Okay, you ready? Okay. Uh, good afternoon and welcome to the Westport Board of Health November 10th, 2025 meeting, which I'm calling to order. Under Mass General Law, Chapter 3A, Section 20F, this meeting is being
recorded. Um, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge algiance 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. Um first under um on the agenda um the
director's written report. Any questions from the board? >> If not, we can do. Thank you for reminding me. Um, we can move. Um, um, Matt's update, please. >> Okay. So, um, as of uh, November 6,
we've administered 120 flu vaccines and, um, we still have a small supply of vaccines still available. Call the public health nurse to schedule your vaccination at 50863610:30 if interested. Back in March, we were asked to submit a
proposal for the um use of a potential $25,000 airmark on and we did. And on October 23rd, we were notified that we received um that air mark. It was in the state budget. Um our plans are to um use
that for a well at the transfer station so we can maintain and wash our vehicles and um equipment down so you know if we can get some more life out of them. Um >> condition has to be we can consult him on our whale wrecks. >> Yes. Yes.
Um George Campbell notified me that several large shrubs were growing in various areas around the cap landfill. He advised that they should be removed to prevent potential damage to the um barrier and recommended completing the work before his inspection on November 14th. >> Matt, can I ask a question?
>> Yes. >> How do the shrubs impact the land infill cap? So they grow and if they get thick and the roots as they grow and they grow deeper, they can permeate the barrier. Yep. And that wouldn't, you know, be good. We'd have to repair that or, you
know, so in order to get um not even have to worry about it, we cut them down per his instructions and um so they won't be an issue. >> Um they're in difficult areas of the landfill. They're way in the back on the back side. So, we had a heck of a time
um getting them out, but uh the staff did a good job getting them out. >> So, that's it for that. >> Um can I ask an update? I was um at the transportation this weekend. Um when are we going to get the new demonstr?
>> When did we or when will we? >> When will we? >> When will we order it? >> Oh, okay. >> Uh we haven't It just It just literally went down. Um, so, um, I'll look at, um, I have to get a quote, which we always get a quote because the prices in those fluctuate
>> and, um, we'll we'll get another covered dumpster for that. >> Okay. >> But we have, uh, another spare dumpster that we've been using >> for it. They do. So, all they're doing is filling the bins and then we scoop out the bins and we put them in the the the dumpster that we have designated for
it. >> Okay. The reason why we don't put the open dumpster up there is because we have issues when we did that before with people just throwing everything and anything in it. So, we keep it out of the way. People put the stuff in the plastic spin. We scoop it out with the loader and put it in the dumpster we
have designated for the mixed plastics. >> Okay. So, where's that dumpster? >> It's uh right down side of the containers next to the rigid one. So, mattress containers. It's right there. Right down there. >> Okay. Just curious. >> All right. Is there is there anything about animal control? Anything going on
with animal control? >> We're still on our search to um find a an on call person. Okay. >> Um and um the bike shed. I noticed one of them was fully um well they both been
constructed and one of them has the um roof on it. I just um >> they both are now fully constructed. >> Okay. Yep. Now it's just a matter of putting them into place where we, you know, want them and neaten up that area a bit. >> Yeah. Well, most of the all the jump
bikes are gone. It's much better already. So, great. All right. And I just another question about how are our Boy Scouts doing down there with their collection. Do you know if there's >> I don't know how they're doing with, you know, how many things or how
many cans or what's going on with that, but um they seem to be, you know, doing operating well. >> Okay. >> Down there. >> Seems whenever I recycle stuff with them, it always seems like a lot is full
in inside the the um tent. They seem to be having hopefully they're keeping up but um they seem to be getting a lot of traffic. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um anything else? >> Director approved plans. >> Yep. Moving on to director approved
plans plans. Um >> um can you go over those please? Yep. So, um we have a four bed new construction 4bedroom on a 60,984T lot on 1168 Main Road for Lisa Simon. Um
that one has been through Concom. We have a 4 bedroomedroom repair on 104,544T lot on 177 Howland Road for John Morrison. Um that one is replacing assess pool and has been through Concom. We have a four
bedroomedroom repair on a 72,840 foot lot on six angel court for a Peter and Monica Estrella and that's been through Concom. We have a two-bedroom repair on an 11,9 11,711qt
lot on 81A Sylvia's Lane for Leonard Boyce. And this one is replacing a cesspool and been through Concom will also require a two-bedroom deed restriction. And we have a three-bedroom repair on a 20,386
ft lot on three Greenfield Road for Mark Saria. Um, it's been through Concom and this will also require a three-bedroom deed restriction. >> Any questions on any of those? >> Nope. >> But the sing Yes. the main road with
Singular. Is that the Dite? >> Yes. So, that one is going to use a um quick four in a singular and the one on 81A Sylvia's Lane is going to use a BSF for the Fuji system. BSF stands for bottomless sand.
>> Oh, bottom of sand. >> Okay. All right. So, um I move to endorse the director approved plans um uh for 1 168 Union Road, 177 Howland
Road, 6 Angel Court, 81A Sylvia's Lane with a two-bedroom deed restriction and three Greenfield Road with a three-bedroom deed restriction. >> Second. A motion been has been made and seconded to approve those five plans.
Um, all in favor? >> I. That's unanimous. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, moving on to minutes. >> I didn't get minutes in my >> I didn't pay attention. I didn't either.
>> So, it's hard for me to approve the minutes when I haven't seen them. >> So, they're not even in the clerk's packet either. So I'm not sure what what happened there. >> Yeah. An oversight. Too many things going on in the office. So um okay. Um moving on then to Oh, I'll
take a motion to pass over. >> I move that we pass over the minutes for uh November 8 3rd, 2025. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. That's unanimous. Um okay. Um moving on to other business. Um the first
agenda item is the financing agreement package. This is for um the septic milling program that the town has been participating in. This is the first time we've had to um review and sign off on a
um financing agreement package. um a lot of technical language, but I didn't see anything jumped out at me as a concern. Um any questions for Matt or any concerns?
No, I mean it was a little bit hard to get a comprehensive idea because a lot there were portions in which they referred to other documents which had >> probably more meat in it as terms of
what expectations were you know like you need to comply with the >> well they were the exhibits were all attached. Oh, okay. I didn't go through all the digits. >> They were um thin, so not a lot of detail. Um Yeah. So, um
>> No, it's fine. I'm fine with it. >> I am as well. >> Okay. Um what Matt, do we need to take a motion to have you authorized you to sign it? Okay. >> Okay.
