Uh, and the next thing we have is commissioner, superintendent, clerk, treasure additions. Grant, what do you got, buddy? >> Uh, a few things. Uh, I met with a developer for Barrage Street. We have talked to people several times for that.
Uh, regarding extending the water man to the penman property. >> Uh, he was just in today just questioning how the process would work. You know, how do we extend the main? I showed him the map. I showed that he's not in the district. >> Correct. you'd have to do a petition and do it in an article to have the voters
of the district expand the district. >> And uh so I'm just making you aware that that's uh something that he's probably going to be working on. Uh he he said it was a nice development. I think the planning board supported it. It wasn't I don't think he was cramming it in, you
know, like a 40B kind of thing. So it sounded like he was, you know, making it a nice, you know, >> how many how many residents or anything was it? I think it was 20. >> I missed some of the conversation points out >> 20 houses. >> No, we've seen we've seen before plans
that go like from Buridge to reservoir. Is it still that or is it just strictly off of Burge? >> Just just off of Burge. So he was just going to do a loop off the barge. >> So like a culde-sac or just you're saying a loop, not a culdeac. >> Uh yeah, a horseshoe. >> So it would loop back.
>> So he he was looking to extend the main uh page street to barrage just into his project back. So that's it. >> Yeah, that's it. >> Page Street >> is currently it's currently at the end of reservoir and page. >> Correct. So this on the good side of this for our water system is it would
bring it closer to a street to tie in a street. >> Yes. >> Because that'd be a very important little loop to tie in. >> So currently it ends at Page and Reservoir. Correct. And then ends at the end of Bird Street. >> I mean I mean not Burge ends at the end of uh Arbor. Uh it's on a pine.
>> Oh. >> So we we we we would have to look that's actually one of my one of my system improvement projects >> which is there's really nothing on the street. >> There's no gas. There's no sewer. >> Maybe a couple drain pipes. I mean we could that would be a
>> right through those. >> That'd be a good project that >> would be they're all rusted and falling flat anyways probably. >> Okay. Uh so anyway, just bring you up on that. uh the the survey that's we've
been discussing for for months. Uh we're going to put on hold. There's actually uh >> one >> for one week. one week >> just till next week >> o only because there's there's a lot of uh information coming out from mass D
and uh it's always been 0% interest for for PAS projects >> that they're talking of kicking it to 2%. So we're not sure they were supposed to have a vote on it. They tabled it >> and uh so we kind of want to wait and see how this plays out a little bit.
Mhm. >> Uh I think uh we're all listening and talking to everybody that they're pretty confident it's going to go to the 2%. So we don't want to put the survey out there >> at 0%. So we we feel that we should show
2% show an actual number because you know people always think we're trying to finagle the game and this is not we're trying to be as honest as we can >> and this just came up like Friday. >> So it's it's all very new and everybody's all Mass Waterworks is on
top. Everybody's on top of it, which no one supports it, but I guess I mean we voted it down, but there's principal forgiveness going to all these communities and uh they they gave out too much money. Sure. Now they're paying for it. So,
>> but they weren't smart enough to >> You mean when we said that that wasn't going to last? >> Oh, >> well, yeah. Let's uh make sure we look at that. So I'm I already updated all the numbers. >> No, make it makes sense to have the
right information on cost because a lot of this >> a lot of this is a financial burden to people and then and if if we want to make sure we give them the accurate information if we're if we can't do if 0% might be off the table then we
shouldn't be asking we shouldn't be dangling that carrot in front of everyone. >> I agree. >> So >> the hard part is it's evolving constantly. Yep. >> So, had we put the survey out last week and literally Friday we found this out, we'd be liars, you know. So, that's why
it it came up and it was like just >> hold for one minute. And I know that. >> Sorry. >> No, good. Yeah. Uh, so the survey >> you could get to it. It wasn't live. So, it's it's not So, we've we've had complaints about it and uh you know, we could see everything on it. Who who who
kept trying kept trying their IP. So, we could see they were on their phone on the computer. They kept switching actvices. We can see who it is. So, we know who it is. So, but uh the new one you're going to have to put in your email address, your actual property address. So, you're going to be able to do that, >> right? >> Yeah.
