Okay, gentlemen. >> Westport res. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and
justice for all. So, Mass General law requires that I tell everybody that this meeting is being is being recorded and I declare a quorum here. We have five of our eight members. I expect Joe
Amarol to uh show up shortly. Uh we do not have um Bob Daylor here today. However, Bob is traveling and so as vice chair, I'm going to sit in tonight as chair of this meeting. We have a couple of uh brief organizational things. First
of all, the uh approval of minutes. Evan um did the minutes and I I distributed them. Does anybody have any questions on the minutes? >> No. >> Would somebody like to move the minutes? >> Motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor?
>> I >> I. And the next thing is upcoming meetings. And for 20 years, there's been a calendar on the wall right there. And there is not tonight. But we should have, this is kind of a
delayed meeting because we planned one for midappril. I think we should be planning one for mid June. >> Okay. >> If um that's okay. But I don't have the dates. >> I'll just open I'll open up. >> I've got a calendar here too. >> Uh we put them on Wednesdays.
>> Yeah, Wednesdays at 6:30. That seems to be the date that um everybody is most comfortable with. So, you have the 17th or 24th would be the third or fourth week of June. >> Okay. >> If we're keeping it consistent, I guess it's up to you. >> Let me check with um
with Carla. She keeps the calendar. >> Okay. >> And so, I'll try to get one of those two dates for us. >> We got the 17th or 24th. >> Yes. All righty. So, moving right along. Um I would like to go out of the order of the agenda. Um because we have with us
tonight a special guest and a presentation. Uh we have uh Jim Whiton who is chair of our planning board who has been chair for forever I think. Anyhow he is on the uh Serpentid subcom. Well first of all we have two
representatives of the Serpentid which is Souththeast Massachusetts economic development uh something or other. I never knew what serpent stood for. But anyhow, he is one of our two representatives there and he serves on a
an environmental subcommittee that is looking into creating a south coast clean water system. And so Jim is here to talk about it. I thought it was something interesting. This is not something that's going to be decided today, this month, this year, uh, but is
something that is, uh, something that could be in the long term very helpful to all the cities and towns on the south coast. And with Jim, I'd like to ask you to uh, present yourself and >> Sure. >> give us your story. >> Good evening. Um Jim Whiton and I am on
the planning board currently chair and I'm on the serpent representative from the planning board. Serpent is a group uh is the area uh it's the regional planning agency for our area and it
covers 27 cities and towns in the south coast area and um it doesn't have any regulatory authority but it is a quasi uh state uh
group uh created by the state and currently ly uh a lot of the towns and cities are dealing with the same issues that Westport is dealing with in terms of nitrogen pollution into Buzzard's Bay or into the Taton River
watershed. And uh we we know that uh Wear and Westport missed the bullet when um DP, EPA, and the Conservation Law Foundation were uh
after the Cape. Uh they implemented uh their their their desires on the Cape uh which is PEG to cost them about $2 billion dollar to
upgrade their systems and be in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Uh, and I've been on the Westport River Watershed Alliance Board. I've been on the advocacy committee. I've been
several times to the uh Massachusetts Masttec, the test center for septic systems on the Cape. Uh and so I'm a little familiar with how uh how
nitrogen can be removed from septic systems. Uh and with the Cape uh being required to have a 20-year plan to
uh come up with a have a scoped out plan for 20 years that at the end of 20 years they're in compliance and a lot of it um in Barnstable and places like that they're putting sewers
in at extreme extreme cost. Uh, and if towns, some of the towns on the Cape haven't done anything. So, per this lawsuit, I guess, um, they probably will
be required to upgrade every single septic system in their town to the best available denitrification system, which is really, really expensive. Um, so it seemed to me being on the regional
planning agency that this is a regional problem and not just one that individual towns and cities should uh be compelled to to address. and looking at what's happened in
Massachusetts in the past um 40 years or so. Uh in 1984 they formed the MW which is the the
regional area around Boston. Uh has 73 towns and cities on the system. Uh and what it was a the legislature created this entity when Dukakus was governor.