>> Go ahead. So I move that we um authorize um the environment to um approve the Westport CWT-25-9 financing agreement package. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded to have Matt
sign off on that regulatory agreement. Um all in favor? >> I I that's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. All right. Um, we can move on to board member updates. >> We'll have to drag this out.
>> Go. >> I don't have anything to report. >> Oh, no. >> Okay. >> Have to have lots of chatting now. >> Um, I am I have begun working on the shorelines um column. Um, I sent an email to um to
Olive to work together um on that. So, that is going to be in process. My hope is to have it um in by the week of Thanksgiving. Um but if I can have it in earlier, I will. But that's my my goal. Um and it's
going to be about um what kind of for public health issues related to government shutdown where people can get uh support and assistance. Um but also of course I want
to focus on part of it is the mental health issues that are associated with the stress and the strain on um individuals and families as as we um try to cope through um the shutdown. So, so it it'll be a
combined piece, >> right? And and sort of the same like anytime there's a disruption, whether it's a government shutdown and a pandemic or whatever, that's sort of the it's useful to have um information about how to get support
and resources. >> I found an actually a new resource where you put in your zip code and it tells you all the resources that are available at the zip code. >> Okay. around the zip code. So, um that I'm hoping to include that um in the article.
>> Um the other thing is um um the opioid settlement fund advisory committee has um their meeting next Tuesday um the 18th at um 6:00 and the town hall. Um, if anybody has any input to
how the funds should be used um or wants to hear more about the work that the committee is doing, I encourage them to attend. Um, and um, we're still waiting for the new administrator who um, once
the contract is signed and he is in place um, to discuss moving forward um, who will be responsible for the funds and how they would be distributed. But um I continue to chair that committee and um finding some frustration in this
process. Uh we just want to help people. So we're going to continue our work and and advise the select board accordingly. So, um, and then, um, I continue to do, although it's not a board of health sponsored, uh, community, uh, group, um, I continue
to do the caregiver support group, um, once a month at the library, and that is, um, this coming Thursday from 2:30 to 4:30. Um, and anyone who is care taking care of a loved one, um, whether
it be a child taking care of a parent or a spouse taking care of the other spouse or, um, you know, when we've got one person who's taking care of a newborn and a mother who struggles with dementia. So um just for people in the community to be aware um as a
psychiatric nurse um I was asked to to start this group um by someone who is taking care of her husband and every time we have the meeting I have a dozen people that come if not more. So it was
a need in the community that um that was identified and um everyone that comes to the group says how helpful it is and it's not because of of my facilitating but it's bringing people together and they can share and support each other and they also said to
me that um part of what helps them is now that when they're when they're out in the community in Westport and they see somebody in the group that's an immediate connection and there's a sense of not feeling alone, >> you know, where a lot of people who are caregiving at home, they feel very alone
and isolated. Um, so this is another um um impact of that kind of group. So I encourage anybody in the community um that is as a caregiver um to come and participate. >> Um do we have information about that
group on the board of health website? because should be >> well we how we advertise for it um is through um neighborhood uh >> coastal neighbor network
>> coastal naval network and um they also have put it in I think they put it in um the council on aging they it's not it's not regularly in the shorelines I probably should do that or we should do that um because they have that ongoing
community events that every every uh week do the same events. >> So, that could be something that we could add to that. But, um I'm I'm initially I thought maybe a few people would come, but I I'm amazed at the
number of people that are taking care of someone and they need need that connection. So, >> so that's it. That's my update of the things that I'm doing. >> Great. Um,
okay. I have um am working on sort of looking this is a I imagine a potential project for the new year depending on workload um for the office and staffing. Um, I have reviewed the um, we talked about
this a few months ago that um, to start notifying people with unknown septic systems because we've been trying to scan all our files. We're pretty much through most of the >> existing files. It's just the staff now have to manage files as they come in,
which is a a big issue, but we need to have we can't live with paper files forever. Um so uh we want to start the process of communicating to people who for whom we have no septic
plan information. Um and we've I've grouped that into um um properties where the house was built before 19760 I think. Um which indicates it's most likely to be a sub success school if
it's that old. And we have no records. Um and we agreed to target a a group of properties um sort of from Hicksbridge south on on the east branch um off Drift Road um the houses that were close to
the river um to sort of just test test the communications and and see how that goes. So, I have drafted a letter um that could be used which um you know lets property owners know that we have
no um septic information on file. Um and you know if they have something please share it with us so we can scan it into our records. If they don't they could do have it their system pumped out. the septicans in pumper could identify what
type of system gen um or they could do a type five inspection um so we get information about what kind of um house septic system they have. Um, also
along the way we've been um um as we go through um as you know we get in our packets um every couple weeks we get all the pump reports. I review all those pump reports for when the
septic pumper has identified a cesspool >> and I check our records and if it was an unknown then we have a likely cesspool um >> probable cesspool. Um and so I've identified 16 um right now um just again
trying a to sort of a manageable group um to send a letter to saying based on you know we don't have septic information on file but based on pump records we believe you might have a cesspool you know if you have information please share it with us
so we can scan it if not um just FYI um access pools have to be replaced by 20 February 1, 2028. Um so we have when we get closer to actually moving forward probably this after the holidays, I'll
share that letter. You guys can um edit it as you see fit and um we could do that mailing. It's um 40 for the drift road group of um cesspool um or of
unknown sorry and 16 um of the unknowns probable cesspools um so you know 50 or 60 letters to send out um maybe the wershed alliance will help again I don't know maybe the w waterershed alliance
could help again if not um it's not it's not as big a group as we first did >> right. Right. >> Um, so that's one thing. Can I just say because I thought that we talked about,
you know, this idea of cross referencing the addresses with the assessor's card, I guess, to see like when the last time it was sold and whether or not that that
was in the period where Title 5 was requiring inspections as a condition of sale and whether that was too complicated or not, but at least we you know be able if
it wasn't to communicate um you know that an inspection was required you know when arguably when you purchased the house even though >> yeah um >> so >> I did not do that research. I did check all the assessors cards for this
grouping of 50 or 60 >> um because when we down when we set up the database it's from 2023 I believe or 20 end of 22. >> Mhm. >> So um there may have been turnover in the last few years and none of them and
which is not a surprise because presumably if it had turned over they would have had a title five inspection. They would have had to have been in a big pile. Um, >> yeah. So, maybe it's another layer like once we get responses or if we don't get responses those that it would be