>> So, >> yeah, there was there was a mis communication with the ledger. They didn't they posted that link at the end of our story and and the QR code wasn't out there, but that link was there. So, people tried to go. >> So, people tried to go in before we sent
the QR code and everything out. So, I had gotten an email saying, "Hey, this is flawed. You everything's going to be skewed >> responded and said, "Apologize for the miscommunication, but the site wasn't live yet. It's so anybody who has gone
in to do this, we're working on a post right now to say we're sorry because also along with that because it wasn't live and this new financing coming up. We're going to do a good post to everybody and say, you know, we apologize for the delay. We're trying to get this as accurate as we can so we're
not misleading anybody. Um, but you know, the the one resident who went in multiple times on different IP addresses, those aren't valid cuz it wasn't live yet. So once we put the post out there and I will reach out to the ledger again,
>> it's live. It's good. Now you can start going to this >> QR code. >> Just I mean communicate as much as you can and then we'll just have to tell when it's live that's when we're going to have to push it. Yes. >> Obviously we're not going to take the
data that if there was any data that's coming in now it's not being collected. >> No, we can see the back. we can see the names and the IPs and the, you know, the resident that went in three times um just under different IP addresses. So, we can see all that data, but we needed
knowing that it we apologize for the misunderstanding that that link was there, but that wasn't live yet. So, >> as long as we communicate out, I think that's the best we can. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Okay. So, the other things is a lot of posts in the editorial, Facebook posts. I don't know if you guys
want to address any of those because there tons of false comments. I don't I >> the only thing I'll follow up on on that that I really don't like is everything that we've done with this on one of them is they're telling people we suggest
a no response and a comment that they do not reflect the support for expansion. So after everything that we have done for months, spent money on this, you could have come in if you don't like the way the survey
is, come in and tell us what you would like to change. But now that the survey is going out, you're telling people not to respond. >> So Billy was he was the only one to make comments that that we need to tie to this. >> And we did. >> We did. So other than that, everybody
else, we like she said, we've talked about it for months. No one's ever made a response. I mean, we we brought them in at the beginning. Uh the to me the main focus is the hard water that that's some of these told us that the hard water is not an issue. If we do a treatment plan with Lancaster, Keings, hard water problems go away, which is
absolutely 100% not true. That's exactly what we have now. Hard water is a huge problem. So to me, I want to know what the hardness is for for the people in town. Do they want to address it or do they not? That that's all. and whatever. I mean, if it comes down to they want to
just treat Canadies treat the feed the whole town absolutely they can put 1.4 million gallons a day. That's more than Lunberg uses on on the max day. Can they do it? Yes. If that's what you everybody the town wants to do one one well treat that that's the cheapest way. Let's do
it. I don't I don't care. Whatever you want to do, I don't care. >> Well, >> thanks for the passion. I get it. But I got to tell you, I'm not putting a lot of weight on some Facebook post. The whole point of the survey, as we
said in the beginning, is to get to this is not a law or anything. We just want to get the opinion of the people. So, if people feel that that they want to participate in the survey, that's why it's out there. Send us how you feel. If people don't want to participate, then
it's like don't vote. No, don't vote. I I don't >> to be told >> that you shouldn't respond because it's flawed. >> I don't I don't like that you're you're >> I don't like it either, but it's not I'm not It's frustrating. This is this is
all hogwash. It's coming out all this crap and I to me you this we need to address this crap because people listen to these people and they need to stop. They need to stop. So we we need to start putting this out there and say wrong, wrong, wrong. needs the facts and
uh we got to start doing it. So maybe we do the survey, see how it comes out. We'll see how it plays and then >> well I think one of the other ones that just needs to be addressed and and will be addressed as we can come up with a formal thing is there's lots of talk
about this federal court action. So, they're saying that at some point um you know that it won't go through that there's a federal court and there was a new post that went out that links to it
and it's a great link because this will show people that this does not apply to what Lunberg Water District is testing for. So there's there's multiple PA fast chemicals. There's P F P FOA and then they call them Gen X
>> contaminants and that that's what's in this post >> and a lot of like American Waterwork Association's going after the EPA that because EPA took them out. >> Mhm. >> And they they want them back in because they're dangerous. So So there's there's two sides of Yeah. One side they want to
pull them out. The other side, hey, no, you need to put these back. >> So there's there's all kinds of sides to this. Who? And who who cares what EP uh what happens there? It goes by Mass Massachusetts. Massachusetts is 20, >> right? >> Uh EPA was 70. So I mean we could have
every well in Runick on if it was still in the EPA, but EPA is dropping it to four. That's fact. There's nothing changing that this this lawsuit is applies to the Gen X ones. >> Not those not those. So, but Massachusetts from the day that
EPA released that, they have two years to set legislation to adopt the four parts per trade. So, they have till April. I just spoke to D today. They're working on it and they're not sure when the actual date will be. Uh, but they're
working on it. So, when it comes out Massachusetts can't can't be more than four anyway. And >> is there is there a link to that video that you showed me on YouTube? Do we have that out there? >> Uh it's not posted on our site, but I I
could I could >> Was it a link from one of the D letters or >> remember the presentation we watched last year where they went in how the PAS and all the communities that are going to now going to be affected by the four parts per trillion. >> It it was aformational one and that was
where they had the you know EPA adopted this. We have two years to make it. >> I my my point being is I watched it. It was a half hour. Veryformational. Um it it spoke about the the chemicals. It spoke about you know allowable limits
and everything and it and it spoke about timeline that we are going to have in Massachusetts right now. And um it spoke about options of extending it but they probably didn't feel that that was going to happen. So, you know, for us from the
D, the main things I got out of it was we have to have a plan in place to treat this 2027. So, we have a year to have a plan in place to treat the contaminants because they're contaminants, cancercausing, birth defect,
immune deficient chemicals that affect people's health. And I don't understand the I'm below the allow, you know, we're we're just above the allowable limit of the chemical that causes cancer that I drink every day.
