All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Lunberg Water District Commissioners meeting agenda. Today is May 14th and we will start with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We'll start off with uh approving some meeting minutes which are floating around and [Applause]
this before. Is that Zack Taylor? Yeah, that's the first one of them going through the tubular. Um Oh, yep. Yes, that's my bus. Yep. First one going through the tumbler. It's that was just changing fluids, doing stuff. They are putting together a full quote there for
the kingpins, right? Mr. Chair, I make a motion we accept the minutes of April 9th, 2025. All those in favor? I I say I. I guess that holds. So, yeah, we're gonna we're going to pass
over uh number three right now. That's we'll talk about that later. Uh number four is going to be reappoint employees. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we reappoint employees of the district.
Superintendent Fran G. Mcame, clerk treasurer Christina Schwinger, office assistant Lisa M. Flag Water Utility Operators Terry Truax, Philip Martinez, and Ryan Goodman, and council KP.
All those in favor? I I Okay, next up, we have discussion with engineering firm Tyan Bond regarding the pilot study results for all wells. Take it away, guys.
Uh my name is Loom Sarco. I'm here with Cyan Bond. Tonight we have uh Fred and uh Derek as well with Cyan Bond. So we recently finished the piloting work over at the heating well site. So we've
uh started analyzing those results. uh we haven't drafted a report yet and uh really we tried to just fast forward to the end and try to do some analysis so that we can start talking about you know the results of of what that all means uh
while we're still working on you know compiling a report to submit to DP. Um the reason for that being um if the board so chooses to want to uh re uh reapply for some SRF funding, typically
those applications become available to begin pulling the materials together in June. Last year they were due uh sometime in July. So um just starting to get those conversations rolling again if if that is the direction the board so
chooses. So um so the table we pulled together um has a couple of different scenarios on it. So what we tried to do is pull together both capital and on and m costs um for each of those different
scenarios. Uh scenario one was um the capital and m to treat the Hickory Hills well by itself. Scenario two was to treat the uh Lancaster A wells. uh themsel by by themselves. Scenario three
is to control is to treat the combination of hickory plus Lancaster A at Lancaster A. Scenario four is to treat the Keing well um for PAS only. Um and then scenario five is to treat the
heating well um for both PAS and to address the hardness uh that is currently um u being introduced into the distribution system from the heating well. Now, a couple things to keep in mind. Um, in order to, you know, compare
this across the board, uh, apples to apples, we we took a look at each of these scenarios. We said, "All right, what if we asked each of these scenarios to produce, um, the approximately the district's annual water usage of about
200 million gallons a year. Um, it's just to kind of normalize the different costs between the different scenarios. Um, of note though, scenario two, Lancaster Abwells uh is not able to actually produce the 200 million gallons a year. It it doesn't quite get um get
get up to that um as it has hydraulic limitations. So um other things to kind of keep uh keep your mind on uh we highlighted uh the um maximum well capacity scenario
one and two because they are not um at the typical max day uh demand that the system sees of the the about the 1.2 million gallons per day. So uh scenarios one and two in and of themselves are only partial solutions
um when you consider maximum day demands. Uh scenario two as I just mentioned uh has a further problem in that um it it would be unable to um meet maximum you know maximum unable to meet
average day demands during the summer times because of hydraulic limitations. um scenario four. So treating heating well for PAS only. So we just wanted to point out that uh what those costs were
to to address the PAS. So you're not regulatory required to treat hardness. You're not doing it now. Uh it's our understanding though that there are some um complaints about the hardness throughout town. Uh, and I wanted to
point out that under scenario four, those would persist and actually they would probably get worse. Right now, Keating supplies about half of that 200 million gallons per year and the other half is diluted by the Lancaster A, which helps dilute the hardness
issue. Um, so if you were to only use the keying well to supply 100% of demands, that problem would be exacerbated. Under scenario four, where we're not treating for the hardness. Scenario five does address
that hardness. However, full scale treatment of uh hardness of this magnitude at this scale uh is is not typical. Um as you can see the the annual onm costs for that are are projected to be quite high.
Uh during the pilot we uh we did um pilot test treating hardness there um at heating and it was cost prohibited to continue to run the softening system for the duration of the pilot and still be
able to conduct a PAS pilot. So even at the pilot scale it was it was a little bit of a cost prohibition with the budget that we had available. Um so what we had to do was see what it took to address the hardness at that well site and then we
ran the pilot uh without treating for hardness and went straight into PAS treatment um hoping and planning to see what would happen to the PAS media if you were to not treat for hardness. uh luckily the pilot showed that uh that
did not have a big impact on your PAS media. So you know we think it is possible to only treat for PAS and and not just the hardness um from from what we saw during during the pilot. Um, using the information we got from
the pilot though, you know, full scale, you know, part of the reason why some of those costs are so high is, you know, we're projecting almost, you know, two tons of salt per day would be needed. Um, daily brine waste would need to be hauled away and disposed of. Um so what
we can't really capture in our projected numbers there are the um you know the non-sustainable aspects of you know dealing with constant deliveries of salt and constant hauling away. We can we can we can talk about the cost of that but
it's a it's a it's a maintenance um issue for sure. uh and it's you know it's problematic to project you know what disposal costs are going to be you know going on into the future. So we you know we apply a a uh a
conservative number to them but you know that that number could easily become non-conservative uh in the future. So those are some of the highlights from the numbers that in in the table that we pulled together.
[Music] Uh one other thing of note uh we had some um additional notes down there. I think the costs associated with teing we are looking you know we did include some costs to to put in a a redundant well
and by that we mean um you know it would be a completely separate well maybe within say 50 ft. So in D there's a fairly simple process of permitting a replacement or replacement redundant well so that you can you know if you can
take the well offline you've got a you got a backup you can bring you know have ready to go immediately. So um those costs are are included in that in those scenarios in four and five in four and five. Yes.
Um quick question on what type of media were we doing like the green sand in this pilot test or so for keying uh we didn't have um much iron and manganesees to speak of that would require any any any green sand media so we were
basically looking at an ion exchange res resin to deal with the softening y but then for the PAS treatment we tried a variety of medias um GAC um I think we did an ion exchange change and we also did a novel absorbent that's new to the
market and starting to be installed full scale um elsewhere called floor absorbent that did that work out in the end the floor because I know in the beginning it was that was the seemed like the best one right we did have some problems with
that particular media initially uh it was requiring frequent backwashing um and then we we kind of brainstormed that maybe what happened is we had a a bunch of fines that were stuck on the top layer of the media. So, it was
quickly building up head. So, we asked them to scrape those off and the problem got much better. So, we think it may have been just a problem not fully getting out the the fines that need to get out of the column. Um, but yes, I think it did it did perform well. Aside from building up head initially, which
we were able to address, it did I think it did adequately treat PE. I think that that was the best treatment for all all of the sources. So, it'd be good if we, you know, could move ahead with that, you know, system. It um it did work, I think, on on all the pilot testing we
did at all the different sites. Um so, it's it's certainly a potential to to to um to maintain a consistency across all different sites. Now, one thing that we are still waiting information on, we did at the end of this keeping pilot, we did
some additional backwash waste um analysis and testing. We haven't got those results back yet. So, we'll we'll update you further once once those do come in. So, uh just question on the the treatment with the sophomore. Is that
like a very labor intensive? I mean, so are we looking for one additional staff person or two? I mean, did you guys do do you I don't how know how familiar you guys are with this kind of process, but it's I I
have nothing. I know nothing on it. So, I don't know what what it would take. Yep. given the amount of salt that would be delivered every day and the brine that would be hauled away uh in the onm costs um for that scenario we did
include a new full-time operator. Okay. The heating well the cost of the treatment plant seems low. Does that correspond with the level
of PAS that's in that or why why does that seem lower compared to Yeah, the um magnes the other treatment systems have pre or have the iron magnes. So, this is just PAS only and the hardness that is probably our number
one complaint would still remain. Right. Right. And I think we looked at trying to keep these all on on a level, but is there any potential for
funding for Keings for SRF money? I mean, or for any of the projects to be honest with you, if we can the the funding has gotten much more competitive um from what we've seen um in this last round of
of funding cycle unless your uh Massachusetts PAS 6 levels are above 10, you're you're not going to make the funding list. Um we saw this on a project of ours that went in with a
below 10 um laboratory data. Uh we found out that it didn't make the the list. Um time went back and they they found some more data that we were unaware of that showed that it was above the 10. So we said, "Oh, wow. That would have been
great to have submitted." So we during the public comment period, we submitted sworn testimony. that we had other other data just you know just to put it on record not expecting because we we hardly ever see any project um move from the draft to the final. It's kind of a
rare occurrence but in this case that project did move up to the final funded list because it showed it had PASS above the 10. So I think they're looking that as a pretty hard line. and they and they and they give those types of projects far more points um to get them above
that that cut off line. But every year the the um it's becoming more competitive as there's fewer dollars available. Is there still a chance anywhere else for that? If if Kadings is is not something that would qualify, is
there another spot that may qual mad at us for not accepting it the last time? the the the hickory as well is obviously, you know, would um would still score well. Um and uh I think it would outscore lots of
other projects based on what we've seen. Um so that would be your best bet. Okay. That one. Uh well to get to get to at least apply if we're if we're going to do that. And just quickly, I mean, where were we
before? Do we remember what the numbers were the last time? Just just rehash it when we were going to do the combination before. Same numbers. Same numbers. Okay. All right. Good. You guys I got to just I I
don't know if you know this answer. I'm not holding you to it or anything, but um do you off off the top of your head know what the Massachusetts deadline uh is for these chain of events? like when do you need to have your treatment in plan in place and when it needs to be
implemented. Do you have any of that information? Yeah. So, there was some new information released today and Derek, I think you better best speak to that because you came to your attention. Yeah. La last year when the um the EPA released the new drinking water standards for POS and created the hazard
index. They had projected a plan of uh beginning to establish your body of data essentially having you do a um running annual average of sampling establishing whether or not you would meet that new primary drinking water standard. Uh that
would begin in 2027 and in that rule you would need to be compliant by 2029 otherwise you'd be in in in violation. The expectation is mass DP as a primacy state would adopt those same type of of um schedules. Ultimately mass EP will
take EPAs and make either the same or a stricter uh requirement. Today they the EPA u announced that they are maintaining the PFOA and PFOS uh standard. They're reconsidering the hazard index in terms of Lunberg's
water. The PFOA PFOS standards are are the problem. So nothing changed there. Uh but instead of 2029, it's been projected out to 2031. Okay. So they added two more years of compliance. So I believe that 2027 date around then
they'll still be having you begin the more frequent sampling and establishing your running annual average. And if that average uh shows that you're above four parts per trillion on PFOA or PFOS by 2031, you need to be in compliance.
