2025 meeting which I am calling to order under Mass General Law Chapter 3A section 20F. This meeting is being recorded and please join me in that 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. Thank you. Okay, we'll move right into um the director's original. Any questions on
that? Well, then we'll move on to um your um update, Matt. Okay, we're in food season now, so we've got some food clinics scheduled. And uh thanks to Linda for coordinating these. So, the first one is going to be on
Monday, September 29th at Edgewater Apartments on Sanford Road from 9 to 11:00. Thursday, October 2nd at No Village from 9 to 11. Monday, October 6th at Edgewater Apartments on Bordon Street
from 9 to 11:00. Thursday, October 16th at Village Apartments on Village Way from 9 to 11. Monday, October 20th at the Council on Aging from 9:30 to 11:30 and again at the Council on Aging on Monday, October
27th from 9:30 to 11:30. Flu shots are available starting on September 22nd. Um, please contact the town nurse to schedule an appointment. So on the 22nd of September, they're available for the public or anybody to come in and see
Linda to get a u vaccine. Again, Lindsay more blood drives with the Red Cross. The next one is Wednesday, September 24th at Lights of Westport from 1 to 6. And then Tuesday, November 11th at the Makma School from 9
to 2. And this we encourage all eligible donors um donors to participate. Okay. Um so I just wanted to pick up on the flu vaccines because um there have been no change in recommendations as far as I know around flu vaccines. Is that
correct? Who's eligible and recommendations? No, there's nothing changed on that front. So, flu vaccines are still the same. People who um uh need to get them whether through risk
or age. Um certainly encourage that. Um the confusion is really around co vaccines um with the actions of the CDC and what um the limiting of um of um
eligibility and so on. So, um the first line, uh we're waiting to get guidance from DPH, but the first line is to check in with your primary care physician, um and they are the ones to give you guidance, um about um um you know, the
appropriateness of the COVID vaccine for you or any family member. Um and also just for vulnerable populations, also think about the RSV vaccine this fall. I mean, CO is still around. It's not as bad as it used to be. Um obviously thank
goodness. Um but uh you know we still recommend um vaccines as a um way to minimize your health risks um and they are proven to be very safe. There
are some rare vaccine reactions but um overall the risk profile is to the benefit um of getting a vaccine. Uh any other comments or thoughts on that? No. Okay.
I think it's more about um will the pharmacies provide for provided if I guess seeing how that waiting to see how that plays out what we would do you know as a you know
in in that situation you know will insurers pay for it right? Sure. Yeah. No, that's the big one of the big question marks and I know that CVS is holding off in Massachusetts. Yeah. Um but the state government is also looking at um changing regulations so
that they can um follow guidance from independent experts rather than the CDC given the turmoil there right now. Mhm. Yeah. I did read just say I did read a short blurb about um three western states
um who essentially creating their own CDC. Yeah. Washington and Oregon and California and I believe the New England states are thinking about Yeah. doing the same as well. So um so stay
tuned. Um but you know first line is is check in with your your own healthcare provider um to get answers for all your old fogies like me should get your Yes. Anybody over 65 it is definitely recommen I managed to avoid CO for for four
years. So um but I didn't get it and I don't want to get it again. No we don't want to get it. It's not pleasant. No. Um Okay. Um moving on to director approved plans.
Okay. We have a a four bedroomedroom upgrade on a 62,733 ft lot at 60 Prospect Street for Jonathan Gertler. Um and it's been through Concom. We have a five- bedroomedroom repair on
an 84,168 foot lot on 41 Autumn Drive for John and Daros. It's also been through Concom. We have a three-bedroom repair on a 60,900T lot, 294 Pinehole Road, Torino Flores,
and Jose Flores contra also been through Concom. And we have a 4bedroom new construction on a 382,378 ft plot on 17 Strawberry Lane for Brian
Texera. And this one is pending in concom at the moment. Any questions or concerns? No. So, so I move that we endorse the director approved plans for 60 Prospect
Street, 41 Autumn Drive, 294 Pinehill Road, and 17 Strawberry Lane. Um, pending Con review for 17 Strawberry. Yeah. Okay. Second. All in favor? I
That's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Okay, next is um minutes. Um we had reviewed the August 4th minutes at the last meeting. Um and they were fine except for but it wasn't on the agenda except for one thing.
The typo 2038. It's 2038 instead of 2028 for the opioid. Yep. Um so uh I think we're ready for a motion on that one. I move that we approve the August 4th um 2025
minutes with the um edit of uh the 2028 um funds or the funds the opioid settlement funds going till 2028 to 2038. Second motion made and seconded to approve the
minutes of August 4th. All in favor? I. That's unanimous. Okay. August 11th. Uh, this was our working meeting. Any questions or concerns about that one? I did not have any. No, I'm fine.
Okay. So, I move that we approve the uh August 11th, 2025 minutes. Second. Um, all in favor? I. That's unanavous. Thank you. And then next are August 18th, our last regular meeting. Concerns about that? I have
none. I'm fine. Okay. So, I move that we approve the August 18th, 2025 minutes. Second. All in favor? I see. Thank you. Okay. Uh we can go on to
other business. Um Oh, actually I should send that over here while you discuss the first agenda item, opioid funds management proposal. Um, tell us. So, I wanted to give the board an update on some of the issues
going on with the opioid funds management propos or management. Um, the opioid committee formulated a draft of an RFP to begin to get requests for money to provide services
um um in the community to address the opioid and to mitigate the opioid epidemic. Um, in doing so, I presented it was forwarded to the town administrator who then proposed that um,
uh, Mr. Armendo uh, could be helping with that. And I suggest in fact that this wasn't a board of health responsibility. um is he's recommending he plans on recommending to the select board that
the board of health manage the funds and have responsibility for the opioid settlement funds. So um that is it. The opioid settlement fund advisory committee is was formed by the select
board to advise them on how to spend the funds and what would be the best use of the funds within Westport. So that's what we've been working on. Um and this was the first um that I heard that the town manager was proposing that the
responsibility come to the board of health shifted be shifted. So, um I actually um I just met with him before this meeting to discuss what his concerns are um to I I'm planning on appearing before the
select board on Monday um to give them a brief overview of what the committee has done and thus we're at this point of creating an RFP with the idea that we're going to be getting that out in the public and and soliciting um um requests for
grants. So, um, so anyway, so I'm I'm planning on meeting before the select board to do that on Monday. Um, I believe the the, uh, co-chair, the vice chair rather, is going to be joining me to do that. Um,
and I don't know, um, Mr. uh Hartnett didn't suggest that he was going to be saying that in the meeting on Monday, but I know that's in his thoughts and he said he was going to be meeting with uh the chair of the select board this evening. Um so I'm not sure what's going
to happen with that, but the reason why I'm bringing it up because it may be presented to us um or presented as a um another responsibility for the board of health. Okay.