>> Come on. So >> after my after my after my rant for that, okay, >> it did it did speak about that 2027 we have to have a plan by 2032 >> 31 >> 31 we have to implement this plan. And
what are they going to do if we don't implement this plan? Well, they've they've shut wells down because we don't meet certain criteria before from from before. It's shown. So, we're going to we're going to have a bigger problem the more we wait. You just talked about
financing going from 0% with principal forgiveness to 2%. How long before that goes to 4%. So, we all know the longer we wait, the more money it's going to cost us. So clean water
when you look at afford I don't I don't even want to talk about that but in order to have clean water for our residents to drink you don't want any contaminants in it. I don't want to push this problem down the road to my kids their kids uh and and know that they're
they're going to have to deal with some of the health health causes from this. So, I'm all for, you know, pushing to treat our water. Um, and and for to get it to get it the best water for the for the residents to consume.
Uh, affordability. We're trying our best. >> That's all. >> We've already we've already missed we've already missed the boat on on some good affordability. It's only going to get more expensive. And and if we if if we keep listening to
uh what people are giving us. Great. Their interpretation of the data, but they need to they need to fact check. They need to hire engineers. They need to hire attorneys because that's what we're doing. And and for people to look at us as a board and say we're not doing
our best for the community and we think you're wrong. Uh I'm sorry. I'm going to keep doing what I think is best for the community. So, and and I think any contaminant at whatever allowable level it is in our water shouldn't be there.
>> I'm dealing with it with my daughter has an autoimmune def uh disorder. I see it and and I see it across the across the boards and to me it's going to cost us money, but I think it is worth it for the health of our future generations. pushing this down the road
is pushing a problem on our future generations. And and I'm not up for that at all just because I want to save a buck. I'm sorry. And to save a bucket, SRF is you have to go through SRF. And if you
go through SRF, we have one source that gets us there. That's the hick real well. So if you don't want to use that and you want to do all the other sources, you're going to pay the same amount of money money to treat the two as to treat the whole system we could for >> as to as to create the plan that you've created that that it you know it's
pretty evident that we use multiple sources in order to use the funding to to do what's best for the for the the citizens of >> and just to touch on one other thing the engineers for Lancaster A they don't even feel it's worth even putting a treatment plant there because there's so
limited capacity. And if I went and took audio down and look at wall number four running, you can see every night it turns on and the water table just drops like this. You let it start till the next day when it turns back on the water table is not what it was when it started. So every time you run it, it's
it's decreasing decreasing. So when you take summertime and you run that thing every day and we're only running it probably 10 hours a day, do it 20 hours a day. You're going to see that thing running out of water. I've seen it hundred times. So, so to say, hey, let's let's go to Lancaster and do a treatment
plant. Well, you have one well that that really can run 24 hours a day. So, anyway, so that's the point. Uh, Lancaster engines don't even feel it's worth it. But if we do a combination plant, tie it to all of them, then then that gives us, you know, multiple sources to to utilize and do my little
sip out of every site. You know, you don't want to hammer every site. >> Well, you know what I was talking about earlier? Just my thought is you're not going to change anybody's ma mind. You can't fix stupid.
And what I would do is the same thing that happened with the kayak wreck. Sooner or later it comes around and it bites him in the ass just like the kayak rack did. I would just assume step out of this whole thing. Stop spending money. Stop wasting time. stop
frustrating the hell out of ourselves. What happened, what's going to happen, and let the DP step in in 2026 or 27 or whenever they're going to step in, see what they're going to do. We've done our best. We've worked on it for two or
three years. You can't do anything about it. We got too many dogooders, too many smart geniuses in town. They got all the answers. They know everything that's going on. So, so, uh, a sanitary survey is coming up in April. So, they're going
to review as always all the wells. They're going to look at your kayak racks. They better be gone when sanitary survey comes here. And, uh, you will see uh, comments regarding the PAS PO. They're going to make comments of where we are and that attention needs to be
made because I keep saying I want something in a letter in writing say you need you need to treat this because no one seems to believe us. And they said, "Well, don't you know?" I'm like, "Yeah, I know, but they don't believe it from me, you know." So they
DP kind of laughs at Warberg. Everybody laughs at Warmer. >> Help help me. Help me out, Fran, because this is this is something that I I was starting to think about. Townsen PAS plant. >> Yep. >> Air PAS plant. >> Yes. >> Littleton PAS plant. Is there one that I'm Is there one that I'm forgetting
when I look around at our neighbors and see how smart they are, how much they care about their residents that they're going to treat the water and get rid of this contaminant that's in the water that causes these health issues? >> I'm
blown away when people talk about affordability when and and and people's health. I'm completely blown away. >> My turn. You're up. >> What's the common den denominator here that makes us different than everybody
else? >> We all know what it is. I know what it is. I'm not going to say what it is, but everybody in this room knows what it is. But the common denominator, what the problem is. >> Here's here's the bottom line. It is my turn. Now, let you talk.
While I find this entire process unbelievably frustrating, us as commissioners, it is our job to to continue to pursue this to ensure that our residents have
clean regulated water by the D. So all these things that we come into whether it be certain citizens don't want to do certain things or whatever what we need to do collectively is to come up with a solution that works for everybody so we can have clean water now. Hence the
reason why we put out a survey and we've done everything to it. That's what we will continue to do. Period. I find the process insanely frustrating. I thought co-op course of action won was a pretty good sol, but
we have a voting public that votes that votes this stuff in or out. So hopefully this survey helps the fact that we can get some input from the people that don't come to the meetings. Okay. But we're going to just keep doing this. And you're right. After this gets voted
down, you know what we're going to do again? The whole thing all over again. >> Yep. We're going more money away. You know, it's sure it's we currently need to meet a standard of drinking water that is brought down by the Massachusetts D. We are not going to
meet that right now. So, we need to find a way to do it. We'll keep trying. That's all I can say. I find it frustrating too that you know, believe me, I every, you're right, every other community around here, starting with Littleton who did theirs years ago
and I think the governor even went out there, they were so excited about it and everything like we need to find a way to make sure that we have it too. That's it. >> I I get I guess Mr. Chair, my frustration, Mr. Espazito's registration is we are trying to do this and I don't
want somebody coming to me 10 years from now saying you guys didn't didn't do this. >> 100% agree with you and I do get a little frustrated and I try not to take any of this stuff personally and I see some of the that gets written down here. I'm sorry.