Okay. So by that 2027 number um if you're above the the P4 number four there that is that when you need to have some sort of at least plan in place like saying like this is while the plant may not be built and running we have a you
know uh approved and contractor lined up to build this in 2029 making it up. It would certainly help to be prepared to to have a facility running by that 2031 date. So, okay. Um, beginning beginning a construction
project in 2027 2028 time frame would kind of put you on that pathway to have your your your plan online by by the compliance deadline. Okay. What's and even though a plan might not be regulatory required, it's been our
experience that D will start asking you know what is your plan? You know, do you have a plan? Are you guys planning for this? So, and all this is subject to D's review of EPA and they may say, "No, no, we're not going to allow the we want to we want to get out in front of this. We want to maintain." So, they they may
change it back to 2029. Yeah. Very very possible that the best EP has taken the lead in regulating this these substances uh for many years now. You know, they their their charge is to be equal to or stricter than EPA. So now the EPA set a
guideline. It's up to D to to decide whether or not they want to meet that or become more strict. So every time it gets pushed forward, the time frame pushed forward, the funding gets harder to get and the cost goes up. So the current the current funding is through
the infrastruct the bipartisan infrastructure law that passed several years ago that committed the the magnitude of PAS funding, PAS remediation funding that we've been seeing through 2026. So this this funding application in July is that last
round of guaranteed funding. It'd be up to Congress to reauthorize that bill and establish additional funding for future years. Very but as right now that's the scenario. Less funding, bigger costs. It's it's quite very much so that the
funding is getting harder and costs are going up. Absolutely. Way up. No. So absolutely hypothetically residents say we don't want to spend this money. We don't care. We like the flavor of PAS in our water. What's the what's the bite at what at
what point? I mean are is somebody going to come down on us for doing nothing? I would say right now with reading the tea leaves as best we can. I'd say that date sounds like it's about 2031 right now. So 2031 if we're
not that's when did they shut you down? You get a not you'd get a you'd get a administrative consent order from NASD basically saying you need to come up with a a plan and you know there may be fines associated with not meeting certain statutory
deadlines. They come up with a framework and essentially force you to do something through legal action. Um, and as part of that deadline, like as I mentioned, the establishing that running annual average, by not having a treatment plant
online until you'd be out of compliance, the years before that are being used to establish your running annual average are going to get counted against you. So, if your plant goes online in 2031, you're going to have several years before that that will count against you. I'm sure that if you have a a situation
in place where it's coming online, I'm sure they would, you know, work with you to avoid some sort of legal action. Um, but I think every the intent of the regulation is to to have have folks basically move before the end of the the the decade here. I feel bad for the commissioners are going to be sitting
here when that happens because I don't know what the deal is. Well, let's see if the people vote. What's the typical time frame? Let's say we this summer went out we were going out to bid for the treatment plant whatever one are we looking at for a time frame to construct that construction is
somewhere between two 2 and 1/2 years typically like to say about 600 to 800 days of active construction when you sign a you know notice to proceed with a contractor to cutting the ribbon. All right. So, so for us to meet that 2031
deadline, we we really need to get our ball together 3 years before that. Something Yeah. So, something needs to be approved in place by late 26, early 27th because I mean at that point you're you're talking engineering and all sorts
of things and f whatever financing may be available at that time and obviously construction costs are not going to go down. So, you know, you guys are talking about getting this all ready and everything. Nobody's talking about where
the money's coming from. How's this going to get passed at our annual meetings? Um, well, you know, we got to take the information we have and Well, I know that, but Yep. you know, we don't have any information. Well, we got information, but we know what it
is. So, how's that going to work out? We don't get we don't get any money at our annual meetings, but yet the D is going to come down on the on the commissioners for not doing what they have to do when it's not the commissioner's fault, it's the resident's fault. How's that going
to pan out? Yeah. Um still come at us. It it happens from time to time and that is as Derek had mentioned that that's the that's when they go through that administrative consent process where they get the lawyers involved and Yeah. So it would
it wouldn't go against you guys, right? If you brought it to the people and they and they voted it down that you you guys did your obligations. Who would it go against? Goes against everybody because if they find us then then we're going to have to pass that on to the council. The
the idea is the idea is we come up with a plan to to treat this. Let's hopefully we come up with some creative way that the town agrees with and we Yeah, I agree. fund it. I mean, yeah, this there's a whole lot up here. I definitely appreciate all this information. Um, we got a lot of work to
do. So, that that's that's how we brought in Nicole. So, so our our thinking is uh and I'm not sure if we talked to all of you. I know I mentioned Mark, but our thinking was is that we do a a survey for the people, everybody,
and we we picked the auction. So hopefully today maybe maybe uh we all put our heads together say hey let's do these options option this option this option this option send it to the people say okay what which direction do you want us to head and the largest number
we we go to tie and bonds apply for SRF funding for this project. So, I I kind of think uh that would be the best route because I mean we talked about having a you know a meeting with options. I know Mark has mentioned that many times options, but
if we had that meeting, it's a non-binding referendum referendum anyway. So, it'd probably be easier if we just do the survey. So, we can have Nicole do a whole little spreadsheet with all the facts, send it to everybody. Here's a little link. go to the survey site, pick pick your you
whatever options and you're not tied to one meeting at that point. No, I we have a special meeting to to we don't get a good sampling of of the entire public and and whether it's it to
me unfortunately the burden of this goes to the water takers that pay a bill. I agree. But it does affect everybody in the community. So, we have to figure out, you know, how we grab the
the best sampling of of people cuz I could I could be on a well, which I'm not, but I could be on a well and but I have kids that go in into the school system. They are still drinking the town water. Do they do they have a voice or not? the town should because the town's
gonna take the the town's portion of the bill is also so right. But I I think having having um Nicole on board and trying to get the largest sampling from the public that we can the best way we
can so that we can figure out a way to move forward because a non-binding thing and a meeting that's scheduled on one night in the middle of the week is is not going to is not going to do it. um you know and we this is a big it's a
very big decision. It's a big it's a big thing and we're also on a time correction. Yeah. If that's what they want to go for if they want to apply. We got Yeah. less than a month. Yeah. We don't have a lot of time to apply for SRF funding for this year. And I I'm I'm cautiously optimistic that we would I
don't even think we have time. That's my person. Yeah. I We'll have to think so. I I think if we do the survey, we we do it quickly. I think we have time. So, as long as these guys know in the beginning part of June, would the middle of June be okay? You know, I mean, we need to push it out everywhere we can in the public. Today
is today is midmay. So, I know I'm I'm bad. I didn't fill out the Marshall Park survey, you know, but and and probably should because I had some concerns about it. It's just trying to get everybody to at least put get some input in. Um, so
would you uh like to take some questions from the public? I'm asking you. I we're here. We'll we can do our best to answer questions. Open it up to the public if anybody has any questions or or fire away. Mr. Fortune course. Right. John Fortune 50 drive. Uh thanks for this
data. This is great. The data behind this some of the numbers and everything that you were actually seeing PAS numbers specifically. Um I actually have a couple of questions but do you have let me ask this correctly. the Keings well. The data that I have seen
on the Keings well doesn't show that it fails the four PE parts per trillion consistently. It's up or down or whatever. I'm curious what your data shows. Yeah, Fred, do you I I don't have it off the top of my head. Do you remember what it was from the pilot? At least during the pilot, it was just over
the four ppm limit. Um with PBT Oh, yeah. PBT. My bad. um with maybe one or two samples just below the floor. So it consistently exceeded that four, but the P4 was the only compound exceeding the
regulatory limit during the pilot setting. Yeah. And the same thing with the so the same question for the Lancaster walls. Sorry that do you remember what those were? Because again depending on what that mix was, we had talked about that another number of times.
One wall is good, one wall is not. I want to say it was very similar. Um not significantly higher than four but consistently. But as you as you mentioned the nuance of the Lancaster AB wells is that there
are several different wells with all varying different concentrations. So the matter of what wells are being used the hydraulic restrictions in the summer whether those wells are available to blend. I think that's a little bit more complicated than heating where there's just a single well. Correct.
If I'm wrong, the best producing well has the highest limit down on Lancaster A. Correct. It exceeded the 20. Yeah. So the the highest producing well out of the the wells down there is is well 20. Is that what you said? Correct. So So
and just so the the testing the pilot testing we we alternated two wells at a time. Yeah. So they they didn't test this particular well and then this well. It was uh wells five and two like we run them now and wells one and four. So they they didn't see the you know what each
individual well was. So as you just stated well number five is the only well in Lancaster A that can run continuously during the summer period and that one exceeded the 20 pots the the old regulation. Can I ask? Absolutely. Okay.