Um, adding any additional responsibilities to the board of health without any resources or support is a no-go in my opinion. We already are underst staffed. We've been asking for additional staff for years and
we can't take on that load without support. Um, is my opinion. Um yeah, I think it's a unfunded mandate. Well, part of it's not a mandate because we can choose
not to accept the responsibility. So, in in that, I've also met with Matt um to talk about this and he had some suggestions. One of the things in the opioid settlement bond is the provision in there in the um
uh the agreement, the abatement agreement is administrative costs. And so um there is a possibility of using some of the funds to support the administrative process which could mean
time allotted to a person to do some of that work. So, it would require some um uh fancy footwork or whatever it would take to make that happen. There's going to be a certain process, an
administrative process. Um a paperwork process. Um I'm not sure what would be involved with um having someone like Olive, who has spearheaded this, an advisory committee, be involved in a more formal way um in a reimbursement
way. But there is fund there is money in the funds to do that. And I don't know why the select board wouldn't just use it to hire somebody else to assist with it. Um but it is something for the reason why it's on discussion is for us to kind of talk about what our stances
on that. Should should we use the money to um support the administrative running of the settlement funds and then move forward with it or not if it's presented to us? cuz I think that I don't know that it's
going to be presented to us, but I do know that um this is what Mr. Hartnett was going to recommend to the select board. Um so refresh my memory um when this whole idea of the task force came up. Um the select board was responsible
for this. What they were doing was probably nothing essentially. Um and so um but when the select board agreed to set up the advisory committee were what were the parameters what what were the
expectations for you know the the kind of uh administrative management of the dispersement of funds. However the you know knowing that you were an advisory committee to give to the select well that's what I said to Mr. Hartnett.
if the advisory committee wasn't here and doing what we're doing well with the select board, you know, what would the town with the funds? So, um it as the chair of the advisory committee, our job is to advise the select board. We don't
have control over the purse springs. Um we weren't assuming necessarily responsibility for oversight of whatever grants were awarded. Um, that's not to say that the committee is not willing to do some of that.
Um, but if it wasn't if this committee hadn't been formed, which is what I'm also going to present should it come up. I don't I don't know that he's going to present it in this um in this select board meeting, but that you know what would this like would have done had not
this committee been formed to advise them on what to do. And part of what we've been doing is getting community getting input. It's the first thing on the evadement agreement, getting community input. So, that's what we've been working on. We've had professional organizations come in and speak to us,
educate us about the different programs that are around the area, um how we can work with those programs, how can we bridge it, what finances could bridge treatment um access for people who are struggling. So, we've been doing a lot of that.
Um and then came to let's formulate an RFP. Um so it the RFP isn't perfect. Um but it was really good start and um uh uh Dr. Dorski is the one who pulled it together and then we've been tweaking it
and meeting and we met yesterday remotely to approve what we have to present to the select board. So um but it's a good question. You know if if the advisory committee was not in existence, what would the select board be doing?
And um what is the position of the advisory committee on this? It's are you aware? Are they aware? They're aware. I told them we had um I said this is we're not voting on anything. I'm just letting you know what's happening. Um and that I was meeting with Jim
today. um uh that here is what's being suggested that I've met with Matt. Matt has an idea of how we might be able to make it work, but um again,
you know, the the committee is there's a couple of mixed responses to it. Okay. Um and so so far, three of the people on the committee that I've spoken to have been all for it. that that especially if
it was olive no olive. Um and but there was one that was adamantly against it. So we have to find out you know how to it doesn't have to be unanimous right but um certainly cuz we we look at it's
spending administrative funds and they've given me the responsibility now they've said however I want to spend the funds that we have which is was $5,000 um which part of it was to pay for Bob to Mr. Barbosa to come and do minutes
for us and do it officially because I can't do minutes and run a meeting. it's very hard to do. Um and um and so the committee then voted at a remote meeting to give me um full control over how the
money that $5,000 is spent. Okay. So, but that's going to be more than $5,000. And so it would might be a a vote of the committee about Well, actually, it would have to go to the select board if it wasn't a board of health responsibility. I think if the board of health agreed to take it on
and the select board agreed to give that responsibility to the board of health and relinquish those funds for the board of health to make decisions. Um, you know, then the committee, I guess the committee would have to be an advisory
committee to the board of health and we would advise how we would want to see the money spent based on what we've done. Mhm. So, you know, again, this is not in stone or anything, but I got it. What triggered
all of this was my sending the RFP to to Jim M for review. Okay. Um, so I mean it's it's for me it's really
hard to make a qualitative you know judgment about how I don't know burdensome this would be because it's um you know because it's in
it's in its I don't know maturation stages we don't really know how it's going to turn out in this sense which I mean if it if this was a program and the only thing that you were doing was distributing narcans you know I you know
it could be very you know very straightforward if people were coming forward with innovative ideas about how to address addiction and you know there's a committee out there who's evaluating whether or not they should
get a grant and then overseeing it all the things that are associated with that is is a whole another level of responsibility and sophistication and how you monitor it and criteria making decisions about whether or not to get
you know so it's it's really hard from the distance I am about that or where it is in this stage you know to um to say there's a right way or wrong way to do it but It may be that
if we accept the responsibility to do it that we do it, you know, we just don't we just don't bite off more than we can can chew basically and do things that there
are good models for that. There are people out there who, you know, if you give them the money, they have a long track record and and cuz we want to put the money to use, right?