>> I know that everybody on this board has put a lot of effort into making sure that this gets done correctly. So, I do take some offense when I do read some of these things and I never post on Facebook, but some of the things they said because it's simply not true. What we're doing out here is doing our due
diligence to make sure everybody can can afford this and it gets done. Okay. So, for for I have one last thing on on this and I I haven't read any of this. >> I haven't and and I do see a a public resident here and I have one question for him and if he wants to answer it, he
can. >> We're not a public comment yet. Okay, before somebody writes something like this, if it was any one of the two, there was been two people that have been contributing on a regular basis here and I and and I appreciate their
contributions and I think it's great. It'd be nice if whoever publishes this stuff or does this stuff actually comes and talks to us before they do it so that we can get the facts straight so there's not misinformation because the public needs to know there is misinformation that is put out to them
that isn't fact checked or it could be fact checked but not engineer stamped and approved and and not knowing all of the rules and regulation of of D and EPA that we have to follow. So,
so I would just ask that the people that put these put these things out and like I agree with you. I don't put a lot of weight on on Facebook, unfortunately. But if people are putting this thing out there, it it's it's, you know, there are people that read this and say that it is
fact. If the person's going to if they're going to publish this, they should come and and and fact check and and check with the professionals. Fran's been doing this for Yeah, I would I would love to one of these that said, "Oh, masters is 20 path street. Lunberg doesn't need a treatment
plan." I would say that I spoke to I spoke to so and so at mass DP. They stated Lunberg does not need a treatment plan >> cuz their POS levels up. >> Yeah. Listen, I I don't I don't even mean to, you know, the the shining light here, but many of these things that are put out are put out to be misleading
against us. It's period. It's just why they're written. >> Exactly. It's it's written in written in a very well documented way, but it's simply false and it's for that reason and it creates as soon as you create the doubt. That's all they need to do is create a little bit of doubt and that
goes a long way. It could be 100%. It doesn't matter. >> Okay. So, that's just so you know, that's why they're being written this way. >> Do you have anything, Christie? Uh the only thing I was going to let you guys know is to start to think about um our
CD that we had invested 1.5 >> uh is coming due uh mid end of February 20th. >> Um its rate was at 4 just under five 4.6. Uh she said the rates are not that high. She said right now obviously we
can look when it gets closer and I'll get better quotes. She said right now it's around 3.5 3.6 for renewing of 6 months. So, we just need to think about timewise. Do we want to for another six months? >> What bank? >> Uh, Rockland. Well, it was Enterprise.
Enterprise got bought out by Rockland. >> Yeah, >> that's who we've always had. >> The only suggestion I would have is just to check. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I can call around to find out other rates, but the biggest thing I needed to know was, >> are we looking to invest in another 6 months?
>> What was the print out percentage at Rockland? Um she said right now just giving me an estimate without giving me the full thing yet was around 3.5 3.6 um >> still pretty good >> and these this is this is the tank account or this is the money for the
tank. Yes. Right. So I think it's got >> don't want anybody like dreaming up we have all sorts of money. >> This is the money that's been been we've been investing. >> I mean as we approach it we'll a get that number finalized. >> We had a tank in. It's all looking good. It's all looking good.
>> So, we're good for another 6 months. Okay. So, I will get new >> um new quotes. Um >> L five is 369, I think. Last time I checked >> uh new quotes for the CD for the next meeting. >> Yeah, >> because before this Yeah. the end of
February. Um that was all. >> Okay. Do we have any public comment? >> This is uh Paul Grundit, 35 John Street. This is one of the best meetings I've attended to. And that's all I got to say. It's a
compliment to all you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Anything else? >> Sean Fortune50. I've got a few as you might imagine. >> Uh first of all, uh the money for the February 25th meeting, it's about adds up to about 300K. Is that part of the
normal budget? There's no overruns or overrides or anything like that. I just assume it's all part of the regular budget. >> Surplus. >> It's surplus. So 300k is surplus. >> Yep. Okay, great. Great. Second thing, um,
you had mentioned that the the public gave no input to the survey. I will tell you, I have been on a task force. I spent a lot of time and energy writing questions and and additions to that survey, all of which were rejected. Uh,
we talked about the different costs of the different things, all of those things that were put in. So to sit there and say nobody gave any input uh you're wrong and this is the problem that we have that because you stand in the public meeting here and if I wasn't here it would just be public meeting would go
out but in fact information was given back and none of it was uh in found in the survey. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I can tell you there was a group of citizens that spent a lot of time putting uh responses in looking for
ideas of what the costs were basically of the different things. >> John, where was that group of citizens? >> Where was it? Well, I was one of them. >> Well, I know. >> So, it's a group of citizens. >> I'm gonna pause you. I'm gonna pause you both right here. >> This is public comment. And by all
means, John, I want to have your comment. So then why >> no? >> Hold on. Well, I just gave I gave it to you. >> If you would like to take questions from us, that is your choice. I'm just saying that right now. You don't have to. You can just fire away. >> I'm I'm open to conversation.