worthwhile just kind of following up on that because it might not have even been the >> current >> anyway. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, >> so what I can tell from what I've looked at, most of these are long-term
>> residents and you know there hasn't been >> Yeah. um change um because you can look at, you know, when they've done um uh repairs and that kind of thing, building building permits. So, um get a sense for the properties. Um
>> uh so, um just a reminder that we have over 700 >> Yeah. >> unknown. So, it's a big project. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Over 700. >> I thought you said I I'm glad I asked because I thought you said over a hundred. I'm like I think it's more than that. >> No. Yeah. Over 700. Uh yeah. So, um it
that would be a big project. So, we're we're taking off a small manageable bite um to see how that goes. Um but I think we should wait until after the holidays. So, I'm proposing to do that in January. Y
>> um the other thing is um I received an email from uh some residents who have a an Advantics um DITE system and have been having trouble with their um ON&M provider who's just not showing up which
is of course a concern. Um and um so I did some followup. They asked me to reach out to Oreno and which I did. Um and um I got from them their list of certified O andM providers
um as um and also Gabby had done research before she left. Um so we have a list of seven or eight um on and m providers who do um uh some combination of advantics, fast singular
fuji um systems which are the prominent ones that we have in our in Westport. Um so um and I'm getting uh some of the those are not certified by oro um so I'm connecting those um on and providers to
oro >> um for that um and uh so we have because the barnable list of 30 or so providers >> doesn't tell you which type of technology they service just where they're located um and that's pretty
cumbersome. So this will be a useful tool for Westport residents um to know their options because and so I and I don't focused on >> um providers within a reasonable distance. You know I'm not going to put IPS switch or
>> you know well fleet on the list because they're not going to come to Westport, right? Um so um focus mostly on providers that already service Westport or are close enough um to be um feasible solutions. Um so
>> so that's that. Um and then after the holidays I'll start working on the um hazardous waste um collection day which is scheduled for March 28th. Um so we can start figuring out um the logistics
for that. whether we'll charge a fee. Um how we'll do you know whether we do reservations or first come first serve how we're going to set that up. We do we have um uh the Trident environmental same provider reserved as um did the
last time which was um very um successful and and they were good to work with. So um so that's that's all set up but more work to be done there. Were there any um do we get any feedback from people in
the community about how we had organized it before that it worked or didn't work or >> Well, we did it in 2021, so sort of still during the pandemic um because we did appointments, right? We did um I
in part because I visited some other hazardous waste collection um um days in other communities just to sort of see the mechanics and how it operates. Um and and other communities do them far more regularly than we do. We had
Westport used to do them. the select board used to run them um many years ago and then they stopped doing it, you know, as the budget gets constrained. This is one of the things that fell away. Um but I thought it was really
important to re um reinvigorate that option and and we did get support of obviously a town meeting to fund it from free cash. So um we didn't get any complaints that I recall. Um but um
um I think um my my my one of my thoughts is we do sort of halfhour block so that people don't have a specific time but just come between 10:30 or 11 or 11:30 to manage the flow so we don't have everybody
coming at 9:00 and you know you wait a long time. Um so but I'm open for discussion as we start. Okay. Um it is just about 4:30. Anything else from
remind Oh, sorry. One other thing. Um this is for Phil. I meant to reach out to you. I got a call from a resident about the water line um up on Route Six and um somebody was concerned about volatile organics, VOCC's.
>> Um >> and Matt reminded me that the reason for the waterline was primarily PAS and and manganesees. Um right. >> So I don't know if you know of anything about she mentioned something about a plume. I don't I said we're we're not in
the loop really about the waterline. Didn't know if you knew anything. >> No, I mean I mean historically the reason that there existed a waterline now was I think related to historically
the VOCC's >> right. >> Yeah. But I haven't I think it was the you know the you know the two contaminants that you mentioned. >> Okay. >> Um you know that came out of kind of testing wells and testing at the
at the school. >> Okay. >> So, >> um she indicated she thought >> public education should happen around that and of course we did a Sharon's article about the BAS. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, um >> Okay.
>> Yeah. And Yep. Anyway. >> Okay. So I just >> I think I still have the contact information at D for the person who is you know managing that but um there really hasn't been any reason to reach out. >> Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Okay.
Um I believe we're at 4:30 so we can um call that >> come on up. Um um you had a request. Um and we had a letter.
Um Oh, we Let's be informal. You can sit at the table. >> Okay. >> Unless you want to be at the podium. >> No, I won't. I thought that was >> where um so uh you asked for this discussion. I'm going to let you start and we'll
we'll have um Joe was the agent to do the inspection and Matt is here. Um >> so I was just wondering what the reason for being at my house that day that you checked the septic >> the reason why we checked >> why the reason why you guys were there
that day like what >> I believe there was a complaint. >> Okay. From whom >> can I can I find that out? The reason being I have there was a person that um not because I want to pinpoint one
person. There's a reason why the uh when I called the septic company to come pump it out like I do regularly. >> U matter of fact it's been once a year. >> I have instead of four people live in my house have six people living in my house. So um when he came he came at the
end of the day he told him he was I'm almost full. He was there for 10 minutes. I have it on my ring. That's no not enough to pump out the septic. >> Mhm. >> Right. So I was like and it was just as bad as it was when So a week later I had another septic guy come and pump it out.
Now he was there 45 minutes >> pumping out my septic. >> And I haven't had a problem with my septic since then. >> Granted every once in a while when I let it go too long it you know I have a problem but which that I did.
So, I was thinking maybe it was the first guy cuz I didn't give them um a nice review on online, but but and I haven't had a problem and you know, even when they did come and did a little inspection, just look, there was nothing
wrong with my ethic at you know, showing >> Okay. Um, I'm gonna actually ask um um we have your letter, but I'm gonna ask Matt to give the background about sort of how this whole story started. Or
maybe Joe, I don't know what's on. >> Sure. So, um, you know, we received the complaint um about septic running onto a neighbor's property from um, Three Velvet. So, you know, naturally we we write it up and we respond and that's
that's why we went out just to respond to the complaint. So, um Oh, hold on. So, please uh so anyways, we go out and we um uh I'm sorry, I forget her first name. >> Lisa. >> Met with Lisa. Um she led us onto the
property. Joe and I went out and um we went into the backyard and the first thing that we had the septic plans with us. The first thing I noticed was the swimming pool was on top of the leeching field and um water >> but no no but there wasn't there were no
that when I went there was no water in it but at some point at some point there was >> coming down that's why it was in the process of getting >> so so at some point there was water in it and my first thought was it's really heavy >> and it probably compressed the system
down to a point where there was breakout >> but they did take the pool off and took it down right away. Um, but there could have been damage. That's why we sent the order to have the the system inspected. Um, just to make sure there was no damage. It's functioning as it should.