Um and at the same time, you know, as Tanya said, you know, we we don't have the resources, you know, as you know, for example, we do with the community septic program. We have a dedicated person who does all that.
And uh but again in a certain sense that's very cut and dried because it generates septic claims and Matt knows how to you know it's not could as open-ended potentially as battling o
opioid addiction. So, I guess my just advice would be go into this with very, if we're going to do it, you know, with uh uh very controlled and modest expectations, you know, in year one as
to how this is going to work until we really get our feet wet. Matt, you want to chime in? Well, I guess the plan that you know we talked about with um bringing possibly Paul
over for X amount of hours a week to help with the reporting the the bills the administrative burden of it is really the only way it can work. I mean it can be any person that but preferably somebody with experience and knowledge such as Olive but um other than that
there's much like you know um the town administrator is saying that they don't have the resources to to do anything anything they don't have the manpower neither do we um we're all over the to the nth degree so I would just um
I kind of be right now until we get a clear idea of you know how the committee is going to go or if the select board's going going to even entertain possibly asking the board of health to take it over. I would just kind of wait and see how that shakes out before the board
makes decision. Yeah. Well, I think for the board to agree to take it on. there needs to be a really a clear written um sort of charge of what the expectations are from what the from the select board and then we will either agree or not agree or
modifications but it's got to be pretty clear I think and you know if there's a proposal around um using um getting more administrative funds and um
sort of what the expectations of the person, the administrative role is um and so on. So um you know I know you you have really done a lot of yman's labor on bringing this to life. Um and I really appreciate that
because the town needed that. Um but I think the discussion with the select board will be really illuminating. Um well and and Craig is on the committee and he's on the select board so he has the perspective of both sides and he's aware of this cuz we talked about it in
our remote meeting yesterday. Okay. Um so you know and I I I wasn't expecting um the the board to vote on anything today. I I just thought it was really important that you were aware of and the board is aware of um that this
idea um from the town administrator has come up based because I presented them with a proposed a plan for looking for proposals, right? And um and so you know when we're we're talking about for
people in the community to be aware of right now we're sitting with over $317,000 that's in a special account for the opioid settlement funds. The projection
by 2038 is over a million in funds. And if we do not manage this well, we could lose the funding. So there I mean there is a you know precedent from how what happened with
the collaborative in terms of the money from the collaborative funding, you know, administrative support for the program. Well, but it but it would be so the the settlement funds would either
reimburse the collaborative or olive there would be a role that she would fill based on what the um uh the survey has shown we need like education. Education came up and all the people
that we surveyed it was all this stuff about education and stigma. Olive could run with that and spend time and energy in focusing on education and anti-stigma campaign in in Westport, right? So, but but it would be almost
like saying a day a week, two days a week, Olive would focus on the opioid settlement fund, but the settlement fund should be either reimburseing reimbursing the collaborative, right, or would be directly paid to the board
of health to pay for all of there has to be some way to do time would be coded directly to the opioid funds. the government couldn't pay at all because there's a funding source that exists and it wouldn't be able to to pay for that when there's an existing funding source that is approved
to pay for it. Right. Okay. Well, there's a lot of um there's some practical issues, but the bigger issue is who's going to maintain the responsibility? Either the
select board will. Yeah. um and you are the advisory committee as you always have been. um or they will um if they want to consider another al alternative then they have to make a proposal to us to say we would
like you to take this on and we have to say under these conditions kind of I think is the way we would proceed and there has to be some acknowledgements whatever um however we uh like if we're fortunate
enough to get all of it you know took to took to work on this. It still is gonna fall back, I assume, on Matt in some level to manage it. Do you know what I mean? There has to be she's going to be the staff person, not
and if I was that person, I would want to be able to go to somebody who to talk about what I'm going to do and to get, you know, what managers do with staff, you know. So it's even even
in that scenario, it's not a free ride, you know, for Matt or whoever maybe in the future he would be able to delegate it to. So So there's a lot of um
um considerations to to make sure documented if if the select board chooses to issue that avenue. Were you gonna say something? You look like you wanted to say something. I'm just going to say it does because I did the importance of the program and
for the town it's be minimal burden unless something you know we really ran with this and it picked up I thought about you know what what was going to put on my plate and I'm willing to put in the extra time to do it. It's not a big deal to you know all of it. It' be minimal I think
because she's you know she's pretty adept and good at this stuff. So absolutely. Well, and the other thing is is I mean I don't know what's whether I can still be the chair of the advisory committee if it gets placed on the board, but I would certainly be the lead
for helping with all of that too. Um because it is um again I see the importance of having this money and using it wisely to help people. Um it's all about helping people in the community and we've given we have these
this money. I don't want to lose it. Yeah. We don't want to lose this. Okay. Um well, we uh need to move on. I think we'll skip the well, not skip. We'll postpone the other business items until after our 4:30 discussion, which I
will invite um Cecilia and Rob Delbio. Come on up. You can seat right here. Stand here. Uh no, just sit right here. Let's get this informal. We have received a copy of your letter.
I was about to put mine off. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Your own direction. Um so what I thought I'd do is just let you uh present what you're you know you've given us your letter but um
explain the circumstances why you're here today. um and you know what you're looking for. Sure. Well, um we're going we are like many people in this town only finding out about the um new regulations with the that seems to be trying to model itself
after uh the cape. Um, and uh, I think it's about the denitrate we're looking at, yes, denitrate for an ad, we're looking to put in an ADA compliant ADU for our son who is disabled and it's on 4.3 acres.
However, we are not concerned about um that now. We're just trying to get some answers to understand how this all came about and where it's going and um it it's not making a lot of sense in the in terms of the date timelines. Um I
found out about I never would have the all this stuff, House Bill 87, uh how that may affect what you've ruled on. A lot of this seems to have been done during co But then I'm finding that the timeline on this was 2023 24 and
even more recently updating the the mass D rules. Then I look at the mass D nitrogen um sensitive areas map and it's the Cape and only the Cape. Yes, we are possibly.