And what it did was it took control of all the se the sewer uh treatment plants and the basic um infrastructure to get uh the sewage to
these plants. and they created a new plant on Deer Island which is state-of-the-art or was back then state-of-the-art for for cleaning up the wastewater and it has been quite successful. Um, and
the benefit was that you have the same management team running the whole system even though each individual town and city is still responsible
for the pipes to get it to the system. So, and looking at at that as a example, um I've spoken with Bob Taylor about this as well. Um it and I've spoken to the whole
Serpent community as well as the environmental committee which I'm on and chair of Serpent and we are trying to get a visit with the MWR
people and look at their system and how how it works. the the the issue is okay, Westport in particular could tie into for water and
sewer to Fall River, but then we're at the behest of Fall River forever. And if it were not Fall Rivers plant, but part of a overall thing, then we would be treated equally
with all the other communities that are tying in and not be at the whim of a Fall River City Council. Um and plus you would get uh really professional management of the system and the ability
to bond the big infrastructure like the sewage treatment plants and the water filtration plants uh in uh professional way that that everybody
is treated equal unlike what's happening with us in Fall River. uh for the first I don't know what the metric is the first million ccfs >> or the first million gallons or whatever it is
>> it's the first 20,000 20 million gallons were charged 55% over what they charge their own residents >> right and so in that case uh their residents um are being buil by the t by the city.
>> Yeah. >> So that cost is built into their thing. So we're getting the wholesale price is so elevated. >> Yeah. >> And then we have to do the same thing. We have to bill our customers. So we
have additional cost. >> Yeah. And really we should be getting it at a wholesale price and not at a and so if you had this kind of management and if you look at the whole south coast you might have to break it
up into watersheds. So that you know we may tie into if this entity owned the Fall River plant and the Deb Bedford plant and the
Dartmouth plant and built some other ones that are are needed elsewhere that uh everybody would be treated equal, not the same rate because uh the sewer system for instance in Fall
River to Bedford has a lot of uh infiltration from groundwater and from from storm water and so they would pay a higher rate than we would because we'd be putting everything in new and we wouldn't have that. So,
you know, it is not the case that we can't do this engineering wise. It's really the other part of it. How do you how do you do it? And it seems to me, as I said
in the beginning, it's a regional problem and it requires a regional solution. Otherwise, we're never going to get there. We're never going to get to a point where our eststeries are healthy because we have dealt with the
nitrogen pollution. In the 15 and 20 years that I've been looking at this issue, uh, we have had, I think, five people in Westport voluntarily put a denitrifying septic system in.
And we need hundreds, if not thousands. And we are requiring new development to put in a ditrifying system. But even that is adding to the nitrogen load because even
though it's reducing it to a certain amount, it's additional. It isn't. We're not taking anything away. And we are fairly close to our TMDLs in the river, but we're not there. And the reason that
we have gotten closer to it is not anything that we have done. It is only because coal plants have been shut down and the deposition from the air is less.
But if we're going to do anything and you know I think I don't know when it'll happen but um D and Conservation Law Foundation are not going to go away. So we have to
figure out what what to do. I think the solution for everybody is the least expensive and the best management is to do it regionally. And so for the whole part of Serpent,
you might need one overall group, but maybe five independent subcategories of that. They would handle for instance us and Dartmouth and Paul and Fall River or New Bedford and the
Kushnet and some of the smaller towns. and then one over by Cape Cod with Wearham and their surrounding communities. Uh, and the
person from uh the serpent person from Wham has told me that they're talking about a $500 million cost to to get into compliance. $500 million. I mean, and that would be
paid only by wearhamm residents. And you know how well it went over here when we're talking about 35 million. U it's it's never going to happen. So if we are really serious and the state is really
serious about addressing this issue, then we need to look at it regionally and have some legislation to create it like they did in Boston. So just um yeah, a couple of questions, but do you all have questions first? >> I just should start. I'm I'm acting as
um chair tonight, so I have to let everybody else speak. >> So I don't want to get into a a prolonged policy discussion, but from from a serpent standpoint, how are they addressing a rural community like Westport? I mean, we're talking if you're talking about a sewer
infrastructure, I think some of the biggest, I guess you could, if you wanted to talk about nitrogen producers would be, you know, kind of Westport Harbor because it's surrounded by the water and properties on the Westport River, which are down laneways. I >> mean, I live down laneway and I don't even have access to natural gas. So, how
how does that get addressed? I mean, yes, there is a corridor of Route Six where sewer and water continue to be uh brought up, but how do you do that to the rest of the rural community? And how is Serpent even? In in my instance, I've put a uh system called Sledgehammer in
my system and it took me two years to get through the rigor of getting approved and that has uh I did at the same time I I put in a leech field because I didn't have a leech field. I had a leech pit. And so they tested
uh the effluent in my septic tank before this thing was put in and then every 3 months since and it has reduced uh the nitrogen percentage
uh by 70%. >> Okay. But it doesn't get to what DP requires for ditrifying systems. >> Oh, really? Okay. >> But that's that's a crazy thing. So, you know, I've been to the sept the septic
test center four times. I know those people. They take uh homogenized sewage from the army or air force or whatever it is base there and
then they reduce it to 35% or 35 parts per million of nitrogen and then do all their testing on that. And that isn't real world.