Um, and you know, there's a lot of weight that it was sitting on there, especially when it was in operation and and even with a little bit of rain water, it's still heavy and it shouldn't be on top of the leeching field. So that's why we um went out. That's and that's why the
order went out um to them to have it inspected. >> Um Okay. So, but did you see anything wrong with it in your visual inspection while you were there? >> Not while we were there. There was no breakout >> and I >> Well, with the exception of the pool
being on top pictures, it's still not not a problem, >> but Okay, go ahead. And it's $800. If I had $800 just laying around just to throw it out just to say that it's been working since May and I haven't had a problem, then I'd say, "Okay, I'll just
throw it throw the $800 and have a check." >> That's my problem. I'm late on my mortgage as it is. This $800 is going to is going to push me behind even more. >> Okay. >> But I understand this is a financial
concern. Um, I think the the his history of having the pool on the leech field is is what is driving the concern about the inspection, not the um complaint. Um, and you've
indicate that you you pump it fairly regularly. Um, >> once a year I have the last two years. >> Usually when you're pumping at least once a year, that means the system is >> wow I have more people living in my house. It's heavily more than it may be
designed for which is another factor for um >> I thought that was the standard >> once I just moved in my house. >> Yeah. >> Typic I mean we say the default is every 3 years. Um when it's heavily used as in
your situation obviously and you're being responsible by having it pumped every year. I appreciate that. Um, but there are some red flags for um why it would be helpful to have a title five inspector um check not only above the
ground visually but but the the whole system given the history of the pool being on top and the um usage. Um, it may be something that we can um have a little time. I was just, you know, >> I was just going to suggest
>> if I see a problem, then I definitely review it immediately also, but I just I just need a little time. >> Yep. So, I'm going to >> unless you say I don't have to do it, then I don't need any time. Um, I I would prefer me personally, but it would
be up to the board um um to have the title five inspection done. I'm I'm open to considering a um >> I didn't realize how much it was going to cost actually. >> Yeah, maybe there's some I there's I
don't know there's a list so you there may be others who are less expensive. um whether there's a time frame that we could um sort of uh suggest that might be a little give them a little um time to recover financially from.
>> So typically the the prices range anywhere from 750 to 1,200. That's what I've heard. Um >> they gone up a lot. I just I mean it's you know not to be insensitive my concern is that
there was damage done from the weight of the pool. So if if you know whether they check it next month, next week or 3 years from now I mean the possibility exists that it's not functioning correctly. So um I I don't really have
any suggestions. I'll leave it up to the board to you know determine what they want to do. I I'm just curious for this type of because I know the inspection covers a bunch of different aspects of this. So, how does one determine
whether the um that the damage that you're concerned about? How do they test for that? >> So, what they do is um they'll open up the tank. They'll they'll typically send the camera down to the debox into the
leeching field. They look for water levels in the D box or staining in the D box, they'll look um you know um if they get in into the I think it's chambers over there. So they typically send the camera down looking for signs or they'll excavate and take the cover right off
the deox and look. >> Okay, >> I got a good suggestion. Wherever the pool was, I'll dig up the ground and look to see if there's any damage and pictures. I'm not going to I don't want to pay $800. It's something I can do myself. Wherever the pool the rim of the pool
was, wherever the was sitting on, I will dig up that portion. You saying it was on a tank that was there will actually see the tank and see if there is um damage. I'd rather dig up my yard than give them $800. I'm a
>> give him a red. >> Um >> Okay. Sorry. >> Thank you. Um I unfortunately um >> that will show damage. I mean, naturally, you're concerned about damage to my septic, right, where the pool was. >> That's the only place,
>> right? I think it's appropriate for an a professional to to do this work. And I I >> I will do a visual inspection. I will call these guys up and tell them to come down and take the pictures. I I mean, damage is the problem. I will show whether or not there's damage or no
damage. And if there's damage, then I can hire the guy for $800. Well, if there's damage, then you don't need to hire the guy when we already know that there's a problem. >> Still got to figure that how to fix it, >> right? That's the issue, which we hope
is not the case. Um, I'm going to open it up to the board for their um comments and suggestions >> and then we'll see where we >> Okay, one one more concern. I hire this guy. He tells me that all kinds of involvement, you know what I mean?
Before, you know what I mean? trying to sell me whatever brand new septic system. That's what I'm concerned about. You know, taking this little thing that, you know what I mean, with the pool that could be a little bit damaged into a $40,000 uh problem. You know what I mean?
Because he said it's the problem, but I've been using it since May and haven't had a problem. So, I don't know where this person maybe have agreements with me next door. You know what I mean? Maybe call him an I don't know. the the point it it's not let's make a
distinction between who's the person who complained and a title five inspector who is a professional certified by the state so their job is not to sell you they don't do >> you yeah I understand I understand I
understand so >> we need to keep >> I don't want to be looking for more damages than that than there is >> understand you're not pick it up and and physically see if the thing is damaged. That's what I want to hear. >> All right. Thank you. Um and now I'm
going to open it up for board members. So Phil >> well, I say I um I don't think it's what you're proposing is really a realistic answer in the sense of
knowing what to look for by way of, you know, tearing up the entire top of your system. And then I'm not sure that it would really matter to someone who was that this was their
job and because they have a responsibility to the board that it's kind of I'm trying to think of you know the right analogy. It's like you know taking your car to the garage and said well I do this and I do that. It's like well you know if you want this work this
is what we charge you know >> that's why I do it myself. >> Yeah. you know, I mean, so, you know, you know, >> that's my wife all the time. >> Yeah. So I think it's more realistic um to you know think about uh you know give
you know giving you an extension and you know I think the the question is um I know that you don't want to spend the money but what's realistic to you for you to be in a position you know to be
able to um hire somebody I mean is it 30 days is Is it 60 days? Is it 90 days? Is it, you know, you know, give us give us something that you could live with. >> So, if I cannot inspect it myself and I and and you're saying I have to hire somebody to I'm going to dig it up
anyway and show the guy first before he even does any inspection. So, see if there's any dam. Well, I'm going to do that anyway now that you said that. But, and then I'll hide the guy, but 90 days would be probably enough time to >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's good.