And I'm very happy to we're very happy. We understand how important the rivers are and how how really necessary to this town it is. And I'm happy to see that the area around us has improved dramatically. But I did want to mention it's interesting to note that during co
everywhere the s the nitrite numbers went up. I wonder why because we're all back in our homes using our subject systems more. Although, and I'll let you talk in, it seems to me from what we found talking with friends who are engineers and septic stuff and other
other um knowledgeable people on this. It's the phosphorus that's the real issue and the um geese and the ducks are a problem more and I feel bad for the farmers. Um it seems like you're attacking an issue on on what you can do, not necessarily
the best model. And the thing that concerns us is homeowners and a lot of people I think I'm talking to is it uses electricity $50 more a month. That makes no sense to us with AI coming and using more and more electrical. You the grid
is already over powered and we have um you know it's not proven technology. That's that's the big thing we have. That's what I would ask you said earlier looking at a good model. You know, maybe we need to look at a good model and let can we wait and see how things go with
cape? How well do these snow ecosystems really work? Because I'm hearing a lot of things about we don't know. That's why we have to do this um MASSC regulations of checking on it. So there's Yeah, there's
there's a few pounds of things in there. Yeah. Um a few things to u perhaps um clarify uh your understanding on um so I know one of the things you talked about is the the process we undertook this was um
for the regulation and there's a a lot um to that. Um this really came about um in part with uh the targeted integrated water management plan that was developed um for the town of Westport.
I read that um and what their recommendations were. And so this comes out of a plan that specific to Westport um um and and addressing a nitrogen problem. As you
know, um, septic systems are a big, uh, source of nitrates. Um, and Westport, as you probably also know, has not moved forward with sewers in any part of town. Um, and, um, I believe you're on, like
River Road or down that way. You're never going to get septic down there. It's not going to happen, right? So, so we have to address the load from septic systems as one source. That's what's under our control. Other bodies
in town may be able to address other issues. The A commission for farmers and nitro and um um uh fertilizers. Thank you. Um and so on. Um I'm just going to also segue for a second. Phosphorus is a
problem in fresh water. It is not an issue. It's not a issue in saltwater or tidal rivers or it's not not not an issue but it's that's not the driving force for water quality impairment in um
uh saltwater systems. Um so the process we underwent you know this was uh meetings with the targeted the mostly the planning board was the lead entity for the targeted integrated water
management plan. Um we uh spent a long time thinking about how what how to target um we're not doing what the Cape is doing which I mean is is driven by DP which says everybody has to upgrade. We
targeted where can we have the most impact in a um you know in a in the most effective way and the two areas that we addressed are cesspools because cesspools are ancient technology they don't
address um they don't do any um treatment at all and we have probably in Westport probably about a thousand ces that's a shame so that's a big piece of it um the other piece that we decided to focus on was new construction
because um people are if they're building a home, it's the opportunity to um do uh do an advanced septic system rather than making people do upgrades and every because even the best
technology um which I mean there are improvements um going on um but even the best technology is not as good as a um uh you know a septic a treatment plant like in in where you have sewers in Fall River
or whatever. Um but it's the um so that any new addition any new load increases the amount of nitrates going into the ground going into drinking water going into the river. Um, so we wanted to
minimize the impact of new construction because that seemed like this is an opportunity. People are putting in a septic system now. We're not saying, "Oh, you have a functioning septic system. You got to rip it up and upgrade it." Um, so that's why we chose those
two target areas for the first step. The the targeted integrated water management plan has a number of other um had another a number of other recommendations but this was the chunk we chose to start with. Um in the terms
of the process for the regulation um we did extensive public outreach press releases. We did a public information session with science. Good. When was this? Um that was um October 7th, 2020. We did
a webinar. We had a science expert from the Buzzards Bay Coalition, George Hoyfelder from Mass Tech in 2020. 2020 during co most people were sick or so frightened. Well, that's why it was online a webinar. You didn't have to come in
person. um um and Bob Daylor from the planning board. So we did uh um and that's more than what is required for a public regulatory process, but we wanted to make sure we also took um public feedback uh com
public comment um to uh both from that session and um the public hearing which was held on October 29th. Um, these were in that long report that was done by these people that were listed with the numbers present and the
I'm not sure what report you're referring to. You hired the client K began with K. Oh, client builder was the uh the consulting firm that did the targeted integrated wire. So the these meetings that you had were with that no those are separate. There were
meetings. What I wanted to ask is how many people actually participated in 2020? I don't know the number off the top of my head. You mean in the our webinar um I don't think when you do a like I
don't know John can you tell me if if there's a public uh session. Can you do you document how many people have tuned in? I can't on TV if it's on YouTube it tells me. Okay. So we can't we I can't tell you
that number because it was on it was on Oh, it's through the cable. It's through the cable which is that's that's um cord dependent. Correct. So you have to be signed up for
it's not being spectrum cable to get what we broadcast cable TV or is it available via streaming both? We stream all our meetings on YouTube. Okay. Um I don't know whether what how it was happening. There's a lot in 2020.
I don't know how it happened. So I I'm not sure I can give you a number, but it was pretty robust. Um um we certainly got a lot of feedback from um engineers, from residents, interested parties. Um I um I'm sure if
you did a public records request, you could get because all that was public document. Um we then developed a um FAQ kind of document to respond to questions that were where there was confusion and
we um drafted um revisions to the proposed regulation based on some of the feedback that we got. Um we voted in a public meeting that so we had a public hearing same format. Um, we voted to
approve on on the regulation on November 23rd, 2020 with an effective date of February 1st so that people would have time to prepare and we did get a lot of plans that came in for new construction before the deadline so they wouldn't
have to do DIY. Um, we then also offered a Q&A session particularly targeted to engineers on January 21st, 2021 to answer questions about the administration of the regulation. So, we
did a pretty way more um elaborate process than just a hearing. So, one question and we took him a lot of feedback and responded to it. So, did you guys discuss um uh the five-year option versus the 20-year option?