Um, scenario six, uh, that's not on here. So, right, so I'm throwing out a scenario six. And that is because we were talking about the hardness and the way that we deal with that today is we blend the wells, right? We, you know, well, Lancaster
wells run together often times. Um, but should there be a scenario six where we actually pipe the water from the Lancaster wall to Keings and put a plant there? Uh, so I think you talked about a $7 million number and I'm going off top of head so if I'm wrong I
apologize. About like a 7 million number to pump from um, Hickory Hills to Lancaster. It's probably a half a mile or a mile longer. I don't know for sure where to run it the other way to go from Lancaster to
Ke. Yeah. Is that a reasonable thing to do if you're only testing if you're only if only thing is to try to get the PAS out of the water? Right. Uh well, are you talking about PAS or you talking about hardness? No, PAS because that's the cheapest thing we have here, right?
So, $21 million. Scenario four. Yep. Just for Keings is $21 million. We pull out just the PAS. And we talked about hardness being a problem. If you add the Lancaster wells into that same place, we have the exact same water we have today. Right. Out of a location there that has
a U treatment plant. Yep. So that is a reasonable thing to do. I would guess if we move if you pipe the water from Lancaster to Keings. Yep. And adds maybe six or seven million to really have exactly what we have today. Yep. You
would not change any of the hardness issues currently seen in the system. Uh but you got you I mean it's it's it's doable to have a combined treatment plant at the the key. The complexity is of that is even though the Lancaster does have lower levels of iron than Hickory Hills, that would potentially
drive the need for pre-treatment for both sites if you're having to treat for iron before you do PAS. And then we're not we wouldn't know we wouldn't necessarily know the impact of blending those two sources that are separate on how that hardness might impact the PAS media. That might be that might be a
concern where different pHes in the water, different water chemistries mixing together may end up creating an unknown consequence of of of treatment together. It certainly could be pilot tested. It'd be very complicated. Um, but it would it would uh But is that what your pilot test did
when you when you talk about the Hickory Hills and the Lancast? Is that what you because those are obviously different locations. We did. Yeah, we did because those are similar similar treatment issues in terms of manganesees being the predominant pre-treatment issue ahead of PAS. Um we did what we could to simulate
that blending um and looking at the water quality. Um because Keing didn't have manganesees treatment as part of its pilot testing. How that then influences that hardness might may may cause some additional unintended consequences. Hey, I'm just I don't even
know if you can do this or not, but as the Lancaster AB wells sit right now, if you pump the water out of there as they sit with all the impurities and problems with it and pumped it two keyings and we had a tank there and you put your PAS
free water into a tank and just dump whatever you had in Lancaster A in there, it's going to dilute the the Lancaster A PAS numbers technically in half, you know, I'm guessing here, and then put that in the system. is that so blending is a short-term solution that
mass DP has allowed over the last several years. Um the maximum contaminant level goal which is not enforceable is zero. Sure. Um and the four parts per trillion level is established based on like a reasonable quantitative level. That's what we can measure reliably.
The goal is zero. So the long-term 10, 15, 20 years down the road as analytical chemistry changes, if you're not targeting zero, if you're targeting two, that may become now a liability where you need a treatment plant, it may set you up for a combined treatment plant
later on where you've piped them all together and then now, you know, they've dropped that level from four to two or maybe they never drop the level from four to two. Um, generally in our conversations with D and other with other communities, blending is not a long-term scenario. Folks that are
blending currently to meet the 20 parts per trillion limit are being asked what their long-term plan is to meet the uh to meet treatment goal to to treat that water. I would expect that if that 20 becomes four, that same conversation can be had with you on what's your what's
your approach to try to remove all EAS from the water. Gotcha. the EPA in addition to the MCLG of zero, they've established that health advisory of quadrillionth of a of a of a of a mills per Q vacc
um and you know even a significant order of magnitude less essentially stating that there's no safe level of of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. I tracking what you put down without a doubt. Anything else, John? I do, but I'll let others go first. I I just I have a
question on um the data. Uh two questions. We were speaking earlier about I think it was Fred was speaking about uh what the wells are coming in with for PAS during the pilot whether they're above four. You said sometimes they were under four um but mostly they
were around five. Did I understand you correctly? Yes. Okay. Is that data Fran available? Like when we go to the n to the state sites where you report it, do we have that data available on the state sites that people can access and look at? Not not the data that was collected
on the pilot test. Anything that we uh requested to take for a sample from from mass EP is available and and so that would drive what these gentlemen are saying. I I never saw a level less than four. All of them were higher than four. So that was Okay. Followup question.
Four is allowable. Correct. It's four is allowed. The there's nuance in terms of the running annual average. The the regulation is 4.0. So anything quantitatively less than 4.0 is
considered zero in the average. Yes. So um I the to meet the goal you're you're supposed to be below four. Not I thought the regulation was four parts per billion. trillion trillion four parts
per trillion. So if it is if they if your running averages are four parts per trillion, you are acceptable in the law. If you had a perfect 4.0, I don't I don't know exactly how I I I wouldn't be able to tell you if that would be acceptable. I think the the new
the nuance of hitting a complete perfect 4.0 would be very hard. Well, no. If you had a 3.8, a 4.1, 3.9, and your average is 4.0, zero that meets the regulation of the law. I believe that is correct. Okay, that's
that was my first question. My second question is um one of uh semantics. I'm hearing a lot of I believe in the future. It's my understanding in the future. Um I'd like to know exactly what
what is the expectation from mass D. And I've heard several people say mass D might want these new standards. Do we have any website we can go to to see
where mass D stands on these new standards and not have it be a hypothetical topic that we're discussing. We're discussing millions and millions of dollars for millions and millions of dollars. I would like a
definitive statement from Mass D on what is going to happen to spend millions on I believe it might they usually is is a little unsettling. So can you give me a
website that I can go to to find out what mass D is actually going to require? No, we I don't we cannot we cannot tell you specifically how they will interpret EPA's rules. We can tell you that as a
primacy organization mask will be to will meet EPA's rules. Yes. Or will be develop their own rules that are stricter. Of course, that's your two options. Miss P. So just sorry I don't mean to cut you off but we are going to keep things rolling. Your question is one I have brought up also and I'm in
full agreeance that before we really push all the stuff forward. I would like to see a mass general law stating compliance by this by meaning this. It is something I've been looking for myself. So don't need to belabor. We will I'm with you 100%. I'd like to see
the ironclad law of what is required. So thank you. Those are my two questions. On that note, I I've spoken to D. this was months ago and they said you're going to hear about it in weeks and then that was months ago. So I agree with this one. We all agree with you. It'd be nice if this was right there on a piece
of paper and and I understand and and I don't think it's your fault that we haven't heard yet. And if I came across that way, it's not what I was not what I was intending. I just think I'd like to have a definitive and if there was a website I could go to to get that, I would like that website so I could go to
to it to get that. What we can't what we can tell you is that with the new press release, the couple press releases from the EPA that has come out today and a couple weeks ago, the current administration, the new administrator of the EPA has reaffirmed the four parts
per trillion levels. They've called into question some of the other regulatory hazard index. Um, but they've they've reaffirmed the four parts per trillion and that four parts per trillion is a running average of four parts per correct. So it is not just one reading.
is Mr. Chair. Yes. I think I what I'm getting out of the whole conversation is and and correct me if I'm wrong. We're probably looking for something from D that says you guys have to treat your water. Correct. You guys don't have to
treat your water. Correct. So what that's what we that's kind of I understand where Mr. Peas is coming from. If if we are going to meet an acceptable level level and and people are willing to live with that, then
that's that's where we're going to that's where we're going to stay because it is it's a it's a lot of money and if we don't have to, we also know levels change. They don't normally go down.
But I think we're looking for D to tell us you have to do this and maybe even a little bit further because we haven't talked about um when we start this where the end should be because we haven't talked
about redundancy in our system and what is what is D if they could weigh in on that as well. you have to treat and you have to meet the redundancy standard. And the redundancy standard is this, you know, your max
day. If they can tell us those two things, then then I think we need to move forward, right? If they can't tell us those two things, then the public's going to push back on us on spending money. That's kind of what I gather. Does anybody disagree with that statement at
all? We don't want to spend money if we don't have to. We need somebody to tell us we have to treat this stuff and when we are done treating this is the quantity of water we expect you to have in your system available to you
from our regulatory authority. One second. So I do have a question and this is for the time bond folks that might help clarify things. Historically speaking and I know it's that by law they D has to adopt the EPA standard.