>> 14 days is a little tight. when I found out how much it actually cost. But I'm still going to dig it up and look >> and then I can show the guy when he comes. This is what they're looking for damage here. >> Yeah. >> Well, and just say, you know, how's that? Then then if he says there's no
damage there, then we're good, right? They don't have to go through all that other crap, >> right? >> I mean, that's what you're concerned about, the damage from the pool, only the damage from the pool. >> So, there's there's a very prescribed way that they have to do their inspection. Um, I'm not sure that you
digging it up and then just saying, "Okay, it looks good." is gonna qualify. >> I'm gonna have the inspector say whether or not system looks like bones. >> They generally don't dig up the reaching. >> I'm digging it up. That's what I'm going
to dig up. >> This is can see underneath the pool if it's damaged because that's >> Stay quiet. Listen. >> Okay. Sorry. Right. >> My only thought about what you're saying and it's your it's your property. It's like, >> you know, if we thought you had termites and you you said, "I'm going to rip the
entire side of my house off >> to show you would do that." I mean, the termite and then the termite guy comes over and said, "Well, all we needed to do was this >> and that." We didn't need you to tear off the whole side of the house. Okay. We just needed to stick a camera down. >> I want to be thorough.
>> Yeah. I welcome and my concern is also the damage that could be caused by you by doing that where there may not have been damage causing the damage. >> So I would I certainly agree that giving extending the time is appropriate. Um
and so I'd like to make a motion to extend um the deadline for to 90 days. >> Second. Motion has been made and extend and seconded to extend the deadline for a title five inspection for three velvet Avenue by 90 days.
>> Thank you very much. >> All in favor? >> Thanks for listening. >> Thank you for coming in. >> Okay. Um next on our agenda is a public hearing which I'll open. Um, this is for
discussing and voting on um some minor changes to the Westwood local septic system regulation. And I will um read the changes um because they're pretty minor. Um first off um is to uh under
the section um of the regulation called new construction which requires um uh advanced technology for um new um septic systems being installed. usually new construction um and we have
a definition of new construction um which is the construction of a new building for which an occupancy permit is required or an increase in the actual or design flow etc. Um what it did not um contemplate um that definition is the
um change in um the state regulations around accessory dwelling units. And it's been um a source of confusion when people want to add an accessory dwelling unit when uh is it considered new construction. Um
and there are we have a policy around bedroom count. Um so there are many circumstances where um an ADU is being proposed but the homeowner is eliminating a bedroom in the um home so that there's no increase in flow. So
there's a lot of different strategies people use to um manage um the um addition of a accessory dwelling unit on an existing property. The proposed additional language says construction of an accessory dwelling unit or ADU will
be considered new construction if it is to be connected to its own newly constructed septic system. So it's a new system or if there is an increase in the actual or design flow to an existing system. So that would be the case where an ADU is being proposed. They're going
to add a bedroom. They are going to um add flow to their existing system. And then um The fi final sentence is additional title five compliance requirements apply to any any ADU. Um so this is just to
clarify when the use when the a proposed ADU would trigger the requirements under new construction. So that's that's um part one. Um the second part of the proposed um uh amendment to the
regulation is under section 16 monitoring for innovative alternative septic systems. Um right now when people put in um a nitrogen reducing septic system, we require um them to follow the
D approval letter requirements. Um but the board of health also says at a minimum um that they need to the homeowner needs to test um for total nitrogen um semiannually. So twice a
year for the first two years um um and well for for longer. And we're saying we are going to reduce that to for just to the first two years of um and that's to reduce the cost to
homeowners and um the administrative burden to our office um because that'll show that the system is working. Um so so that it's sort of um the language um is just um let me see what's the easiest
way to ex to um present it. Um so the the language now reads the board of health shall require semiannual measurement of total nitrogen in the effluent of any nitrogen reducing system installed per section 10 of this regulation for the first two years. um
uh um after installation in order to evaluate system compliance with the performance standards specified in section 12. Um so that adds a u timeline a limit or limits
the time um uh the number of years required um unless the D requirement is more strict. Some of the time D requires testing four times a year um and continues um on longer than two years.
So this is just the minimum standard that we're establishing and we're restricting that standard to um two years um um in order to make sure that the you know once we have confirmed the system is working then it it will
continue to be um um monitored um through the regular operation and maintenance agreements. Um but it doesn't all require the additional testing for total nitrogen. So that's reducing um the requirements um under
monitoring and that's the second change. Those are the only two changes being proposed to um the localic regulation. The board has reviewed these um this language. Um actually we did at the end of the summer and we were just waiting
for a suitable time in our agenda to um hold a public hearing. Um so um I will open it up. We have looks like we have some folks who are interested in um uh the ch proposed changes. If you have any questions or comments um feel free to
come up to the mic >> and state your name for the >> state your name for the record. >> This is delio and we're here and I I had understood that you had said um that there was uh sewers coming into northwest but now I'm understanding
that's not. So is that right? Um the uh there was a proposal to add sewers along sewer along a sewer line along Route Six. Um but the town voted that down. They decided and I and I thought you said correct me if I'm wrong. I thought you had said to make it equitable you're
you're having since sewers were coming in that people who are doing new construction or ADUs would need to put in ditrates. And now I'm confused again because it says you it sounds like what you just said is that the state's now requiring all ADUs anywhere built in the state or new construction to have denit
systems or is this again just Westport? Um and and I'm trying to figure out too. Well, go ahead. >> Um the they're uh I'm going to carve out Cape Cod. Um D has regulations. >> That's Cape Cod and they made their
decisions. I know. and they changed things right? >> I'm talking about Westport or the state for >> Yeah, I I I I don't want to interrupt you. Um, so sorry. >> Um, the uh so there are different um
requirements in different parts of the state. The regulation around requiring uh nitrogen reducing septic systems is a local requirement, a local regulation adopted by um this board. uh three or
four years ago in response to our um uh what was the report called? Um >> it was the integrated >> integrated total water management plan, right? um and uh which laid out a number
of strategies for the town to come into compliance with state and federal um standards for the water quality of the Westport River because the river was over the total nitrogen load um which uh
has been studied for many years. Um and so we hel at the time when we adopted this regulation um we targeted um new construction because every time you add a home there's more septic load that's
going in to the groundwater maybe eventually to the river. Um and so we wanted to minimize the impact of that new additional load um coming into Westport. Um and then the second part of
that regulation was to focus on the oldest technology which is cess poolools that do not reduce um >> makes sense. >> Um >> no need to go into that. >> So those are the two parts of that regulation. Um and we have been um sort
of twe we've tweaked it once extending the deadline for cess pools. The second um u amendment is proposed because of um is simply it it does not change the
requirement for nitrogen reducing septic systems for new technology that's been in place for four years now um >> here in this town >> in this town right >> however I have a question on that again when I spoke with the state about this my understanding was there was should
was supposed to be a public hearing with much of the town there and a vote by the town on these new on changes such as this. This was during co I understand too. >> Yes, we had we had >> I'm trying to understand how many people were actually involved.