Okay, that is completely different. That's something that that's the DP watershed permit management plan. Okay. Um when they were doing public hearings or public listening sessions around the state around not around the state around southeast around that they originally
proposed to include from Westport all the way to the Cape, right? Um we actually successfully argued not to be subject to that regulation because it is more ownorous than you know more strict than what we um had because we had taken
proactive steps to establish a regulation to do to target what we thought were the highest um sort of biggest bang for the buck and that that we were unlike many other towns. We were proactively
addressing the nitrogen load, TMDL, total maximum daily load, nitrogen problem in the Westport River. Sure. And um that argument was successful and they restricted their permit process and that what you're talking about to the
Cape. So the South Coast communities were not cover. So it is not um relevant or applicable to Westport. Okay. Okay. And um in developing the the
new guidelines are did you guys consider other approaches besides um kind of what I would call septic container systems say treatment at the field level. Have you looked at any of those systems?
Um can you just so explain a little bit? Obviously nitrites in in the water system is it's not restricted to this part of the country. Uh Florida is an example where they have high uh uh water table and so this is a
a very big problem for them as well. I think now it might be more fresh water. They're concerned about the Everglades there and I don't know what the saltwater mix is in the Everglades because I know some of it is coastal and so on but they um so they've been dealing it with uh kind of a similar
thing where you put um a uh a biomass material which is what the the septic systems use biome that's the kind of the active material they put it as a as a a layer below the field. So it's a substrata layer. So now it perks
down through that. So it's just using gravity. It's not using electricity and it's an alternative. Um well layer cake systems are something like that using wood chips and they have not been successful. They were piloted.
Um and in fact um I think the Buzzes Bay Coalition got a grant and there were six residents in Westport who stepped up to u pilot that in and the results were not um uh they're not any better than standard
title 5 septic system. So um but that that whole innovative technology process is not under our control. We do not dictate to homeowners or engineers or anybody else what type of technology
they use. The um the approval process and the oversight of alternative technologies is all done at D at the state level. They have a piloting level, provisional um uh general use and what's
called remedial use. So there's four categories. For instance, the layer cake was a pilot and it required a lot more um uh oversight and monitoring and and so on in order to prove its worth, its
success. And so those systems um basically failed to prove that they were better than standard um septic technology. There are a number of systems that are um uh
effective and achieve a much lower level. The 19 milligrams is the level we set. There are some technologies that are trying to achieve a level of 10 milligs per liter. Um but there are some more proven technologies that do um that
are relatively effective. I we my own um property we installed one um and we've been really pleased with the results um there but um and our uh we did not see a $50 per month increase in electric on
ours um so can I just ask one of the so the holdarmless agreement I think as a homeowner and as someone who's simply trying to I mean this this is supposed to be the greatest community in the I was told in the state our our our town
has the most elderly people here than any other town which is kind of amazing to me but um there's so many people on limited means um people who want to bring in family members who are disabled or or elderly
um when it just it feels to us as though you've painted a wide you take one brush to paint everyone with and it's nothing is individually looked at. Um
I I'm not we we don't feel com I don't understand the hold harmless in in sense of this is new technology. The um homeowner for two years pays I I was told $1,000 a year for the inspections. Is that true?
Um so it depends on the technology you choose and the provider that you choose. But see, now wait a minute. When you said that earlier, I went into the board of health the other day. They were like, "Oh, you have to have only these systems." So, you said you can choose anything. But it sounded like, "No, you're only allowed no or will singular
is the ones that they seem to be those are the most commonly it's really the engineer will help you decide which technology." Um, but we have a performance standard of 19 milligrams per liter. And some of them I can Yeah.
some of them meet that uh consistently and then there are other technologies that are in the testing phase or provisional um that and I've mentioned there were some that are in this testing phase that do better than 19 they're down to 10 but we didn't we
felt 19 was the sort of the um accepted technology level um and and so um in terms of the we have heard complaints about the um so there's two pieces to
the um uh maintenance of this one is the regular operations and maintenance um that you need to make sure it continues to operate because it's an active system as opposed to a passive leech field. Um
and the second part which we require and actually we have a proposal to um scale that back um is the um testing the total nitrogen from the effluent from what comes out of the system to meet sure that it's meeting the standard that we
establish. Um and that um that is expensive um the testing um and we we're we'll be discussing later in the meeting the proposal to um require it for the first two years but after that once
established a a pattern of of um success um that it doesn't need to continue being tested um at that level. How many years do you see that up? I mean how many years do you think that will take to see a pattern that you're two well what we're proposing is two
years starting when upon installation of the system of everybody's system. Okay. So that will that will continue through though you will every each individual person's systems installed. So for you know depending on when it
gets installed two years from how many have you found so far that don't work? I don't offhand know that number. Okay. Can I ask a question? Sure. You're here because you're planning on
Well, we adding an ADU. Yeah. We're hoping to not at So, it's a separate We're our plan. We're hoping was to put it in the front half right on the line of Old Harbor across the streets. Um we're at the highest point very very
high up on the hill. It levels out there. It's um the highest point in Westport. We were told it's 400 ft down to the well. This ADU, which shared the well that we had that was up front because the people that bought us before, we're going to put the house up front. We put our house back so that we
could go walk out. So, we put its own septic system in. Okay. We get we did have Lenny Potter come out and do a test and he it perked and it's fine and it's a flat field. if it was a separate, you know, if we put a small road in um and made it have
frontage or whatever, it would could be a separate building that could be sold on its own, I guess, and probably work okay, but it would be new construction as long as it falls under new construction. I just find this whole thing ironic because the ADU, I mean, for 5 years, we've been looking for a
place so that um once we pass, he has a place to stay that's stable. And um I know this isn't the real answer, but it's at least getting him closer to us in terms of being able to manage him. It's a lot of work and it's it's only going to get worse. So people who have
these needs, it makes the ADU really tough. Um it it makes it a lot more complicated, right? Okay. So, um, you know, I don't know your personal circumstances, but and I don't know the size of your septic system now, but one
of the things and and we're discussing this as part of our reg changes to clarify around ADUs because there's, as you know, the regulations have changed and D has issued specific guidance around septic requirements for so if
you're installing proposing to install a new septic system for your AD EU um correct me if I'm wrong, Matt, but um to add let's I presume a onebedroom um but you eliminate a bedroom in your
existing house so that you maintain the same level of we have a four bedroom for we have a three-bedroom house with no opportunity for any other bedrooms. No, no, no. What I'm saying is fourbedroom septic. You have a fourbedroom septic currently.