>> So, there was a group of people that gave input to the survey. There was quite a bit, actually. It took several nights to put it all together and we sent it back in and nothing showed up. all the all the and a lot of it I will tell you was on costs. What
were the what's the cost of of of actually doing taking care of hot water things like that what is the cost of the different treatment plants the different options all of that was part of that those responses >> the hard water treatment plants we did it in the survey >> I don't know why that's come up similar
>> yeah the cost >> okay so >> all right >> can't afford to pay seven a year okay carry on >> a lot of those too I >> so do you want comment or not I mean you You stood here and you said we don't get feedback and I'm giving you feedback and now you're blowing it off
>> again. It's you're not giving accurate feedback. You're giving information. >> You did you asked information if it's in there. >> Okay. >> Can I check? >> We did get information. We reviewed it
in our public meetings. >> Okay. and we put in what we felt was needed in the survey. Some of the stuff might not have. There was another resident that came in that spoke uh multiple times with the superintendent, >> had a lot of feedback and made we, you
know, to say that we got feedback and didn't make any changes. I think Fran made a lot of changes. Spent a lot of time meeting with the one resident that would come in and meet with him and explain things and why things weren't in and why things were were were set up a
certain way. Yeah. and and if we didn't include uh a dollar value to hard water because we already spoke about it in our public meeting before and I don't think the residents had the the uh appetite to spend $1.7 million annually expenditure
on treating hard water. So yeah, we left that out because it it became a a this whole thing is going to cost so much money. We were trying to bring it in to to what we felt was reasonable. And Fran worked very
hard in working on the supplies that we have that don't have hard water so that we could have a plan to mix and reduce hard water. >> We're stuck on hard. >> No, I'm just saying that's I'm just saying I'm saying is I was commenting back that the comment was made that
there was no feedback and in fact there was feedback. So, but that's I think I think what you're hearing back is that you're sitting there and basically coming in here and saying, "Hey, we had all this information. You guys just threw it away." That's not true. >> Asked for information. That's part of what the part of what the >> You're saying right now. You're saying
that there was a group of citizens that came in here with all these concerns. We took those concerns and did nothing with them. That's not true. >> That is that you are exactly right. Those citizens did not come in here. We had gotten the survey early. Christy sent it to us, allowed us to review it up front.
>> Yes. We m we reviewed it. We gave some responses on things that we thought would be useful to see for the residents to see and maybe there were a couple of them. My point was don't you can't sit here and say nobody gave any input.
People gave input. That was my point. That's all I'm trying to say. >> But now there's people saying that the survey is junk. Don't don't answer it. >> I don't know. That was not me. That that's all I was trying to get at was I I I apologize for the mis understand. Yes, I know that we went back and forth
and yes, there was >> but I was frustrated to know at the end that those emails went back and forth. One of the other residents came in here like Mr. Bush said multiple times have multiple conversations. We have changed the survey to that. So
>> now that the survey is coming out, why on the Lunberg Citizens for a Clean Water, a group that you're a part of? So, I'm assuming you guys review when >> you as a group host. >> I don't necessarily comment on there, but go ahead. >> Oh, I thought you were a part of it. You said you're a part of it. So, your
name's on here saying that you're telling residents that >> we the information or lack of is misleading or any response on your part could be misinterpreted. We suggest a no response here until all questions are
answered. So, my frustrating part was I I I didn't say that correctly. Yes, we've had things, but if you guys for the past few months, we have literally this survey has been on here. If there was something that you guys until all our questions are answered, what
questions what questions aren't we asking that should be on the survey? So, if we've been reviewing this for months, why did a representative from the Lunberg Citizens for Affordable Clean Water come in here and say, "I know you guys just
approved the survey. it's done, but we have more questions. We want to make sure those get answered before the survey comes out. That never happened. So, instead of coming in and saying, "Okay, the survey is ready to go. We're ready. We've spent a lot of time and
money and a lot of conversations with people. So, now we're putting it out." And this citizens group for affordable clean water is telling its residents, "Don't answer because we are not addressing all your questions.