>> Oh, we got a lot of comment. Um uh we had um we went above and beyond the requirements for regulations. What you're talking about for tel meeting is for bylaws. This is a regulation that the board of health has the authority to
uh propose and establish and vote um by having a public hearing. At the time, as I explained the last time you came in, um we had not only a public hearing, we had a um an information session, we did
a Q&A. Um we so we did several we had it on um video so people could call in um because it was during co um we had probably about 50 um written comments so we got a lot of feedback at the time so
it was pretty well >> was there a lot of support I guess is my question. >> Yes there was I know there were a lot of people at that meeting who were on the Buzzards Bay committee and a lot of people at that meeting who are um had some gain to be made. Um you can make >> how do you know that? >> By reading the names and the agenda and
the meaning and the minutes in the meeting. >> Okay. So you so you are you've done your research and >> I've done my research. Yes. >> And you documented that in fact we did get a lot of comment and a little lot of feedback. So >> I just want to put that on the record because you you're expressing concern.
>> I still hear from everybody from so many people they don't know about this until they want to put an addition on or that they want that they're thinking of building an ADU. Um, I've even heard people say, realators say that, you know, this is crazy because who wants to
take one less bedroom out, take a bedroom out of their house because that diminishes the uh value of the house to say it just it doesn't, you know, the ADU is a wonderful idea for a lot of families who are not doing well or with
their ch their children who we all know can't afford homes and it was it was a great idea and I'm just trying to understand I the board in this town feels that it's it's so important for everyone to have this new this change
again. I I think that it's it's very you know it makes sense that the board of health is has to make sure that we're all safe and healthy. But I just don't see these ditrate the system being any more efficient in some places than the regular system when it when it's set up
correctly. If anything, it costs more again on the electricity that we're not going to have. And I know I'm sort of resaying things to you, but still it is we're just when I looked into the after the meeting, I looked into what the other towns had said and
septic makes sense. I sewers make sense. Why not why aren't we pushing that more? So I I just want to clarify what it is that the the change was which actually
reduces the requirement for ADUs to install nitrogen reduction systems. Okay. So it's actually giving more flexibility for ADUs and that's because the
definition in title 5 and the definition in our regulation for new constructions there are two tests and one is that you um one is that you create a you know you build something and it requires a
building permit. Okay. And the second is that you are you're expanding the flow that's going into your septic system. So you're so you add a bedroom and that and you have a system that is designed for
two let's say for three bedrooms. It's designed that way. You're adding so you've got new flow. So what this amendment to our regulation is not to require a
uh a more advanced treatment system if you're not increasing flow. Okay? Or if you're building a totally separate septic system, you know, >> then you need to do it system. But if
you have a system that was designed for four bedrooms and you only have a three-bedroom house and you decide to add a bedroom, you do not have to change your septic system, >> right? I understand. And most new construction,
>> so we were giving some flexibility on that. But yeah, it but it I guess I'm still trying to understand why new construction if it has a septic system that can go in, it's level, it's it's it's large enough space, everything fits, it would work fine. Why it has to
be a d nitrite when it's it might just be fine to do a regular one? Well, it's serving a different purpose because the idea was the river is in violation of state and federal requirements
and that uh rather than making it worse every time a new home was built or or bedrooms were added that we which at some point, >> right, >> we would be required to clean up instead
of making it worse to keep it at least at the level it was and if you look at the data >> from the inspections in fact you know the nitrogen system nitrogen is going down in the river >> yeah we have less farmers we have a lot less what's causing a lot of problems
but >> so that was you know so that was so that's what uh the intent was it's it's not it's it's not that well in some cases it could be in your drinking order but in the the objective ive of um
limiting it to new construction was to not make it worse and make it more expensive in the future to come into compliance for the town. That was the objective >> and >> because you're saying the state is going to require everyone in the state within
a few years to have a denatur. Is that what you're saying? >> Um well they the original proposal that D had for the CA the cape included the south coast and included Westport, >> right? But that got blown away pretty quickly. >> Would you let her finish?
>> I'll sit down. >> Um the uh on the cape um because the problem is uh significant um every homeowner has to upgrade. So we have
been proactive in trying to avoid that fate for Westport. So, um I think we've done a good job by targeting um the areas that we've talked about the new construction and and ces pools um and um
being proactive so that we can demon we de we were able to document and demonstrate to DP that Westport has taken these steps and therefore should not be subject to this sort of um blanket
requirement that we had a targeted approach that was less ownorous for the town overall. I mean, individual homeowners may be affected, but not everybody would be affected. Um, and so I'm I'm really actually very um proud of
the effort, the proactive effort that the board of health has done to help the town avoid the worst or the most uh stringent requirements by being targeted and focused. Um and so as Phil pointed
out, this adding this definition around ADU, we're not changing anything else around new construction is to make it um clearer and more limited so that not every ADU because it's originally our definition just said if you require an
occupancy permit, which you would for an ADU, it would trigger the new construction. We're saying no, that requirement is not applicable to ADUs. The only thing that triggers new construction for ADU is if you're increasing flow or you're putting in a
new septic system for that ADU and that conforms with the targeting new construction where we're adding um septic load to the um groundwater and to the river uh ultimately to the river. So
this definition null change is really designed to help people constructing ADUs um to uh um narrow the scope of of the requirement
um by being clearer in our definition since we had a that usually we try and keep language as simple as possible and so that captured a little bit more of ADUs than than was necessary uh just by
the triggering ing of an occupancy permit. So, we've eliminated that language and just specified exactly when an ADU would be subject to an nitrogen reducing requirement. And the again and the other provision that we u are
proposing to adopt also limits um uh the burden on homeowners around total nitrogen testing. So, both of these requirements are ways to narrow um the impact um and scope. Um, again, we're
trying to be very targeted um to help Westport reach um the state and federal requirements for um the nitrogen load in the river and
yet be sensitive and and sort of um uh limiting the where the the scope um to make it um as manageable as possible for Westport >> Rob Delgado. So Tanya, what you've just
said is you're placing the burden of this compliance on new con whoever's be um about to embark on new construction. They're bearing complete responsibility for the town's compliance.