Then you could you could tie the ADU into the existing septic if it's possible. It's not that's not practical. It's not practical. Location is too far and it's and that would it's our understanding that would require upgrading the
existing system. Well, it depends. If the exist the existing system is has if it passes a title five inspection and you tie it into it, the only thing you would have to do was put a a separate tank coming out of the ADU into the
existing leeching field. So, we just put a another separate tank that would catch the solids and stuff coming out of the ADU. We wouldn't have to do the upgrade with the D9 or anything, but only if that was, you know, practical and that would work for you. Yeah. Right. So, uh, you know, you have
some specific circumstances that, um, I noticed most people who apply in 30 minutes still are doing additions or above garage or other not doing this sort of thing. Yeah. Well, I I think there's lots of creativity around ADU and I think it's a really good thing to add, you know,
housing capacity. Um but there are ways um in many circumstances people can um maintain the existing number of bedroom or capacity of the septic system and not have to put in a new system or whatever
and your circumstances are are not conducive to that. So you you're in a different category than most people who might be considering adding you know an ADU component. So um so I I appreciate that that's it's complicating
your planning process but I think um we you're right any regulation is um can't be customized to every specific circumstance. It is a blanket. Um there
is a variance provision on our regulation so that we can address in certain circumstances you know if there's an incred a hardship or or um there's you know a legitimate justification to make for an exception to a regulation we do have that
provision. So that's something that we do actively incorporate in our regulations to try to address when there's an unusual circumstance that um you know so so I think I'm I'm pretty
confident that we did a very robust um public education and process that was sensitive to the feedback that we got that we based it on the science from the integrated um targeted water management
plan um to help the town address a townwide, you know, a a state and federal um requirement um and that we were being uh very responsible about it. So, I'm I feel pretty confident that we have done
a pretty good job and that we are still responsive to concerns that come up as we gain experience. So for instance, trying to um balance the uh cost issue with the making sure the technology is
working and that it's it's you know managed well. So we're looking at reducing the testing requirement. We're looking at clarifying the ADU requirement in our regulation. That's part of what's on our agenda. So I feel pretty um I'm willing to defend very
strongly the process we've undertaken the basis in which we've done the regulation. Um I think one of the things just to be clear um um because it was something you said about the Barnstable County system where
we um that the reports go to is is is not they don't do the inspections. you hire the on andm provider is the one who does operations and maintenance provider the service contractor like you have somebody come service your
uh you know your heat pump or your your sump pump or whatever it's the same thing and so it's you choose and they um inspect and make sure they monitor and make sure everything's and they that report then goes to Barnstable County for tracking keep track
they keep back and so they cuz they have a big data for us to do it. We just don't have the they were the ones I found information along with the local one saying how great the nitrite levels are doing now. I mean that and the thing that I noticed that that bothered me about that report from the the Klein whatever their name
is I'm sorry I have a blind Kleinfelder but that was they used very old numbers um up to 2015 I think and um it wasn't very recent for for what's been going on with what the state's
looking at and so when I compare it's like wow we've already achieved the I I will say it's nice to see um the levels are much better. Um, so that's a that's a complicated situation. You know,
I'm sure it changes in itself. Yeah. Because the way the the way that the TMDL is done, I think from the state and federal kind of actually all looks at the subwaterheds.
Each subwaterhed has its own target. And so we have been doing well as an overall system relative to what the I was I was looking at the ones locally from the WM.
Yeah. Yeah. Well, and they show they show what the target they show what the targets um so the process was that there were target stations that were set up. Mhm. with numbers that were to achieve
compliance with but it's not totally clear whether uh DP is relying on those to achieve compliance and once we meet those once
the river meets those that um we met compliance because I think that their view was their view of it is that here was a certain load and uh that is really what the measure
of compliance is and those loads are broken down by subwaterheds and so it's great that we're doing that and I think the objective because I was um part of the group that represented the board of health on the
integrated plan and and we talked about it and part of it is well let's not make it worse you know we we can't really go back and fix everybody's septic system, but at least we can reduce the future load from getting higher and
higher so that at the point that we have to address it, it's going to be that much more complicated to do it. That was really the driving philosophy of that. Um and but any event and and just to say I think that
I think everybody has been caught up in the impacts of inflation and shortage of supply which has increased the you know the hard costs the equipment costs and the service costs from the costs that we
were looking at when this was initially adopted. um which was to you know try to as Tanya said kind of get a hold get a hold of it not just ignore it until someone you know the state finally came and said you
have to do something about this and we had spent 5 years just putting more and more nitrogen into the system and um I think the other other point to make about the fiveyear and the 20-year just to understand that is that um
uh I spent a whole lot of my career in in D before I retired and came here and it was a very clever
um approach to how to get communities to sign up, you know. So there's a Massachusetts provision which says if the state mandates you have to do something then they have to pay for it.
So what they set up is a system that says okay everybody has to repair their um septic system to upgrade their septic system every homeowner within 5 years.
Right? That was it. Okay. So, we're not going to make the state do it. We're going to put the burden on every homeowner. And we're totally septic. So, that would have been and it was an enormous cost. Or the town can choose to take
responsibility and and do a bigger plan. Of course, it's not a mandate. dead. The town chose to do it rather than put the burden on all individual homeowners to do something which was totally impossible.