Historically speaking, has in your knowledge um has the D ever just said, "Okay, we're going to accept this law." Or do they go more strength? I feel like I think the the unfortunate
answer is PAS has been um different than most regulatory environments and and I think EPA and mass EP have taken approaches that are different than most other contaminants. So trying to predict political will of
the state is something that I don't think we can really comment on. I I I think from the anecdotes that we've heard, um I think that D recognizes the burden that this is bringing on to communities and wants to uh find the the
the easiest and and le least burdensome solutions. Um but they're committed to maintaining public health throughout the Commonwealth and um they'll they'll work with their scientists and regulators to develop the the best uh program for the
Commonwealth. So just just for reference, uh the federal EPA regulation was 70 pounds per trillion. Massachusetts the one cut to 20. So yeah, the federal is at four. Federal going
four. So Massachusett has to be four or less. And and to reiterate, the federal government established four based on economic evaluation they say as well as a quantitative level. But they have published these maximum contaminant level goals which are zero PFOA and
PFOS. But they they want zero. Yeah, this is what there was a little bit of what I heard confusion about the max contamination level. It's 4.0. So if you're at 4.0 that's acceptable. I believe that is correct. As I
mentioned the the complexities of very sampling. Yeah. Do we have to be below four? No, we have to be at four is how it's written down. I wanted to ask if you have any insight into the current lawsuits challenging the EPA for the PA
fast and PA levels that are going forward. The at least in this the most recent press release, the EPA has reaffirmed the commitment to challenge the lawsuits against their four parts per trillion uh levels. I think the administration has been generally more
uh more reserved to establish new regulations, but they have as as they mentioned in their uh in their press release today, you know, they're re-evaluating some of the more complex elements of it such as the hazard index. Uh but they have doubled down and reaffirmed that the PFOA and PFOS
regulations they will fight and they they really they would like to push that forward and establish that uh throughout the the country. I'm trying to get clarification on that because my read was that the administration was able to if he decided at the court and the lawsuit was to
remove this the restrictive 4.0 and try to get a higher level certainly if the courts certainly if the courts overturn the EPA's ability to establish the regulation the administration would follow suit. uh administrator Selin is
committed to this problem. He in Congress, the EPA administrator uh was was the one of the sponsors of the the original PAS action plan uh and he is in from the press releases we've read that he's committed to um removing PAS from
drinking water. So unless the courts step in and and remove that power, it appears the EPA is pushing as hard as they can to to remove PFA and PFS from drinking water. appreciate your Yeah, I think Mr. Okay, sorry. Um, you had mentioned that
the redundancy well at Keading, you talked about having a redundancy well there in Lancaster. There is uh one well that's not working and hasn't been for quite some time. Was there any evaluation on that wall at all? Curious
what? No, not D. It's it's it's offline right now. I don't even think there's a pump in there or I'm not sure. It wasn't available to us to to evaluate. Was there any other discussion about more wells or redundancy wells at Lancaster have? There are four active.
Four active. Correct. Correct. Four active. It's a pretty good size site. I don't know if there's uh there's space there for more. I just was curious because you talked about a redundancy wall on key. Right. Uh, Nasser is a shallow aquifer and I think, you know,
it's it's got a lot of straws in it already. Um, um, there's always, you know, uh, optimism to to try to, you know, um, maximize that efficiency in in in the
withdrawal. Uh, from experience, it it it's challenging. that kind of you can you can chase your tail, you'll find the new source and then you know after a couple of years you're right back to where you started. So it's it's certainly stuff that's been it's ongoing. It's been it's been tried in the past and you know continue to try to
maximize the uh the output of that site for sure. Okay. Thanks. So the way it was explained to me Mr. Fortune is if if you take the the supply that's there in the ground and you have we have four now right? Yeah. And you
add another straw, you might still not get any more water out of it. You're just going to take it out of the ground faster. Um whereas having one one straw in one spot and and being somewhere in a different aquifer, you're I think what you said,
we're pretty well we're close to tapped on how much water we can really get out of there successfully. Yeah. You find a good producer and then all of a sudden the the then just shuts down faster. I think it's like going to the restaurant and getting a scorpion bowl with your buddies, right? You all can put
everybody gets a straw or not. I feel like the Keings well is like sticking straws in a fish tank. I think it's just it's a more robust aquifer to to to 90 ft deep or something like that. And this isn't to get more water out of Keings. This is just to if this well's offline, this well was producing so you don't
lose, you know, your ability to pump. I think that's the that's a good distinction where the permitted withdrawal of the heating site would not change. The ability to have a redundant pump pulling water out of the or redundant straw for the analogy to pull that same amount of permitted water
would just allow the the additional resiliency. Right. I was just I was looking at your kind of your 200 gallons uh 200 million gallons a year number. Right. We know that we just ran Kitty I'm sorry we just ran Lancaster wells for four months by themselves without
Kitty something like that some number. So for some portion of the year you know drop we did another run is enough there just just a little knowledge uh when the pump test was done in 1985 or 884 for well number five it
took several feet of water from well number one that wasn't even running. So that's why we run when we run wells together, we run five and two, right? Because we don't separated in space, I would guess. So because you're drawing from the same same spot. So if you look at well number one and say well number
one and well number four, we have well level monitoring. So you you watch that well, the well started up, you can see the water level in the well, which is probably only like 5t of water in the well summertime, winter time, and you'll see that drop the whole whole time. You start it back. You let it sit for 12
hours. You start it back up. It didn't come back to where it started. It it dropped down a little little bit. So when we cycle them, it we do let it re return to its original capacity, you know, re recharge. Uh so if we don't have another source that we are capable
of doing that uh and I've seen it, we're down to four hours of water, you know, in well one and well four. Uh I've shown uh Mr. Mki, I gave all the graphs. So he says, "You definitely have a problem. I can clearly see that." Uh so if anybody
wants to see that, I'd be happy to take them out and reprint them. So you could actually see the the start and stop and and say, "Hey, uh how long can you do that?" And you'll you'll see the the issue, right? And then then we do have well number two. It only pumps 70 gallons a minute, which really won't affect much, but even at 70 gallons a
minute, when we did a pump test, it turned yellow, brown, bacteria. So that well can't run 24 hours a day either. So it goes back to yeah you can put some more straws in there but if those water tables are dropping like this already you add another straw you know 200 feet
away that that's going to drop even more. So eventually you your time of available water is shortening. So yeah I I have a question. So is there any regulation? So we we've always done this
PAS testing and we're doing it like at the well at a hydrant right outside the well. We're taking it from right there. Is there something that says we have to take that reading there? Like if I went to a spot here or I went to a hydrant somewhere in town and took a reading there, I guarantee you it's going to be
different than what I see at the well site. You know, I just feel that all the water that we pump up into these tanks and then it's like what is actually being distributed like we we could test that. So when when we do our sampling, the DP gives us a sampling point. Sure.
And right on it, it'll say finished water, raw water. So So in in many cases, we do the raw like Kings, we'll do the raw water. Hey, what's what's coming out of the well, then the finish water, what's going to the people? So we'll see that kind of thing, but we we've never tested like what's at the
tank, what's Well, if we turned on the tap right here, like it sent that in. I mean, I'm just curious after it's gone to tanks, mixed, and sent back out. What is it? I mean, I know we're close
on these numbers, but like if this thing is consistently coming back at a three, but what about the It depends where you where you No, I understand that. But let's say you win outside of Kadings two houses up the road. Go to the first hydro. I'm just Yeah, I I might be crazy here, but
like I'm just curious like is there a requirement to take it there or it's there? Okay. We don't we we can take wherever we want, but but for the testing requirements from Mass D, it's they tell you exactly where the point of
entry. Am I hearing that our wells aren't adequate? Is that what we're talking about here? As far as as far as supplying the water we need and a constant supply. Well, well, that
Lancasters that's that's why we we had issues. That's why we put it in the Hickory Hills well. Yeah. Okay. And then that led to the to the So now what we're talking about the only solution that I can see is more water, more wells. You're not going to get any more water out of the ones we got. Well, we have
water everywhere. It's just usable clean water is the issue. Well, then you got a 10ear span to when you start appropriating property and getting a well done. It's 10 years before you get it online, right? And then you don't know about treatment or anything. Yeah.
So, I mean, and then we could pump up some wells that are just as bad as the ones we got. We're going to need a treatment plant no matter what. Even if we get more sources of water, though, if they're bad PAS, those are going to have to go into the treatment plant, too. We're probably going to need two
treatment plants before we're done. in the next 20 25 years. I mean, is that is that am I crazy about that or I mean, no, I think if the regulations go as as what we Jones says we think they're going to go, which is where great if someone put on a piece of paper, but uh
yeah, I would agree. If if it goes to what we think it's going to do, then uh yeah, I mean, we need more water. We need more wells and we need a treatment plant to put them wells into. We don't need more water. We have plenty of water. We just need to make it suitable
to use. No, we don't have plenty of water from what Franny's been telling me. No, she's talking about only Lancaster. Only Lancast, right? Well, if something happens to Keing, what else have we got? Nothing. That That's That's the thing. We have We have well sites. We There's other well
sites. Well, I don't know where they are. Do you know where they are, Brand? They're getting They're getting duplexes. Well, we have the ones that are already proved through Mass D. Just like Woody said, the water quality needs to be addressed. I don't think we need another well. We just need to a figure out how
to handle this whole thing and move from there. Well, I I think we need more wells. More water. There's no problem. There's no nothing wrong with having more water. I think we do. All right.
Um, do you guys have anything else for the time bond? Chrissy, do you have anything? Um any one last question? You going to make it quick, Joe? I will. Mr. Fortune suggested a scenario number six uh which had not been investigated. And if we're going to be
spending this amount of money, I I'd like to see the numbers here for scenario number six um on on the list. And is that a feasible thing that you can come up with? What was six again? And you say you would need to do a whole new pilot study because you're mixing iron omega,
you know, the same level of degree that we've planned these scenarios. These are all post pilot studies. I think the, you know, the unintended consequences of mixing those two sources. We certainly could look at the the map and figure out the the length of transmission main and
see if there's any major concerns with piping the water. I think the the treatment element would be a little bit more complex to to put a you know a hard number to operational costs of that. Well, but we certainly could look at the length of a transmission mean the cost of transmission mean
but you did I'm sorry I'm getting out of turn. So you you did have the scenario where you looked at the Hickory Hills well you looked at it separately right and you looked at the Lancaster well you took the data you put it together and said okay this is what would happen. You have the Lancaster data, you have the Keing
data, and and I'm asking a question which you hadn't thought of, but I think if can you go back and look at putting those two together, what would the scenario be? Well, the difference there is that we took the piloting system that was at Hickory and we transplanted it to Lancaster AB and
ran Lancaster ABS water through it. We were able to rep replicate effective treatment, the exact same treatment system. Okay. So, we didn't use a different one in we didn't bring that same system down to Ky. We use a completely different one because it has different water quality. And we did think about that option, but because of
the large difference in water quality, mainly because of the hardness, it wasn't the it wasn't an attractive scenario. Uh because it would be a complex, it would be a treatment system that requires a variety of things individual to each site then all
combined together. it wasn't as efficient as taking two similar water qualities and combining those. I think the original uh thought process behind it is the Lancaster AB and the Hickory's wells had similar uh water quality
problems that could be treated with one media type of going through the PAS system where Keings has is separate that PAS uh well pre-treatment yeah the to treat it would be very different uh set
of chemicals etc. kind of like the the water quality differences was was not not impossible but it wasn't compatible. Can we come up with a hypothetical scenario six? Do we have enough data to hypothetical one as we
would know? about, you know, as we are the other ones that we pilot tested, but we can certainly part of doing manganese treatment is typically you're adjusting the pH by adjusting the pH. You then open yourself up to funding precipitation of hardness.