>> No, I wouldn't say that. You just said that in order to get a hold ahead of the curve and help garner good standing for Westport in the eyes of the DP showing progress, we've
instituted these changes to require nitrate systems for new construction. >> So, it's only new construction that's bearing this this cost burden. >> No, that's not true. Um also we require um cess poolools to be upgraded within
um a period of time because those are the oldest systems that don't um do any water treatment at all. Uh sept treatment of the septic system. >> When is that when are the cesspools begin? When when is the burden on cesspools?
>> The deadline is um uh February 1st, 2028. >> So new construction is immediate. So for the for these ensuing three years, it's on new construction. So we're responsible for bearing the burden. >> Well, when when you do new construction,
you're adding to the load. Existing homeowners who have their own house, they've got their three-bedroom septic system, they their load has already been um factored into the standards that the state set. Um, anytime somebody's
building a new house, they're adding to the lobe. So, that's a distinction. >> How many new new constructions do we have? New housing starts are in Westport annually. >> I don't have that figure. >> Why wouldn't you have that figure?
That's if there's five new houses that are started, how much of a load could that possibly be on the river? If there's 5,000, that's a valid argument. I would think that's an important piece of data to know. >> I don't have an exact figure.
>> So the board made this decision without that kind of data. >> We relied on the um data from the total um the targeted integrated water management plan which did project um construction new construction um over a
10 or 20 year period. I don't have those figures in front of me but you are welcome to look them up. But why wouldn't that kind of information be integrated into your decision-m process? >> It was that was the the initial regulation was based on the targeted
integrated water management plan. There were a lot of public hearings about that plan itself and there were hearings and public information sessions where we had uh science experts um technology experts
talking about all of that data. Um, we had a representative from the planning board. So, we had subject matter experts presenting that information. I am not a subject matter expert on building new building construction. So, I don't have that information in front of me today,
but it is available and um it was factored into our decision-m process four years ago. So the now we're in a situation where the town's rejected the sewers which we all know would be have a significant impact
on reducing the load. Correct. >> Yes, it would. So, I would hope that the board can appreciate the position of the people that are contemplating new construction that all of a sudden the burden is now on our shoulders and it's a significant cost increase to go from a
standard system to a nitrate system plus the the additional costs of the uh inspections and monitoring. somehow that doesn't feel like sort of the the equitable distribution of the burden that had been talked about prior.
>> Usually when we focus on new construction in part because if people are um building a new home instead of an existing home then they have resources to buy build a home. Um, and this is one
factor in that um, in the total cost of construction when you're um, planning a new home. So, there's more flexibility for somebody who's constructing a new home versus the existing homeowner who's got to um,
uh, you know, in the case of the Fall Rivers the excuse me, the sewer line joint, you know, adding join into the sewer line, whatever. I mean, a lot of people tried to um I don't know if you were there advocating for the sewer
line, but there were um lots of efforts, including the board of health, supporting the sewer line as a um the most advanced technology, the most effective way to reduce sewer load, the
septic load. Um but the town didn't go for it. And that was a town vote and we have to um you know move on from that and and work with the standard you know the the tools that we have in our toolbox.
>> Well, I would I would hope that one of the tools in your toolbox would be uh the possibility of revisiting this topic because it it doesn't seem like it was provided the fair amount of of daylight that is necessary given the broad
impact. It's a it's a it's it's quite it's quite an expensive proposition. >> It's the akin to raising taxes on on homeowners, not only for the sessful owners, the new construction. So, I would suggest that
you take it under consideration, please, that um this this whole topic get revisited in the near future because quite frankly, it feels quite unjust. Can I say one more thing please? You
mentioned earlier load being increased and that this whole thing is about new construction bringing in load increases. I wonder how many people including us have an ADU they're putting on because there's someone already lives here but needs to be closer or their mother who's ill who lives with them but would like a
little privacy. So many of I've talked to people who had ADUs put on it's their people are here already and they're just changing from one location to another. So, I don't think they're increasing the load. >> Then, if there's if the if the septic uh if it's a you have a three-bedroom
septic and you're moving that person from the house to an ADU and it's still uh three bedrooms total because you don't need the bedroom, then you don't this requirement does not apply. >> I'm glad the state did try to do
something because I know a lot of people >> I'd like to just say something. I want it to be clear. um that the board of health followed every avenue to include public input. Um
we worked with other um uh uh boards um following the water management plan that had been well done um and um I don't know how many people were involved but there are a lot of experts involved with
that but that we followed and did everything that we um needed to do and to make sure that there was input it what I think what happens is until
people need it, they're not aware of how the process went, you know, and I and I and I understand that um I live in this town and and until I became part of um this board, I have to admit that I was not aware of everything that was
happening, but when I needed something, I became more aware. So, but but I wanted to be clear that the board has done everything um the correct way to see this to where
it is today in our in our regulation. Um and that includes having public hearings. Um so I just wanted to stress that. Um, I don't want there to be any question that we did not do our due diligence to make sure that everybody in
the community was aware. Uh, thank you. Um, so again, the focus of this regulation, this hearing is on those two proposed changes. Uh if there's anybody else who has any specific comments about the proposed
language around um that definition or the when uh new construction applies to an ADU or the reduction in total nitrogen testing requirements. Um feel free to come up to the mic um and state your name for the record and and let us
know what your concerns are. Hi, Tina Darus. I'm not even sure if I'm in the right place to ask the questions. Um, my son is interested in buying a house in Westport and I would like to know the standard system has a standard system there now. How long will that
standard system be grandfathered in for if he can get a true title five on that? if in three years from now you've now decided that the alternate system is the way to go, would would he be looking at something like that in two years? >> Um, okay. Um, it's hard to be uh give
you an accurate answer because I don't know the details. We don't know the details of exactly what um but in general um I I the at this point the Westport Board of Health is not looking to expand the
scope of its requirements. So, for an existing home that has a title 5 compliant system, it will get inspected at the time of a sale and if it's working, fine. If not, it has to be repaired. The repair is to meet title
five. It because it's not new construction. So, um, if it is a if the your son looks to buy a home that has a cesspool, then that would require an
upgrade not to to a dite system, but to a title 5 compliant system because cesspools are not title 5 compliant. They have been banned throughout the country. they're they no longer are a viable technology um because they're not really a technology.