You know, you have probably 16,000 15,000 systems to fix in 5 years. Yeah. It was hundreds of millions of dollars. Well, it's impossible. It's impossible. So, they said, "Here's your choice. Do you know do it impossible or Yeah. And that's and that's, you know, and
that's how it and that's how it went. But that's what applies to the cape. It does not apply. But but then I think right and again you know again I think and part of it was that D besides the um
response that communities like ours led um they realized this is way more than the agency could they just bit off more they could than they could chew just in terms of the number of communities that they were looking like if everyone had
come in it would swamp them. So, and and because and because the the Cape is unique in in a number of ways because they had been trying to solve this problem for years because of the economic impact it was having on the
communities and and there was a lot of support to do this because the business community was afraid that all the um harbors were just going to fill up, you know, uh you know with uh become overly
contaminated. So there was a more receptive audience out there and the Cape is a big proving ground. But uh and just say one more thing which is that and the reason that this came about
was because of a lawsuit. Right. Right. And so it's it it's out there. Okay. I don't think the I don't think um and at some point um again trying to get ahead
they'll come back and you know be knocking on our door. So it it was this was turn I understand we're trying to do it and it's unfortunate that it's unfortunate for homeowners that the costs have have gone up the way they have
and we thought volume would reduce the cost you know consider supply isn't there there's not enough people to do it yeah but and then I I think for on the homeowner side it's beyond the sticker shock
there's the shock talk of something that's a pretty basic system, right? Flows in, gravity takes care of the rest. Now, we've introduced all this technology. We've introduced pumps and fans and all this stuff and computer control
and um as somebody who's been involved with technology for many years, it always fails. You know, when does it not break down? And that environment is going to be very costic that it's those motors are operating in. So, okay, what
am I going to get out of of lifespan before that stuff's getting yanked out and put back in? And then it it has the sense of are we on a little bit of a moving target? So, this is the new accepted. Oh, your thing failed. Well, now you're going to have to upgrade it
to this because that's the new standard. So, well, it's Yeah. I mean, D has said 10 is the new standard. we have 19 as the standard. Right. Right. And so that it just becomes this kind of thing that keeps shifting. But even then, let's say the standards stay the same. Just the
operating systems within these tanks are going to continuously um turn over and that oh well that component that we used to be able to plop in there that doesn't exist anymore. So now you can't get it. So we see that in cars and all sorts of
people. So, but thank you for the chance to answer some more questions. Sure. You know, I understand that if this, you know, all of a sudden you have you have a lot on your plate and all of a sudden it's like, hey, wait a minute. But
I think we did a we we're really trying to be balanced. We answered your questions. But if you have more, feel free to um reach out again. Thank you. Thank you. Byebye. All right. Um, so we're going to return to the agenda.
Um, well, um, local subject regulation proposed updates. Um, we had talked about this at our working meeting and I just put something out there, um, just for the
initial discussion. Um uh and I hope you guys had a chance to look at it and if you've got critiques, now's the time. I did. That's why I asked about the ADU. Yeah. Um was if they were connecting it to the same system, then
Yeah. I mean the the all the scenarios I mean I g I included we included in the packet the title five guidance which is pretty um you know a lot of scenario driven um uh examples. Um so uh I was
thinking that maybe that was one of the motivators for them to come in as you know would um possibly doing an ADU. So turns out that was right. Um so um I'm trying to keep it simple. Um
so if it's connected to its own new system or if there's an increase in the actual or design flow to an existing system um and there this this is not to um preclude the existing title five permits like the second tank for instance or
whatever. Um um but I was we um since we didn't really you know this new construction definition didn't contemplate ADUs um I just thought this would as simple as
possible um proposed definition addition to clarify on ADUs. that one looking for feedback. I was It looked fine to me. I don't know
if you want um you you have or at the bottom. Was that to replace the entire Oh, that's for section 16. There's two. Yeah, I'll explain that in a second. I'm just talking section 10. Okay. Melanie, are you okay with
Yeah. Um when I went back to um it actually I I think the new I think the I think the new language is um is fine. Um I got kind of caught up in the
um a little bit in another part of it. Um but maybe we can uh it had to do with the fact that in our regulation we don't kind of define
what a facility is which title five kind of defines a facility and the reason that I thought it became relevant and a slight is that where um this says
the construction of a new building for which an occupancy permit is required. Um, and I think the what the way title 5 and that I guess kind of presumes that
there is that that building is actually um is actually going to generate flow, you know, that they have either, you know, and and I know this is really off tangent,
but since we were messing with it, I just brought it up. But um well, let's uh so so I I I I'm I'm I'm fine with this and I guess just add a a collateral question. So is if someone
has a one-bedroom ADU then but will the and it's separate from the it it's an independent. Is it designed to accommodate two bedrooms or is there does that go back to that kind of minimum? The only exception
you don't have to you can you can do one. You can do one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um I will just um to be clear I think I don't have it. Um our definition section says uh you know we adopt the
title five definitions. Um I think that um oh yeah facility would be that you know that we don't we're not changing the facility definition right in other words
that's what would apply um so cuz it it it um well I because I thought we had kind of separated that out. So let's see. So just to um
uh so the septic system is defined as a system of sanitary disposal of sanitary sewage below the ground surface of a of a facility. Mhm. And then they define facility
as um anything that's connected to a septic system. Um and so and I think that's um and then our definition we use the
word facility in the in the except where board determines that it's feasible to connect a facility to blah blah blah blah that um uh uh they have to install a nitrogen reducing system. And if this is just
like a a practical um I guess just asking Matt is is are there buildings that are constructed that require occupancy permits that do
not require or that would require an occupancy permit but would but would not require any action from us because there is no waste water being disposed out of it, but it would still require an occupancy permit.
So, I think I'm not 100% sure, but I think the only time an occupancy permit is required if it's like for if it's a living space, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom. Okay. All right, then. I won't worry about it. But like for for instance, like some sheds if they're, you know, over 200
square ft. I forget what the it is in the building code. I think it's two over 200 f feet and it's just independent just a shed. It doesn't require cuz I thought that maybe it was because you know that that it was um you know and that they get the
occupancy permit where they get to sign off from electrical and all the other stuff that they need. So they have to get all those permits to actually use the use the right. Yeah. I think so you have to get if there's plumbing the answer to sign
up plumbing electrical electrical right but there's the plumbing part of it but anyway it's it's not worth beating beating the but okay um so moving on to section 16 this is sort of what I was you know we were talking about we had talked about
working meeting um so there were two ways they thought of addressing this one is to just um uh change that last sentence to not be at a minimum just say the board of health shall require the semiannual for the first two years after
installation in order to evaluate system compliance with the performance standards. So, it basically says it's a two-year requirement period. Um, or I, you know, the or is rewarding the
whole section um slightly um to achieve this presumably the achieve the same um outcome but maybe clearer. So, it's either or are the two versions of what
I'm proposing. Um, but the intent I think we agreed at our working meeting is is to have the two years of testing requirement and then not have them have to come to us to make a case for lowering the requirement or anything
like that. We just make that the default. I thought the was two years. It had to be an average of of those two years 19 milligrams per liter or less in order to for them to eliminate the two years of testing because we wanted to make sure that the system was functioning over those two years.