My when they tested my septic tank, it just two of us, >> no teenagers, no >> five showers a day. >> Uh, our percentage of nitrogen was way up. >> And now it's reduced by 70%. But I think
that's more realworld kind of thing. And that thing costs5 to $6,000 and you can put it in with a shovel. You don't have to excavate your yard to do it. And uh you don't have to put
other tanks. It goes right in the septic tank. And it's a bioreactor. You have to feed uh air into it. And it has a it has a a filter bag sitting inside there
that has bacteria in it that that eats the sludge, eats the slime and makes everything cleaner, makes your septic field last much longer because it doesn't get clogged up.
But to me, that's the kind of thing that we need to look at as opposed to what DP is saying that you need to get to the best. So, if you could have 500 people put one of these things in,
you're going to get a bigger hit against the nitrogen, total nitrogen in the system than if you're waiting for people to put a 40 or $50,000 system in and rip up their yard. And it's it's it's going to take forever and it's not going to
happen. because I think just in in in my role recently on the select board is that I've had people reach out not understanding kind of the the lowinterest uh septic program that we run in town and not realizing kind of the impact because it it's run through the town and it becomes a an issue on your property
taxes. So I think a lot of people older uh people in Westport are kind of saddled with stuff that they didn't expect with that with that and then then they're looking at their property tax bill like it's $14,000. Well of course $9,000 of it was a septic. So, I think that's the balancing act we have to do.
>> That's the crazy thing. I mean, and a lot of those people can't afford >> Correct. >> I mean, so you get a loan. >> Mhm. >> They can't afford to pay the loan. >> Exactly. And that's what I'm seeing. I've had a few people reach out >> on social security, they're not filing income tax. They they can't get a tax
credit if they don't pay. >> Where is the state on this? I mean, you know, how much money is the state spending on a whole bunch of things and we don't need to get there. >> But but this This is It needs to be bigger than a regional thing. It needs
to be bigger than the town of Westport. Needs to be a state. >> Yeah, it has to be a state. The legislature has to do it. >> We're sitting there with with politicians that are spending money on things that are not close to this. >> So, I mean, I think the state is going
to get serious if they really, you know, they're pointing to every town and community just like they're doing with housing. >> Yeah. So, I mean, they're saying, "Okay, Westport, what are you doing to get your nitrogen down? >> You're close. You're close to the the
train. You got to build apartments. I mean, I'm sorry. >> Not yet." >> Yeah. But I mean, I'm sorry. I just have so little patience for that. But I mean, so we have to light a fire underneath the
state to to try to, you know, if they really are serious about solving this thing, either or just go away. Leave us alone. I mean, either leave us alone or do something to fix it because they're the ones who have allowed this to happen
over time. 20 years ago, we sat in this room with people from DP and we asked them, should we start requiring ditrifying systems? They said, "Oh, no, no, no. This is D. Sewer is the solution."
>> Have you ever driven around Westport? You're never going to get sewer down these roads. I mean, it's never going to happen. >> It it it really shouldn't happen. I mean, it's just a waste of money to try to put sewer down to the harbor. You
just cannot do it. Um, so the question is, okay, so what else can we do to get to where they want us to get? And if if they want us to get there, they got to participate and do something because
and having the the solution that they have in the Cape is not a solution because it's just creating so much havoc on the Cape all the towns and cities. >> So question uh for me um
and this goes back to history a little bit. You said in 1984 the that Boston metropolitan area system was was founded. >> I it's a I assume it's an authority >> and it's it was probably created by the state. >> Yeah. By the legislature. >> By the legislature.
>> Yep. >> Did they fund it initially? But they allowed it to um uh they they gave it bonding authority. So they could bond, you know, get 30, 40, 50year bonds to to
pay for what the the overall thing would do. Uh as opposed to, you know, Boston Harbor, Boston, you got to do it. >> Well, >> but they must have started it with surplus. They must have given it $100
million or something. >> I don't think so. >> No. Okay. >> They gave it enough money to create the entity. >> Okay. Okay. And so it would have to pass the legislature and be signed off by by the governor,
>> right? And then it's it's run by a board of directors >> and there's a lot of them. And the size of your town and the size of your flow determines how many votes you get. >> Yeah. >> So if we were in with New Bedford and
Dartmouth in a Kushnet and some other towns, uh New Bedford as an example would get three votes. Westport would get two votes. A Kushnet would get one and all the other little towns and towns around
get one. And if this, if I'm not mistaken, this system in the Boston area really started with water, right? They link the Quabin reservoir and other reservoirs into a regional water system. >> 100 years ago, they started the the
water system. >> Mhm. >> Uh and then they they created this other system and I think they're together now. >> Okay. >> Maybe somebody else knows that. I tell you someone who lived on that system that was very economical. >> It's very what?