What questions are those? >> I think it was the questions on cost were the >> but but that could if you felt that you did not get the answer that we talked about months ago. We have had the survey on our agenda for months. Review and approve. Review and discuss. Review and
approve. This draft survey has been out for months. If you felt that this survey was not ready to go out to the residents, either yourself or any part of this Lunberg Citizens for Affordable Clean Water should have called or come to us and said, "Listen, I know you guys are
getting close to sending this survey out, but we're going to tell people not to respond because we don't think you've answered our questions." That would have guided us. We would have gone, "Oh, wait a minute. We don't want to waste our time and money. We don't want to waste our residents time and money on sending
the survey out. If you guys are going to tell everybody, don't answer it. Don't help the water district. Do you understand the frustration? >> I understand your frustration. Yep. I did not write that, but I understand your frustration. >> I Yes. >> So, it's point well made. >> So, I apologize if what I was I was
frustrated by saying that that was the lack of communication was at the end. I understand there was communication at the beginning the end when this survey was talked about these past couple months there and and telling people that we are not answering their questions
tell us Lunberg citizens for affordable clean water I'm asking all of you email me okay >> what are your questions because nobody in the recent future in the past months two months >> have asked those questions and it's very
frustrating to spend a a lot of money six pages. This this is a lot of work somebody put into this and they're obviously very passionate about it. But until they come and bring it, until somebody if they get they got the time to do this, they got the time to come in
and meet with Fran, ask for a board meeting, whatever it is. That's that's our that's our frustration is, you know, we are doing everything we can as a board. We are having these meetings, discussing things, going over things and
at the last minute blind side, you know, and that's that's what I can't stand and and and I'm not frustrated. I don't want to voice my frustration towards you as a resident. My frustration is that that we
are putting a lot of time and effort as as as Christy has said and and then all of a sudden >> time and effort to engage the public to get their get their get their feedback. That's what we want. And to me, every time I see this this stuff, it is like
no matter what we say, it's going to come back and this is meant to disarm, discredit, to do anything to us and make disrupt the the flow. Alls we're looking here to try to do is to get information for the public. Which way do you want us to drive this ship? That's what we're
trying to do. >> It never was. That's why we did this because after the last vote, it was an obviously overwhelming no. >> Okay, we still have a problem. We still need to treat it. We're going to put this up. Sorry, John. This is your time.
>> Keep fire. >> Um, last question. I really want to ask this a couple of different ways. Um the I got two questions. Sorry. The SRF request that went in,
could uh one of you tell us what was that actually for? Because the way I read it, it was for two of the wells and yet we've talked today about being it for three wells. I believe it's for two wells. Correct. >> Sure. Okay. At the time the SRF funding application went in, the data was not
um complete on the Keading's test. >> Yeah. >> So hard to include that in the funding our the plan that Fran has presented from day one. And we could always so once you once you apply for SRF funding
correct me if I'm wrong Christ Ry Fran somebody if you get approved you can always ask for an addendum or an add-on correct >> correct we did >> okay last >> so we did the last time so we weren't
able in this application and it it's a it's a very complex when you know how we put these applications in. So we allow for our engineers to uh guide us on what's the best thing to apply for. So we didn't apply for funding for Keings because we didn't have the information back from
the pilot study yet by the time the application was due. So we couldn't add Keings to it. But the intent was to add an addendum to it. The overall plan is to take all the water sources we have in the community, link them to one treatment plant, and try to solve as
many of the issues that we currently have with the systems, uh the the water quality and and the the the PAS. So, how we get there, and it is a forever moving thing. We just talked about today that now they're not going to have 0%,
they're talking about bumping it to 2%. So it's it's an evermoving thing and and and we try to stay on top of the information as fast as as fast as it comes into us. So the intent was to always have all the sources in town
linked up to some sort of a treatment facility and operate from there which would secure the foreseeable future of the of the water supply for the citizens of LRA. >> Okay. So, will we see that plan before we're asked to vote on anything?
>> That's the goal. We're really trying to get there, but this is a moving target. So, things things happen where finances change, financing changes and and um France really thinking outside the box on on ways to save money uh for
transmission mains and how to put them in and can we put them in ourselves and what can we do to reduce the cost. So, >> so your question is like will we before we vote on it >> before there is a vote >> before the residents to vote is it will there be a plan that has the free well
fields >> all that would be that's what I'm pushing for because I feel that's the that's the real cost and that's the the best plan that that you know Fran has been working on our engineers have been working on that secures the the the the
the affordable clean water for the future. >> And we just I mean we heard from Fran earlier today if you're going to do if you could only do one it would be Kings because that's the one that has the most water to the top. >> But if if if there is funding to be had by incorporating the use of by
incorporating the Hickory Hills well because of the the the way the test went and we could do more for about the same money. Why wouldn't we do the best value? >> I want to intercept there one second.
Yes, Kadings well is the highest producing, but in my opinion, no. Keings cannot be the only water source in this town because of hard water. We couldn't run just the Keings well. We've talked about this at Nauseium.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, >> sorry John with you. I mean, I >> But if you're going to if you're going to pick one, that would be the one to use. That would be Yeah, it's the highest producing it. It ranks out water. It's never ending. But we cannot run just the Keings well in Lunberg. >> And the harvest would be
>> astronomical. It'd be a it'd be a disservice to the to the to the future generations because it's not going to be your end all be all at at the end. And if there's a way for similar amounts because of incorporating
other other sites, then you know I I think that that's what we're trying to come to here and use all of the information through surveys through public comment in here through um
some people's questions if they're if they're you know to to give us the best supply we can for the future. >> All right, last question. Sorry. Um, you talked about all the different plants all around us. Has anybody looked at the cost of what those what they all cost?