When you treat for heating, you don't have to touch the pH before you treat for PAS. If you were to combine it with Lancaster and do manganesees treatment on the full set, you may have to do pre pre-treatment pH adjustments which would then exacerbate the hardness prior to PAS treatment. A
question on that. How many more, John? No, I'm just kidding. Of course you can. Of course you can. It's a good question. Have you ever had a treatment plant or ever seen or heard of a treatment plant where for instance the Lancaster water came into the treatment plant and the maganesees and iron were treated and then it was mixed with the keing water
and then the whole thing was treated for PAS. So you end up with water with the same hardless level we have now. But the manganesees and iron was separately treated first prior to to mixing it in the same plant. I mean you got the plant there. You just have a a pre-treat right
there for this water coming in and then mix it with everything for prefix. Certainly, but when the when the waters are combined, the pH levels may be different which would then potentially impact the hardness. So, yeah, but pH is easy to adjust, right? But how it affects the hot water. We'd have to
almost add another we'd have to suppress the pH before we combined it in order to maybe prevent it from precipitating out on the PAS media. sodium hydroxide down in the Hickory Hill building. Well, no. Yeah, it would have to be some sort of acid. Yeah. Yeah. So, my my
comment uh because I mean original talks were to bring the Ken well to Lancaster a build treatment plant because of but because of all the discussions of the total different treatments needed. Uh my big concern is we don't have four wells on Lancaster A that can run 24 hours a
day. So you're going to go and spend all this millions of dollars of water for pretty much one well that can pump 200 gallon well number five. Mhm. That that's your only consistent well in that area. So all the other wells to me are you're taking a pretty big gamble for
and who's to say there's going to be water adequate water in there to dilute it to to do the kitty well. So if you do this what they're talking you made a full commitment that Lancaster AB is pumping this much water every day to mix with this water and I I don't think it's a good idea at all. Now doesn't that
come back to just about what I said a little while ago? More well. We need more water. No. No. I mean nobody agrees with that. You can always use more water. Always use more water. But we need more water to do what
we have to do here or try to do here with like Fran just said, you know, mixing this and mixing that and Lancaster A could use more water. Yes. Yes. That's what I wanted to hear. Could we get more water? Could it use
more? It pump right out of the stream. That's a different premise. Yeah. Get it out of ple. It's overflowing the banks down there. It's cranking right now. um just to just to see I mean I
obviously there it's a much more complex and just based on what we have. So just just I know you haven't run the numbers but would you be taking the the Lancaster Rab number and adding it up to the Hickory to the Keynes number because
you're pretty much going to be building two treatment plants there. You know that Lancasting is doing this. Well, we'll look at it. I mean, there's some sight savings on building two separate buildings, but you're building building a tree. It's it's similar to looking at the two Hickory and Lancaster versus the
the Hickory and Lancaster. It's not a complete additive. Yeah. There's some, you know, depending on the distances, right? you know, are we I don't know the I don't know the the the specific route uh but you know state road uh bridge crossings
like that you know how many rivers are we crossing that is a huge factor in terms of the complexity of a of a transmission main. So do do you guys uh when you you do this kind of study, do you do you look at the the water system infrastructure like what we have for water manes in this particular case like
the king we have one one 16inch water man feeding that area we just had a fire uh last week and they blew up a 12-in tar line main so and it was right near reservoir road so if they blow up that main this way we're down for 30 hours
because it was like three broken part of the combined treatment plants that we've done in the past typically also have had finished water manes associated with it to then redisperse the water. You've got water coming in on the east side at one site and the west side at the other site. The way the hydraulics of your
system has been set up that way over many years to allow the water to flow, you know, partly here, partly there. Now, all the water is coming from one side. there may be additional finished water mansions that are needed to help push that water out so that you're not
having hydraulic limitations. Um that's that's the nuance of centralizing the treatment plant. But I'd be more concerned about you know yeah if anything happens on that stretch 16inch main goes all the way to that well. So we got four miles of water man.
So and all your water comes from here and that's it. Yeah. Yeah. So you Yeah. You look at how weighted that is. If something happens between point A and point B, everybody is is out of water at that point. So, and that that's part of the resiliency
discussion about having multiple sources. We need more wells. Hey, we need more wells. You guys are all laughing about that now, but wait. Trust me, John. We've tried. We try and try. I know you try and try, but you
know, somebody's got to understand that we need more wells. That's what the idea of trying to hook up with the L with Lancaster down there. You know, everybody broke our balls about that, but Lancast had all the water we needed. They were going to uh not confirmed, but
we had six potential well sites. Well, one site was confirmed. There's nothing there's nothing we can do about that now. It's not even water under the bridge, literally. wanted to bring it up so everybody knows. They know, John. We all know. Um,
honestly, the King Well has all the water we need. It's just not exactly the type of water. Sure. Right. Like I said, we we have, as John said earlier, you could dig one here and it could have another problem, right? We got water. We just don't have clean, usable, ready to go water. And that's
what we're trying to figure out. Um, if you guys have no more questions, we can let these guys go. We can let you guys go and appreciate the information. Look forward to that final report with all the So, are you you guys going to do a option six? Come up some basic
numbers. Okay. So, do we want to do the survey, get people's opinion? I think we should definitely discuss that. Discuss. There's a lot of things that we need to do. We want to throw all these scenarios at the public. Do we want to try to combine? I mean,
I we still don't have D telling us, okay, you have four parts per trillion. We're still going to make you treat it. So, they still they still haven't told us that. And they still haven't said this is what we expect your
capabilities to be as far as redundancy. Because if you have those two things, then we can come up with some scenarios on on on what's going to what's going to work best because you want to present that scenario to the public that's going to work. That D is
going to it might be hypothetical, but we got to we got to come up with that. Sorry, just one more. Your report to the D, you said you're going to close off send report D. Um, when do you expect that to be and would we expect a
response from the D at that point that says you're going to have to do something? We're still waiting on the data. It for some reason the labs are extremely backed up right now and I think we're having a tough time getting just the you know the the results back in. So once we
do get that you know it takes us some time to pull together the report. Um, and then you know DP is also extremely backed up and they pretty much take the maximum allowable allowed by statute time to review your report and then they'll
they'll issue you some comments. So before I would be surprised if we gotten a response from D before the um PDF applications are are due. I also don't think that you'll get a firm determination that you must do something until the compliance and the four parts
per trillion uh sampling establishing the running annual average. So that that phased approach that EPA has published that is the process for which uh m uh massp will ultimately tell you you must do something but it's one of those problems where once you know you have to
do it we've now gone five or six seven years down the road things are more expensive and also they want you to do it tomorrow when they say that you're going to have to do it not okay in two years. That's the challenge is trying to plan for that potential eventuality but also not wanting to make that move
without having that concrete must do something, right? Okay. All right. Thanks guys. Thank you much. Yeah, appreciate it. Yeah. You think of anything else, just let us know. Call
you in 20 minutes. Did I say anything? Yeah, thanks for coming again. Good to see you. Do you uh do you guys want to roll into trying to figure that out right now or do you want to press in with the press on? Trying to
figure out if we come up with different COAs uh to present to the public, etc. Like we had kind of been discussing earlier. I'm going to I'm going to tell you right now, this is just my my one person opinion on the innovator. In light of this discussion and all the information
that we received, I don't really see much of a success rate of getting all this together data back by this deadline to June to do the SRF funding. There's just an enormous amount of
unknowns here. Um that's just my one person opinion. I mean, to me, no, I I agree with you. I don't think we're going to we're going to get it together cuz um I mean the real question kind of to me is like you could break this down to three things like COA one do nothing
and wait till we get told what to do. COA 2 and this is where I'd love to hear more from the public. I'm very concerned about PAS. I don't want it in our water. We need to remediate this immediately and we push together some of the different ways to do it. Um, you know,
like I I feel like that's that's what I'm getting. But for for right now to come up with something to push it in for in a month, I just don't see it as a as a feasible. No, cuz it's just there's a lot. You're you're
missing a couple other things is how important is the hardness to the to the general public, right? And then then the only other thing is yeah, we could apply for the funding and and try to push it. How important is it to the to the public to save money doing this? And we don't
even know we D I mean I anticipate with the way things are going that we're going to have to do this, but until D says we have to do it, nobody's going to Well, and that's where there would be people that might disagree with me, right? Well, that's where I'd love to
hear from the concerned citizens that I'm not accepting any PAS in my water and I want this to you know what I'm saying? It might have to be a multi- a multi-step thing to start. Then where do we go with it? Because if the overwhelming general public wants to go
down the level of not having any PAS in their water, then that tells us we have to go that way. and if they're overwhelming. So maybe we could still work on something that goes out in some in a survey form that talks about PAS in the water, whether people are concerned
about it, the hardness of the water, the concerns I would and then, you know, are you concerned about how we're going to fund this? Sure. Or or getting it done interested in in that knowledge from the from the entire town
of what their concerns are. Yeah. hardness of water, PAS funding, like you know, those are my concerns, too, to be honest with you. And then waiting a year, right, to do anything. Well, I I don't think we're going to have enough time. I agree with with the with the chair that I don't think we're going to have enough time to push something
through that would be successful. I think we would we would spend a lot of time and effort on something that I I think that is not and we're also we can't I I I need more information. I need more concrete information on it's still I understand
that from the conversation we did we had obviously the D's end goal is zero we know that however there's all these communities in Massachusetts are going through this whole thing this is like an I don't want to call it an unfunded mandate but it's
a mandate that doesn't have an unfunded mandate I mean they've offered some money out there but like I just feel that Uh, I I need to I don't think we're ready to push something for the SRF funding. However, I am all in favor of
getting a survey out there to see what the community want what direction they want us to to to get to drive this ship that I'm interested. So, so I I you you guys changed me because my original opinion of the survey was for these options, you know, but you you hit some
good points, but with the hardness cuz our number one complaint is hard. Absolutely. So that that that's and so if we treat just the heating well the hardness levels that they saw is only half of what it's going to be. It's going to it's going to dump. I think we all can agree the scenario for treating
keings without the hardness is is not even a scenario. I mean it's to do it. No I'm sorry. Treat it scenario five. That's a million. No, I'm saying I don't think I I sorry. I don't think doing scenario 4 of treating keings without treating the hardness and
dumping all that hard water into our system. I just don't think that's an option. I think if we have a hardness problem now, it's going to be doubled. Yes. But are people But that's pretty much your only option. Want hard water or are they going to want their water bills? Once again, I just $500 a month.