They're just a hole in the ground. >> So, I guess my question is you don't you're not looking at um phasing out standard systems for the nitrogen system. You're only going for nitrogen system on increased flow. So, buy something that has a four a four
bedroomedroom >> um compliance and he's compliant with the um title five. he wouldn't have to do anything to it if he decided to rehab the housing >> at least at our local level. I cannot speak for this state because they did apply a stricter standard to the cape.
Again, we were talking earlier in the discussion that Westport was was initially included in that would have affected everybody, but we were able to argue that we had done a lot of targeted actions in this regulation to
demonstrate our efforts towards compliance and therefore they excluded Westport from that regulation. Whether DP will eventually go statewide or expand it, I don't know. I can't speak for that, but that would be a statewide um
regulation and not under our juris not our jurisdiction. So, at our level, no, there is no plan at this point. >> How long is a title five good for? Certificate of title five. >> A title five inspection, I don't know. >> How long is there a timeline on that? >> Not really. I mean, if you have an
inspector today and um you know uh you're going to four, it's good until you sell the property. So, if you were going to sell the property 3 years from now, you would have to have it inspected >> again. >> Again, at at time of sale, it's required
to be inspected >> by title five, >> not by us, >> but by title five. Um if there was a problem or you know something was not going right and we you know you can called us or we had to go out and look
at something we may order a title five to be done to make sure the system is functioning as it should. But >> okay so the so the current owner if he does the current owner right now if he decides to do a title five on it if my son decides in two years to get a mortgage on it then he would now have to
go through a title five again. Uh >> we we we might look >> getting a mortgage doesn't trigger an inspection, >> right? I guess that's I guess I should >> Yeah. So we would look at that and say, you know, was done fairly recently and if it was passing, >> but the bank might want >> But yeah, the bank may require >> So you don't know but Okay. So I should
the bank industry >> the state the state doesn't require it, >> right? >> Okay. And you don't see in the foreseeable future that you ruling out the standard system for a nitrogen system >> for across the board where as long as it's working and it's now when they
rehab a house that doesn't increase the flow. >> Yeah. >> I apologize. I mean just another kind of piece of information to say like so in in the way that we that in the adoption of the regulation, you know, part of was
this concern about uh the state coming down and requiring uh an immediate fix on this. And we were actually right about that, right? Because they did come in and and and say that and they gave communities two
choices. Um, one is that every septic every property owner who had a septic system had to put in a nitrogen reducing system within 5
years. That was option one. The second option was that the town as a the town had to take responsibility instead of putting the burden on individual homeowners. The town had to take the
responsibility to come up with a plan that would uh would would meet the state and federal requirements. And and so as Tanya was saying, you know, we made the case in another among
communities in the south coast made the case um you know that that what they were proposing for individual town owners was crazy expensive and impossible to do in 5 years and that they really need to rethink what they
were doing. And what the communities on the Cape did was to uh go into the 20-year planning process uh with uh on a town-by- town basis. And part of that involved sewer and then part of it is
going to involve uh you know retrofits of systems because it's kind of driven by the economics of it. >> Okay. So with the town of West, what triggers a um an ADP a accessory quality unit.
>> Yes. What what >> um that a new state regulation that was um adopted June or so um to encourage um sort of one more option for more affordable housing. So when you an
accessory dwelling unit is it's defined in the planning board regulations now. I don't know it's the 900 square ft or something. It's um you can it's either an addition to the home that's has a separate kitchen um bedroom,
>> you know, sort of a separate living quarters um or a separate um um building on your property. If you have enough room, you can add a, you know, what might have been a shed, convert it to a an ADU, accessory dwelling unit to
allow, as others have described, an elderly family member or somebody else to um so it uh involves construction, adding uh room a sort of a a um separate living
quarters to your existing home or adding a separate building with, you a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom kind of situation. >> All right, this is more of a factf finding um quest for me. >> Yeah. Well, not totally appropriate for the hearing, but um I hope we've
answered your questions. If you have more questions, feel free to come to the office if you have. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you for your time. >> Any other uh questions or concerns?
Okay. >> Okay. Um, thank you. Um, then I will, uh, close the hearing, um, and allow the board to, um, uh, take a vote. >> Oh, >> I wasn't I mean, I didn't know if you
were going to say anything. I can >> Oh, we have to make comments. >> No, I have I have comments. >> Thank you. I think we, you know, made the comments. We're we're trying to
um the the adjustments to the um regulation. >> The regulation I was going to say policy and I'm like no, that's not a policy. The regulation um again are to to help clarify and to help reduce the burden um
on uh people who have DNI systems by decreasing the requirement for um evaluation of the system. So um so I move that we approve the changes to the regulation as written.
>> Second. Motion made and seconded to adopt the um proposed changes to the local septic Westport local septic regulation. Um effective but I don't see any reason not to make it effective immediately. >> No, if that's okay.
>> You can uh wait. No, we could advertise. >> I think we could advertise um the results. >> Make it December 1st. >> Yeah, December 1st. >> Okay. Effective December 1st. Um all in favor? >> I I That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Okay.
All right. Um I think we are at the end. We have just we don't have any unanticipated topics. Anything for next hearing, next meeting? We will be coming um the next meeting we'll be talking about um this stuff we
talked about in the um working group meeting about uh administrative management um stuff strategies um I don't think I'm anything else hot on the on the
>> okay if not >> what as far as the date >> uh the next meeting is no uh the Monday before Thanksgiving 114th 24th >> it's our next regular meeting. Yep. >> So if you have any additional topics I'm
just mentioning that one topic is >> well I don't know where we'll be on the on the storm water rig >> just yeah just if you have any >> you want to bring up before the meeting just email me and we'll we'll put it on the agenda. We'll run it by >> Tanya. Yeah. Um yeah, if you have something on the storm water right ready
to go, we can incorporate that into that agenda. >> Um because it won't be a public hearing yet. We'll be discussing it first. So um Okay. >> Okay. >> Anything else? >> No. So being no further business, I move
that we adjourn this meeting at 5:25. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All in favor? I. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Okay.