>> All of them. To me, all of them vary on on the needs of the community. >> Yeah. >> You know, so it's it's tough to say Littleton spent $80 million. That's what we're going to spend in Lunberg. >> They didn't Everybody has spent like less than 20. >> Correct. >> Yeah. But did you see how much principal
forgiveness a lot of them got? >> Yeah. But what I what I looked at was really the SRF funding for all of them. What the different SRF funings and I would tell you the money that you're asking for is like twice as much and I have
data that I will share with all of you for that >> if you don't mind me asking and in the data that you gathered here. Let's take Littleton for example. I believe that cost was about 20 million. >> It was around 20 million. Okay. >> And what did they get forgiveness? I don't know off top of my head.
>> It's about seven. When was that plant put in? >> Well, I know they got the funding for it in like 21, I think, is when it was 2021. It's just finished, right? >> So, uh, not just now, it's been finished for quite some time. >> It's finished. It's It's been finished a year because I know their costs now, which is a very similar plant to to what
we were talking about at 1.8 million gallons a a a day, >> okay, >> is going to be $500,000 a year, >> okay, >> for that to run that plant. if they built that plant tomorrow. >> Yeah, so I was saying to start you need
to compare apples to apples because I >> it's not I I look at I wish we could done this years ago and done it for $20 million and got seven Mac, >> but it did the cost didn't double in the past four years. >> So when we're sitting there and we're going out and we're giving all this information, >> it's just a simple question. I just
asked you if you if you had looked at the numbers. I can provide you the numbers. >> John, first of all, it's not a simple question. It's actually very complicated and I just want to be very clear on some of the things because this is what happens is you take this information back and you skew it and you try to discredit anything that we say. Okay. It
it's happened before. It's what you do. So I asked you if you'd seen looked at the numbers the numbers and I'm hearing maybe you did you didn't >> we looked at the numbers because because there was another resident who came here and said the uh the air treatment plant
was only this this amount of money. So I actually we contacted them and uh we were going to set up a site that we're going to go through the whole thing and then I actually spoke to the engineering firm and uh he said well yeah there was no iron and maintenance that more than doubled the cost of plant. So a lot of
information he might say hey this was only 15 million. Okay well that didn't have iron and manganesees or it didn't have this or it needed this whatever it is. Boom. You just doubled it. So there's >> I think that's what we're trying to apply all that all that data is
available. Yes. So all what what they're filtering is all available. That data is all available. Right. >> I'd love to see it. >> So we can Yeah. >> I'm surprised you haven't but >> we've got the cost breakdowns from a lot of people. >> Yeah. Usually some of it some of it too is you can't compare what one community did to what the needs are of Lunberg.
And we're looking at the needs of what the Lunberg water district needs to to to do these things. And and it's there's no hidden fact that costs on everything have gone astronomically through the roof >> and and some people have funding options, some people don't have funding
options, you know, and it and it's showing right now. We had an option at 0% with principal forgiveness and they're already starting to raise those rates. So now I mean you know interest rates significantly increase the cost of a project >> of course
>> you know so again trying to compare us to what everybody else is doing uh air surely or towns >> and towns and >> we are talking about what Lunenburgg needs >> and we are trusting in in our engineers
that you know they're getting the best cost we can and nobody ever wants to hear that this is going to cost you more. So, I would rather make sure that we are covered on all of our costs and expenses to do this thing because we
only got one shot at this thing. If it if it doesn't if we can't get it done for the number that we we need that we put out to the public, then it's not getting done. Now, we're going back and re reinventing the wheel. We saw this initially. Massav the the water man was
what >> 800. when we're done it was 24 >> 2.2 million >> 2.2 million you know and there was you know >> that was that was two years. So what the faster we act and it is a proven fact
historically the less expensive it's going to be. The more we push this out the more things are going to cost us down the road. So one thing to take note of in that survey there was the breakdown of the cost for the different sources together that's
with the contingency this huge money in the contingency it was I'm going to get I don't have the paperwork in front of me but I'm going to guess it was $10 million in each one of them >> 10%. >> Yep. >> Contingency was 10 >> only 10. >> So but at the end of at the end of the day when we go out to bid it's what it's
what it's bid for. But we have to allocate enough to cover whatever the bids are going to be coming in. >> We can't be 10 million under or 2 million under or 10% or whatever it is. We can't be under because now we're throwing the whole process out and redoing it again.
>> So So our engineering firm has done a lot of these treatment plants like like Grafton that that has a special the floor. They use a different they use the GAC filters >> which is the one I I think we should try to somehow final in.
last forever. But uh so Grafton uh yeah Taiwan did that one. Uh I think did they tie to Littleton? I'm not sure they were Littleton but uh Aaron spoke to me. So >> So anyway, so that's they give us the
information and they fully honest that one they'll estimate at you know 20 or 25 million it'll come in at 12 and then another plant they estimate same same 25 million came in at 40. So they said it depending on the contractor's jobs and
the availability >> and that's going to be a big thing is availability because this is a this is a big issue and everybody's working on it and there's a limited amount of contractors that that focus on on this type of stuff. >> That's why the cost is up >> and one one of you said you'll be able
to get SRF funding and that that's not true. >> Uh I think there was uh 38 communities last year that applied but didn't get it. So the the whole key thing is who who has the worst sight to that to gets them the highest points to get the get the money.
>> And we have a few we have a few things that are really going for us that help us get some of the funding um because we're a small water system. We're considered a small water system and and some of the the levels uh at one of our
sites, the Hickory Hill site, is a is it kind of cues us in for uh for funding. Um, so we're we're looking at every different angle and these conversations are great that we're having. >> This doesn't help. >> Okay, this is after a conversation. This
is opinion and and and it and it doesn't help because people are are making assumptions without the information that we have and and I I appreciate the time that you take to come into our meetings to to have these conversations with us.