There's a survey. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So, and the the more we can utilize other sources to offset keings, the less the cost is if we're not pumping kings at capacity. So, there's so many different
scenarios that we could be looking at here. Um, but and for us to come up with something in 60 days, I don't see it happen. 30 days for funding. Yeah. 30 downside. So you you're losing the the infrastructure money that the federal money. So you
Yeah. That's gone next year. I But I understand where you're at. I I agree with you, but I'm going to be honest, too. I I think if we put something together and our name came up on that list, uh seeing that we didn't take it the last time that we had it, I just think
we're going to the bottom of the pile. That's just We were already at the bottom of the pile. Well, no. We we we were okay before, but I just that's just once again that's just my one person at the end here's opinion. Yep. So I think we definitely need to
gather more data. I agree. So unfortunately to work with capital strategic to come up with a plan that we can I think surveys get out to the public. Yep. Um and
then tell sounds like time bond we're not going to apply for funding this year. That's how I feel. I just I don't see the point of it. I I agree with you. I don't see the point of it. I mean, I don't I guess we could pull a few people in the public here tonight to see if
they if they are that concerned about financing and, you know, the difference of $20 million to do a project. I mean, like I said, the the bottom line is, you know, let's just say we did get magically got funding. We still would
need to get a lot of answers from DP and everybody else to figure out the exact game plan, what is best for Lunberg and there's just a lot of question marks right now that I just don't I don't feel like it's worth the effort of putting the funding request in. I'd be more
interested in getting feedback from the entire town of like this is the this is the the 10year, you know, eyeball for the water department. Where do you want to see us in 10 years? These are the these are the obstacles we have. These are the solutions that we've come up with. These are the costs involved.
What's important to you? You know, we need public support to to move on. Yeah. So, I mean, they they have certain things they would like to see. I'm not opposed to No, I I'd love some input.
So, it's me, so I have a couple comments. So, scenario four. I know you said yeah doesn't make any sense however the mandate is for PAS it's not for the hardness you pass the hardness requirements right I can put a filter in my house if the hard hardness bothers me
and so if you go out and say to people look we're going to save this many millions of dollars by doing just PAS you're going to have to if you don't like the hardness you have to deal with it yourself so there is that scenario just don't look I I mean I I definitely understand where you're coming from on
that John Unfortunately, not everybody in town has the mentality and thought process that you do. You understand that we're sometimes just a whip and post here. We get calls of people that are just mad that you know that they're they're washing machines and all this other
stuff. They don't go through the the the process a little bit like that. So, unfortunately, we have to kind of balance some of that too. And I appreciate your input. I do. And it's it is a enlightening option for sure. So, so I have one other thing I'd like to add to
that just part of your discussion here and that is the burden of this money whatever one whatever it is can't be on 2200 households. It has got to be on the entire town. So you have to have a scenario that puts the entire town to
pay for this because their kids go to school, they use the town hall, they do this, they do that in town, all the water comes, everybody drinks the water, right? So, you know, because I think if you continue to try to push the total
burden on the 2200 households, you're going to run into walls. I But go ask for money from the rest of the community for water that they don't necessarily I don't think even legally we could to be honest with you just the way that they'd have to encompass the district to the
entire town and vote to me. Well, we can do that. If this was a department of the town, the entire town would pay for it. But it's not. Thank god it's not now. No, not now. And hopefully never. I I don't know. I mean, when you're talking these kind of millions of dollars, you
see what's happening to the sewer. Look at the sewer. I mean, look at the sewer. Pathetic. All I'm saying is you're going to 2200 people 5,000 households or whatever. All right. Wow. I if there's a way appreciate your input on it very much,
Miss Pets. I think I I agree with Mr. Bur and Mr. Commissioner Burch that the survey at this point to find out what the people want is a really good idea. I would encourage the company doing it to
include a question on there about money. What is more important to you? Having a lower water bill or having your calcium treated so you don't have hard water or health this PA I'm not I'm eliminating I'm not giving them the option of that
hardness not just hardness the PAS is going to eventually probably have to be dealt with although I'd like to see the running numbers for keing over time. Um but I think that to I agree that you have had complaints on hardness. I know people who've complained about hardness,
but if you ask those same people, do you want that water to stay hard and have your water bill be here? Or do you want the hardness treated, but your water bill is going to be here? My guess from talking to these people is they would
say, "Leave the hardness alone." Yes, they're complaining about it, but if you put it on a scale with finances, people complain about the size of their water bills all the time. All the time. And they so I don't know the answer to that question, but I would encourage you to
include that in your survey because it certainly will be discussed at a vote of any actions. So it would be better to get it out ahead of time. So what if we also do a vote? What if we treat these wells that take the needs of Lunar in
account and there is no hotness issue? So that is a key thing. You treat these two all the hotness issues go away. Sure. Treat that well 15 years down the road. Sure. Issue solved. How much money would that cost? So, we'll put it all in there. You're right. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's option three. That's option
three. Well, but you should put all six options in. If you're going to put options, right, everybody has everything. But what he was referencing is that if you do option three removes the hardness completely. I think the point is is that the questions that get developed are accurate. You
can't just simply say, "Do you want to have hard water or not?" Everybody that's the concern when you're presenting these questions. What are the opportunity cost? What are the true costs of the options you're asking? And I I got to tell you, I I I'd love your
input on it. If you you feel that I'd love to see the questions before you put them out so that they're not these would you like to have pee fast free water? Do you want to have no hardness in one? You're just going to sit there and say yes. We have to make sure the questions presented. I agree. I I think that yes,
before this survey goes out to the public, we should probably have we'll present it at a meeting, right? But I'm sure Capital Strategic is well versed creative. Yeah, I want her to write everything that I ever need to write because it comes back. I'm like, geez, I didn't cohorts. I got to like that. But also,
you want it to drive drive true results, right? You don't want to have any bias in the question. No bias in the question. You want a true result. You want something that is going to give you the direction in which you want to flow. We don't want the political polls. It's
not a political poll. Would you elect the president that kills? You don't want to have No, we're quite clear on how we have Sure. But we would definitely enjoy having your feedback questions. That would be wonderful. Yep.
Okay, moving on. We've got guidance, I guess, then. I think we have guidance. I mean, Nicole, based on the conversations and things that you've heard tonight, I'm sure that you could probably come up with. I have some thoughts. Here we go. I like
it. I have some thoughts. Um, obviously, this is going to cost us some money, so we're going to need some thoughts on what that's going to be as well. Well, I wanted to come here first, get everyone out before I pulled that together. Yep. All right, we're closing that issue out. Okay, I'm good. Okay. Uh, moving on.