Right. So that is that well in order to evaluate system compliance with the performance standards. So it's it's there. Um and we still have the opportunity to require like if they don't meet the requirements we're going to say under you know the
additional maintenance and monitoring that they have to continue testing. Um but um that would be the onus would be on us not on the homeowner too. Um, so that um I know that we we have other topics
we want to address in a working meeting. So um I think we're losing steam here. Um, so if we want to, um, if you want more time to think about that, um, we can, um, take it up and and work on that
it if there's some changes that are needed in a working meeting and then schedule a a hearing to, um, adopt the proposed changes. I don't know how people are feeling. That's fine with me. I don't know about Phil.
H, he's engrossed. Oh no, I'm I'm uh the suggestion is that we don't make any vote now. We take it to the working meaning and tweak it some more. Um um I guess I was thinking as to
whether or not um but I I I'm fine either way. I mean, I think the I think the outcome is fine. I I don't know that I think it's good that we're communicating a message that we're only going to require two years. And so that
is um and uh and I and I and I was just thinking about it from whether uh it accomplishes that you know from u not
not from a practical implementation but from a messaging perspective. I guess that's what right well this is a legalistic business regulation and we can we can do outreach um that is more um shall we say user
friendly um or um you know sort of for the general public lay friendly you know um yeah because this language is you know I'm I'm putting on the lawyer hat
I mean boring I mean so Um um so it it's not saying so we're not saying that um we can require additional maintenance and
monitoring if the system is not is underperforming. It's much more open-ended than that. Right? is we can just choose to say, you know what, we've decided everybody has to do another two years because we think it's reasonable and necessary rather
than one that says if you fail, you know, we may do we may do something we may we may well I I I would trust the judgment of the board certainly this this board to determine
reasonable that they would not abuse the reasonable and necessary language, Right. Right. Well, I guess we don't know anyway, do we? I mean, we're not getting the test results, right? We can go We can go on and go on and look. Okay. So, go on and look and we can see. I
would just suggest that we leave it as it's an average of the two years and then the board may require additional testing. Um, rather than just cut it off and say two years and that's good. I mean, we want the systems to perform or we want to know that the systems are
perform. Yeah. Well, then that then that would say you wouldn't I think it's clearer in the this or version the second version. So, you like the second version better. Mhm. Okay. It was just, you know, when you're doing
a regulatory change, you try to minimize the actual words that change. But, um I'm I'm fine with whiting out, you know, like redlinining the entire section and just reworking it. It it it I think it's clear. I think it's clear that's why I did a proposed alternate
you know um version but um I think the section works good okay so uh if so there's two options we can think about it some more at the next
working meeting and then schedule a public hearing or we can say okay we're comfortable with these proposed changes and schedule a public hearing at this point I'm I'm comfortable with the changes. I don't know about um Mr. Phil who has all
the Dal brain that he works when he looks at all these policies. I mean, I didn't have a chance to um read this before, but
um I I think if you if you two of prefer the second version of it, you know, I don't have a problem going ahead and moving forward with it. Okay. Okay. Do we want to um I don't think this hearing would take long. I think we
could do it in a regular meeting if we wanted to or we could schedule a separate meeting. I think it'll be very short. Um, so we have You mean like have a meeting and then close it and open a like make a public meeting? Is that that part?
Well, the select board do public hearings and they're all hearing right right yes. Mhm. Um I don't think they even do it that formal at the select board. But anyways, would it be okay if we um if we kind of just give us from now until the next
meeting to just so I can look at this and just think about it a little bit. Sure. Sure. Yeah. And we can come back at the next meeting. I just um I'm going to be out of town the first couple weeks in October. So um
where are we? Um so our next regular meeting is the 15th. So, we'll we'll just put this on the agenda for the 15th to kind of Okay, that sounds good to me. All right, good. Thank you for your feedback on that.
Um, and I think we have one more. Board member updates. Board member updates. I've already done mine. Okay. I don't really have anything to talk about. Um, uh, well then, um, yeah, you know, I
nothing particularly new. finished up my first round of the unknowns research. Um, we can talk about that more, but I think we should, you know, go to a working meeting probably at some point and see where we are with storm water with, um, what else do we
have going on? Eventually, we're going to get back to the wall rag. Okay. Um, are we ready to do schedule? Why don't we wait and see what happens at the next select board meeting because that might require us to spend some time
thinking about things. Um so why don't we just put um on the 15th on the agenda scheduling a working meeting somewhere in okay the future. Okay. Um and our then we have a regular
meeting on the 29th. Okay. Any other agenda items? Any I mean anything we didn't anticipate or topics for the next regular meeting? We just raised two. Um that does I just remind the board that uh Tuesday
afternoon to Friday I'll be off at a conference. So I'll be out at a conference hall next week. Next week. Okay. For the most part. All right. Anything else? Um just Oh, I should say
the appointment. Huh? You have appointments on the agenda. You have one appointment that was Yeah, just the four the Yeah, we finished it. I had
cabinet. I think you have an old agenda. epidemic. Um, we'll make sure we get the current agenda so you can align your to your notes. Um, uh, the Westport River Wershed Alliance is sponsoring an
electronics recycling um, on September 17th from 9 to 11, I believe. Is that correct, Phil? Um, behind town hall. Just a reminder for that. And again our we're planning household hazards waste collection for the end of March and more
details to come on that. Okay. Anything else? No, Madam Chair. So I move that we adjourn this meeting at 5:30. Second. All in favor? That's unanimous. Thank you.