I appreciate the time. I could say it. Mr. Empty came in and and and spent a lot of time with Fran having multiple conversations >> trying to to dial in and and and you know, Fran never discredited him or anything. He said, "Yeah, some of his ideas he was like, "Yeah, that's great."
And he and and you know, they they looked into them and they worked they worked together really well on it. So, we're we're not the we're we're not out here to try to do something wrong for the residents and
the water supply. We're we truly are passionate about trying to do the best we can and and do the best supply. France good, he can retire tomorrow. He stays here because he loves his job and he loves what he's doing.
>> And and and today. >> If if if Froning goes tomorrow, I'm I'm sorry. I mean, we got a hell of a task in front of us to try to get somebody that's half as qualified as Fran is to do the job that he's doing because he
knows so much about about the system. He knows all the interests. So, I trust his judgment a lot and and he's done a great job in his tenure here. I I can never say that he over spent or or did something that was that cost the
community way too much money. Yeah, people people do make, you know, they do have blips and there are things that happen. Um but, you know, you you correct those issues and you move on and do the the the best you can. And I I think that
overall I feel bad for like the select board when they got to deal with the the the criticism that they get. Um you know and the the conversations that we have are productive. This this is not productive.
>> You know what I can't understand the taxpayers of the town when the high school was going up for bids and stuff. I don't know. I didn't go to too many of the meetings, but they they spent I don't know4 $50 million on a high school.
>> I thought it was more than that. >> Well, it was 75, but I guess >> we got some back. >> Got some fun, but the town coughed up, but I think around $40 million for the school. There wasn't there wasn't much of a big halaloo about spending $40 million. >> Oh, yeah, there was. Oh, yeah.
>> Well, not I'm talking about what we're comparing here to what we were comparing there. >> No. But yet they won't spend 20 million or whatever here to drink clean water. It's more than 20 million. >> Yes. >> For Christ's sake. Give me a chance to get it out. All right. I'm trying,
buddy. >> Just trying to be accurate, man. >> How much is it going to be? >> Huh? >> How much is it going to be? >> 40. 40. Now, now go up. That's still a high school. Okay. >> Look at there's fewer people. It's fewer
people are going to pay the bills. >> There is. I agree with that. Well, true. That's right. >> There's 2400 households. 2400. >> But now you're Now you're comparing a high school to drinking water. >> Technically, technically >> I would do away with the high school.
>> There's still taxpayers that that don't have Lunberg water that pay for Lunberg water because all the municipalities, >> right? So all of this is in our schools. >> And that's really going to be the key to make sure that this gets approved is that you don't peanut butter across the
2400. you peanut butter across the water uses. Well, I mean that's that's like the you know every Dunkin Donuts high school every municipal >> right one one water rate for everybody
>> whatever the flat rate increase what's that >> well we do the block rate the more use the bas so he pumps water into his tank to bring >> the highest block rate >> yeah so he whatever it is right so the rate's going to go higher because >> the cost of water is way higher Mhm.
>> And if you if you take that and put it just on the the connections, >> that's a huge burden. >> No, we we we definitely have to figure out once we get to the point how we're how we're going to fund it. But we don't know yet because again, interest rates keep changing, principal forgiveness
changes, um the cost of these things until we open the bid, we don't know. >> We're doing our best to give the public what we feel is a realistic number. doesn't mean that if the bids come in lower, we're not, you know, oh wow, we got some fluff. Let's go uh buy Fran a
brand new car and all the commissioners get cars. >> Yeah, you get a car and you get a car. No, you know, we're >> we're we are trying to do the best job that we can here. We do care about the
district and and the the people that um that utilize the water and that's all. Some of the the noise is very frustrating. >> It's frustrating. >> Do you have any >> I'm done. I've said that. >> I'm I'm done. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for showing up. >> Appreciate it.
>> I appreciate it. I I've the the more people in here, the better because these interactions help us to get the information out there. >> So, what what if we had a just an open meeting one day? Just >> I'd love >> question answer. >> Come on, sit down and and let let's fire them up.
>> We we have those twice a month. >> Yeah. No, no, I got one just specific to the to to FIFAS, you know, whatever the survey, whatever. >> Fire far fire away questions. And uh >> I look at I'd be I'd be love to have a town hall type of meeting where anybody can come and and ask questions in uh I'd
love it. We've we've we've done it before a little bit, but it just doesn't seem to >> it doesn't seem no one seems to show up to it. >> Yes, sir. >> Just a suggestion. >> Oh, cool. and put that on the survey.
>> What? Put what? >> On an open meeting. >> Could we meetings are open? You're right. >> We have them. >> The meetings are open last time >> and and we've change we'll change time if people if it's not convenient. We've >> we have it twice. We're as flexible as we can be with the last time. Remember
we we had time bong come in. We had one for like the town employees type of thing and then we had one for the open and we had you know some some of that. But I mean, right, we're here twice a month and always that's why the survey is out there. We
want the public's input on what we do. You know, it's not just people up here firing away. So, yeah, John, >> I make a motion we adjourn. >> Okay.