Review and discuss the letter received from the Woodlands condo trustees lawyer. Uh, so you got it. I mean, they they pretty much agreed to everything that Yeah. the kayak rack. I mean, I I've called D. We're supposed to have a meeting. Uh, oh, we'll meet you. We'll
do something next week. That goes by. We talk. Oh, we'll do it next week. That goes by. and nothing seems to be a lot of people well not a lot some people are retired they got new staff coming on so they're trying to get them uh in in the loop so I'm not sure what their status
is but I mean the only thing in here was the kayak rack and you know the easement specifically says no structures so that's correct goes to you it doesn't matter what DP says that's on you so the I understand that the the reply back from them and I appreciate that but the
only thing I didn't really like was the date they wanted to extend it to which was I felt like was it September September I think it was I definitely think that's a bit lengthy um you know as this was brought to their attention months and months ago um so I I'd love
to we can meet again with them I can talk to them but I just I feel like that's a that's pushing it just a little too far. Um I I understand this this the back and forth of the D. So maybe we can reach out to them and see if we can just come up with a little bit better
solution than that. I think that's what is the u problem with I mean why you want to push it out to September 1st? They had requested they had uh talked with the D or represent they hired this guy Bosley or Hosley or something. Um
they hire they wanted to present something to the D to to leave it there which is which when we initially met and and they had talked about that and I agreed with it. They said sure if you have something that you can present to the D and the D says you can leave it there and then then you know we can discuss that further. I don't really
seem to have too much of a problem with it but I just kind of concerned with like plowing down there. I mean we shouldn't have to worry about how we plow. I mean I think if it does stay there okay maybe just move it over a little I I personally I I would really like to see it moved. I don't really think it's that big of a deal, but I I
do want to give them the due diligence on everything. So, I would like to reply back to them. September is just too far away. Maybe we can move this date up a little bit. Try to get it resolved. Try to get it resolved sooner than one way. And then if something then something between now and then comes up, we can we
can discuss. We can discuss it. But I think that's that's that mean they've been let's get a specific if you would like me to reply to I'm going to say by July 1st. Okay. All right. Now who who's making this decision? The guy Bosley. No, he know
he's requesting the the lawyers hired the Woodlands lawyer. I'm sorry the woodlands hired a um water resource consultant. Yes. that um Horsesley Scott Horsley um
and I guess from me reading through this my understanding is that this water resource consultant wants to study the effects of having the kayak rack there. So they reached out to D. Does doesn't matter the the D in our uh
in our easement. I'm I'm just stating you what the letter said. So I know I read it. I read it. I wouldn't I wouldn't even pay attention to what he's got to say. I just make some kind of a deal with whoever we have to make a deal with and get it at a specific time and and you
know, I mean, we've been fooling with this for I don't know how many years now. Let's let's just come to an agreement, get it done, and get this behind us. Well, I just want you to know, John, that when I did meet with them, uh this was several months ago, there was many there was many items on that list that they took care of
everything. I understand. I've read that. I understand that. So, so in response, do you want me to just send a response to me to send a response that we had a meeting, they want it moved by July 1st, or do I need to I don't No,
just say if just uh I don't know on the legal end of things, but I am I Do you want me to reach out to KP or do you want me to just send an email? I don't feel the need to requesting July 1st. We're requesting July 1st. if they for some reason um would like to meet on
site again with with that I'd be more than happy to do it. So that's and then we'll maybe come up with a relocation something. We'll all work. concern. The concerns I saw that that I had about the the kayak rack
is just a couple things. They when we were down there with the engineers, they talked about I mean you the kayaks I don't know if there's PAS in in them but all the rain water falling on them and like anything it kind of So my concern
is that they're contributing to the PAS problem. And most kayak racks I see are are structural. They put one up at uh down in at Lake Wham and they put a roof on it. And then you're definitely getting into a structure that's not movable, which I I don't know where we
go with that. And it's and it's written in in the in our deeds. It is written in the deed. So once this gets resolved, we we have to make sure that we touch on all of those items. Uh obviously I wouldn't want it to set precedent that they could that
more could happen that if this is allowed this is I think this is a very attainable easy solution that we will be able to to come up with. This is not really this is not a big deal. It's just it's just kind of you know I mean it is definitely our we need to do our due
diligence to maintain the zone one as is required. And what is your solution Mr. for uh Woody is that hopefully they move them and uh unless for some reason they come up with some magical thing that says they can leave them there and we can talk about that further but if it
impedes our where Fran talks about plowing and stuff though if there's if we can go a little one way or another. Let's just send this letter to them and then uh we we will we've been we've been doing very well working with them. I don't see any reason why we can't continue to do so and come up with I'm
not saying it's got to be moved tomorrow. I'm saying let's make an agreement before September 1st sometimes. He just said that July 1st. That's what he just said. Yeah. You know, I mean, July 1. I'll send an email to say it was reviewed and
so just write a letter back to his their lawyer saying we've talked about it and we will like to have them off our easement by se by July 1st. Yeah, that's what we're going to do. Okay. Pretty good, huh? That's on the ball, buddy.
Hey man, right on it today, Woody. Okay. Uh, review and approve upgrades to radio communication system. What do we got there? All right. So, it's it's more money than we originally thought. But, uh, so this is tying on with the
the town and fire department's upgrade of their their system. So, we originally were thinking 30,000. We did an article for 40,000. So, it's only a little over. So, the the it went over uh on one particular spot because we we were
having extreme difficulty talking down on Massav. Uh anywhere on that side of town uh we have a tough time with. So, he added uh a radio at the town hall to tie with the fire and police radios. So, I mean, we could easily drop that and
get us to the another 40,000, but uh he he felt that was a a worthwhile addition to our system. When was the last time we did a major upgrade to the radio system? I want to say so when we did the Kos
2010. 2010. And we can't get those fancy ones that that you can talk anywhere in the world person to person. Those don't. So, so we did an article for 40. We have money in our other upgrade of equipment. If you want to do
it, we could. We could downsize this. We could scrap the whole thing. Uh, I told him I'd talk to you guys about it. I'll let them know tomorrow. My two
cents. I'll go first here. Okay. Um I think the cost is is too high. However, I really think that the communication that this brings to us is really detrimental. And I mean that in a
way of like we rely heavily on outside communication. This is just can be a downfall when if if for some reason we were in a some sort of disaster situation in Lunberg. We had, you know, depending on what may the future bring, who knows
that having our own source of communication. I do this in the military all the time is is just it's absolutely paramount. Uh because there may be a time when we don't have cell phones and then what would you do? you know, if if all of a sudden if there's just no cell phon 2008. Yeah. All cell phones were
down. Yeah. So, but I gotta say, even without having to sell stuff, it's for me in the office. It's very beneficial for one guy who's doing something to say something and we know what's going on or say everybody here, everybody here, we all hear, "Hey, I'm here. This is what's
going on." So, when the phone calls come in, you know, it's not this texting or you called so and so. God forbid an emergency situation where someone gets hurt. Yeah. That that brings up when we had the name breaks on Lemus. We we had a hell of a time to talk heard. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I you know tell the guy to knock about eight grand off but I mean what is it what what is the thing on top of the town hall you said they put up there? Uh well they're the fire and police are
replacing the whole system. Okay. So that uh usually you don't combine your antennas next to each other. That's why the Sunny Hill Road tank when fire police started going up that they were wiping us out. Uh so now that the new way of doing is they it's called a combiner. So they all the radio frequencies for everybody that's in
Lunberg is tied to this combiner. So no one interferes with each other. So we're going to put up two antennas uh transmit and a receive on the town hall everywhere. Okay. All the tanks town hall keyings on the tower. Yeah. and uh everybody sticks their radio, the input
and the output into that combiner and everybody works together on our Vantage side. We're not paying for any part of that combiner. The town's paying for all that. So, I mean, if we did this on our own, that bill would probably be three times what what it is. So, I think although it is a ton of money, I think
by us combining with the fire and the police, uh we're actually saving, you know, significant amount of money. Does this go anywhere to us being able to read meters throughout the community? No. Okay. Just to talk. Well, because it's is it is
your point being we needed towers. There's no new right locations to put the meter stuff on it yet, is there? Doing this project doesn't give us new locations for the meters for reading. So, right, Mr. Chair, we have a guest in
the public and he's patient patiently waiting. Please go, sir. Well, we're going to be talking to the public about this and what to do with that. And I think it would be beneficial saying, "Hey, we stepped up and we improved our radio
system with the town. We're working together with the town." And we could also incorporate that in your survey that we upgraded our radio system and we're working with the
town. How's that sound, John? Does that get you approval? I think we've been doing that for years. We've been doing that for years. I realize that, but we are improving the radio system. Yep. And it's been a it's been a thorn in all of our sides for years. Y, you know,
speaking of that, you know, nothing worse than you go to an accident, you call out, nobody hears you. You go on your cell phone, it doesn't work, you know, but could we Is that sound reasonable? So, I do have a question to ask. Is Winterberg considered a rural
community off the top of your head classified? I don't know. I don't know. Is a radio there's a grant for radios? I think they did they get a grant for the town stuff? I'm I'm not aware if if you have some like inside stuff for
grants, then uh let me bring it on. Well, I got to see if it's still available. I'm digging to my phone. But as as this sits, um we need to Mr. Chair, we need to vote to approve. Is that kind of where we're looking? That's where we're looking. Let me let me just say one
thing. What is the definition of a rural community? Well, that's what we don't Well, I mean, the Department of Agriculture had a grant. We got it for a community out in Western Mass, Berneston. Okay. For radio repeaters for the police department because their
signals weren't getting anywhere. We do a lot of grant work. So, I'm sending an email right now to project manager for that grant to see if it's still available. I would be surprised if we were, but you know, I I think we are. I
don't really know. I got cows. It must have It must have something I live in. And forgive me. So, if if we do this, we could still apply for the grant to pay for it. Possibly. Poss. Okay. All right. If we
vote on this and a grant comes in, by all means, the money's not allocated till July 1st. It's going to take 3 months to get. Yeah. Well, before we do about the $2,000 uh lap last LAP, thank you, Woody. We really appreciate it.
In our account, we have that uh section in the budget upgrade of equipment and services. So we can Okay, we can take it out then. All right. I would make a motion that we accept the proposal from modular communications for
$42,38748. You didn't need to say that again, Mr. Bush. I do. 42,37848. um and uh follow up with hopefully, you know, obtaining grant money for it, but and take the additional uh money where we need from the maintenance budget. All
those in favor? I second. Yeah, we need to second. Hey, listen. If we all vote, we all vote and all say I then the thing passes. Wait, I was thinking give John signed. Yeah, I like piece of paper. so moved or whatever thing is when I make
the motion if he says I and you say I this rules don't have a second tight okay uh okie dokie I'm going to move on okay commissioner superintendent clerk treasure distance
do you have anything else for uh all I got is I just wanted to discuss the main break on Lemus the road uh the fire department se uh Fitchburg lem the cities surrounding us were shuttling water to a brush fire. Uh I actually went to the to the to the hydrant where
they were pulling the water. I saw what they were doing to the hydrant all bad. And uh I yelled at them all and uh I said I'm running all the valves. So I took over. But they had already slammed the system big time. Uh they did their fires. I ran the valves
the whole time. I probably felt 10 12 trucks. And then at the very end uh I was closing the valve again. All the crews are coming back now. They they were filling up their trucks to head back to the cities and uh different guy came and slammed slammed the valve closed and I I saw the huge slam on the
val on the gauge. So initial opinion something bad's going to happen. Kind of made it through. Then it was probably an hour later we got a call water coming up on Leister Road. So it wasn't a big leak. So we dug it up the the next morning and uh fixed that.
Turned the water on. Now water's come up down the road. Dug that up, fixed that, and then it came up away from that as well. Blew in a different spot. So, uh, anyway, it was it came out to just for that repair was like $10,000. Okay. So,
our hydrant fee that we charge to town is $13,000. That doesn't include the main break on Peninsula Drive. So, I think I think we need to move the decimal over, you know, you know, 130 or if they're going to continue with this practice, I think we
need to double it and move the decimal. I mean, we we should be talking hundreds of thousands of dollars for this. Okay. So, that all happened. As you can tell, I'm pretty upset with it because to me it's uh passionate would be the word. It wasn't good. So, so I called uh
Department of Fire Services. I left him a message. The guy called me back and he I told him exactly what happened and he said, "They can't do that." I'm like, "Yeah, they they don't know." So, he asked me, "Is it uh negligence, training, or uh I don't know what he
what he gave for another option, but uh I said improper equipment." All of the above. So, I said it's not negligence because they're not closing the no idea. No one does. You ask the fire chief, he does not know that he cannot close that bout like that. He has no idea because they they wouldn't train that way. When
they train, he doesn't. He pull up himself. I told I said that was Mark Bur that did that. Boom. He doesn't know either. We're not pointing fing point to it. But anyway, so so I I talked I was not it's not negligence because they don't know. It's training.
They need to they need proper training. So he he agreed. He said, "Yes, we definitely need to do training." And then uh I brought up the improper equipment. I said, "You should never have the ability to use a ball valve to shut water off." And he said, "Yeah, you shouldn't be." And I'm like, "Well, they
are." And when I was down there on Lancaster A, that's they were using the hydrant, Lancaster, Kilmer Street. When I got there, the guy had the valve full wide open right off the steam port of the hydrant dumping to the side, full wide open, and uh he shut it off like
that. So, he he was probably flowing 2,000 gallons a minute and stopped it like that. So for me that that to even survive that with as little as we did is is pretty remarkable. I mean so to me that that improper equipment he he should not
even be allowed to do that. So I discussed when I said I was under fire department for years. We used to have a gate valve. Yeah. We used to go to a Z valve. You know the Z valve is just a little flapper on there. So water's flowing. It's it's flowing. It's flowing to the fire. You pump it to the truck. The truck is going to start pumping and
flip that flapper. The water never stopped. Always kept flowing. Perfect. Never blew up a main ever when I was on the fire department and till the new stuff came out. Never was a broken man. So, uh, he's like, "Yes, this is definitely a problem." He says, "Let me call some people and, uh, we're going to
figure out how to how to address this." So, I talked to Mass Waterworks. She sent out a post. She says, "I got a ton of feedback from a lot of towns, so this is a very common problem." So, she was going to contact the fire. I spoke to a a water superintendent Bill Ricka
yesterday and he said the fire and no I didn't mention any of this. He said oh we have a broken man the fire department blew up a a main they blew entire ductal line man upon he was like they destroyed it. So I'm like and then I brought all this up to him. So this is very common
and I think what the fire departments need to do is they need to go back to the old equipment, get rid of the new crap and go back to the old stuff that protected you know cuz the adrenaline's going. Hey, we're gonna get water in that fire. Well, you you're gonna open a valve. Boom. You just blow up something. You have no water now. So, the old days
was a valve, gate valve. Even if you going fast, you were still going slow. Yeah, it was keyed. So, anyway, so uh we'll see what comes of it, but uh something needs to be addressed and uh so I did have spoken with the
fire chief not about raising his hire fees. That's Yeah, but uh we definitely need to do something about that. Um, but when they do training, I said, "I want to be there. I want to see what you're doing. I want to watch that gauge." Cuz they don't they don't know that you can't you just you just blow up
the name. You can't do that. They don't know that that's taking place. So, unfortunately, fires don't happen every day. And when we when we have to when we don't use the when we don't when we don't use a system every day, Yeah.
you know, it's not something that's in everybody's mind all the time. Yeah. Um, plus they can't see the water in the pipe. I definitely feel that um where it isn't general practice on a daily basis that
uh training uh there's so much training that we do already. Um but yeah, I mean I I think you're going the right ways. I mean having going through Mass Waterworks, talking with the fire marshall's office, talking with the fire chief, trying to come up with a a a
solution. I know all those valves don't magically appear for no money. Um, but yeah, I mean I I I agree. I mean, France I can sense his passion about about broken mans and I I could see it. I mean
I Yeah. I mean, nobody likes to fix something that could have been prevented on on a my part that I messed up on. I didn't have the proper repair material to fix that man because I never anticipated a
12 inch ductal line water mane blowing a hole in the side. So that is uh that so that is actually one thing I did want to bring up is like I I you know I heard all about the whole thing you know but I I feel that I I am all for stocking this
place up. We all know Yep. Um, even the little one that I helped over there on Peninsula, like it seemed like it was like, man, like I think you guys would just like like have a truck stop with this stuff. Speaking of Peninsula, I did get a text from a homeowner there was very happy with how everything got
cleaned up and he he's really want to extend his thanks to the water department and everybody involved there putting all that back together. They couldn't have been happier. So, that's good to hear. So, a little little off of that uh the main brake, a little thing that I I would we started looking into was a maybe a larger size trailer. So,
we we can stock it, you know, put all the equipment on the trench box on main break. There you go. Everyone's ready to hook up. There you go. You on like a like an enclosed trailer or No, open one. So, I mean the trench box. Yeah. So, I was thinking like a you know a heavy duty one cuz trench box pretty
heavy. No, I understand that. like a 16 footer 14 16 but like when you guys do do a main break like from what I saw is you go there you dig it up you expose it okay it's a 10-in ductal iron let's just say
it seems like you come back here get parts and go would it make any sense to have a enclosed trailer let's say stocked full of parts or so many so many parts so the way it works is 10in dock line it broke So couplings are on the
trailer. Okay, no big deal. But we come back and say, "Hey, we need a piece of pipe 63 in long." I understand. We'll go cut the pipe. We'll go grab the couplings right there. Okay. Yeah. But the trailer would be nice cuz that trench box is not Is there one out there that's still out there? Going to dump
money on it. Billy, is that still out there? Oh, shut up. He was already I think I thought he was going to take yesterday. I want my 6x6es back. Yeah, I told him yesterday. Yeah, I I'm all for that. Like Yes. So, the trench box, absolutely. And if it means we need to have a trailer so that
thing gets moved quicker, yeah, a pretty run-of-the-mill 16 foot type of landscape trailer would be and you know, I think we should have it because that should I never would want to come to a decision of like, uh, it's too much work to get the trench box or sitting there waiting for it. Yeah. If we need that
thing, put it in. Put it in sooner than later. Yep. I'm with you. All right. So, we we'll keep looking at see if we can find some good deals. Yeah, I didn't I don't think they're very expensive. You can get a really nice one for like $7,000. So, I mean, well, we have that in our budget this year anyways, but the
Yeah, there's a lot of equipment that you move. I mean, pumps and so forth. Like when at the end of a break, what they what they have to do to reorganize or clean out everything goes in a truck and it's uh it's it's a lot. Oh, hello. Yeah. After 30 hours, there
was no cleaning. Well, that's why like I don't know like I mean like I keep a little utility with a gate like the pump you can just wheel it everything you know you don't have to lift anything in the back of a truck but you know all right so we'll look at we'll see how it comes and we'll we'll bring it back to you guys okay you have any money left
after this radio thing sorry that was my that was my passion right there don't worry that's all I got so you get the money yeah the only good news is we got our first uh POS litigation payment from uh DuPont 3M. Uh so we just
got a check in for I didn't write down two just about 218,000. Where does that go? So that is kind of my follow-up. So uh we're getting payments from them. Uh well this is the 3M payments is bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro broken down over the
next 10 years we'll get 10 payments. The first one was 20% next one's uh 40 six six whatever small payments. So, do we have a total? Just curious. I don't. You say like, "Well, I don't." So, I'm This was just their breakdown. They just gave
me Did I put it on yours? Oh, so this was their initial breakdown, but I don't have the full They don't give me the full dollar amount right now. So, for now, I just created
a GL PA floss litigation funds for it to come in for us to have it sit there. Um, so it is going to be moving in and out of our sweeps account from our operating account. So, it's in a a little bit of an interest making account
right now. It's it's part of our normal operating account. Um, but something for you guys to think of for the future. Um, but good news is first check came in and this one's just from the 3M, so not from Dup. There's like 10 more. Move the
decimal point two places and Yeah, I know. We're in business. It's kind of gross how much goes to the lawyers. I just saw that. Yeah, you probably don't want to look. I don't, but I'm going um Yeah, that's it.
Okay. Good. Good. Good. public comment. No. Okay, you're up, buddy. No, you guys don't want to hear from me. Motion to hear you say to I make a motion
to move. So move. I knew it.