>> Economical. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Well, of course, they had the advantage of starting, you know, years and years ago. >> I'm just saying. >> Yeah. >> I grew up in Wayer, Massachusetts, which is a Butts Quabin Reservoir. >> Yeah.
>> It's a huge area. They they they took three whole towns by eminent domain to make it. >> Yeah. About every 20 years the globe writes that writes about the towns wiped off the map by the Quava reservoir. >> That's right.
>> Okay. Well, any other questions for Jim? Well, I thank you very much. How but how how how much of a uh of an initiative is this discussion at Serpent going to have? >> Yeah, it it's it's happening.
It's in discussion because I brought it up, but I've I've talked with the whole Serpent Commission, which is all the towns and cities. Um, and we didn't have a vote, but nobody's raising their hand said
that's crazy. uh the director who of Serpentage who came from Virginia is very they doing that kind of thing in Virginia and they uh was is very supportive and he's the one that's trying to get us an
appointment. >> So what are what about our >> and I talked to Mike Michael Rodri. >> You have been talking to our senator >> right and he says it sounds great. Can you get Westport to agree to it?
And it it's I don't know how they how you do that, but I mean and I'm not sure that you >> you do that. You It's >> Well, the one in the Boston area was was started by a huge city with huge
resources. >> No, it was and they contributed, right? >> It was started by the legislature. >> Okay. And as and so the question is will we be
able to do something like this without having a gun up our rear like the conservation law foundation. >> Mhm. >> And that's what who's after everybody for the Boston Harbor. Okay. >> Clean it up. uh and EPA.
Um and EPA is probably not going to do anything at the moment uh for this >> for a couple years. >> Yeah. So, but but you know, the Conservation Law Foundation isn't going away. I mean, and they're
very well funded and they're they have us under their microscope. So anyway, to me it makes sense to try to do something like this uh in conjunction with bioreactors and individual septic
tanks for all the area of Westport that is never going to see sewer no matter what happens. >> Um and it just we need to try to do something that makes common sense and makes it fair and that's that's the big thing.
>> Yeah. you know, >> I'm not seeing any information or publicity on the system you're talking about with your deployed. So, we're trying >> I'm curious where where >> where that is. So, it's not approved by
D for nitrogen production. It's approved by D for uh septic leechfield mitigation and rehabilitation. And that's how I got mine uh approved is is for for mitigation and for general
use. Um and we have a proposal and we've talked to board of health people to get people to put in 20 or 30 of these things and do a reall life
trial that we can bring the data to DP. >> So that's where it is. >> That's where it is. And we're running into problems with border well it's local polit I mean so >> so
>> it strikes me as a really interesting >> board of health says yeah that's a good idea but if you look at the regulations if you're going to do something like that uh and you haven't your system hasn't had a title five inspection in five
years it's not it's not officially a title five system. And I was like, what? >> And so you're going to get people to agree to put these in their system, but you're going to make them get a title five >> section, which is
>> six6 to $800. >> And if it fails, >> $40,000, then >> you're screwed. >> So we're we're trying to work that out. It just strikes me that you know the town of Westport particularly I mean this works I mean it should be
widespread and should be funded >> right exactly and it this also could help people in the north end that have >> have nitrogen problems which make them get a ditrification system even though
as a repair they don't need to unless they They have a nitrogen problem in their wells and all their wells and septic systems are so close together. >> Yeah, exactly. >> And so some of them are getting water and that that helps them but it still
doesn't remove the requirement to put a ditrification system >> which is really >> $4,000 >> or more. >> So some of the people up there because RA system on a 8,000 square foot lot and
they have to do it. It's $60,000. >> And they're the people >> destroys destroys your property, too. >> Yeah. You can't do anything with your property because And those are the people with the least amount of money. >> I mean,
>> insane. >> Jim, thank you very much for your time. >> Appreciate the visit. >> What's on your agenda? Should I stay and listen? >> Sure. Of course. We We need an audience. You'd be the only one. Well, foul is here. >> I'll stay, but if I
>> Okay. Yes. >> So, um, moving right along. Let's go back to the, uh, report from Roger Fernandez, our consultant and project manager. He has an update for us, and I think you all have copies of it. >> Yeah. >> Roger, take it away.
>> Okay, Mr. Chairman, uh, vice chair. Thank you. Uh so just by way of update um the uh the uh Route 6 project we're just we're just continuing to work through some of the uh punch list items. Actually they mobilized on April 24th to
tackle a couple of those. I think we probably have they're not there on a daily basis certainly. So they're popping in periodically to tackle some of those items. We expect maybe another day of punch list related items and then we'll you know that contract will likely be finalized in terms of its uh complete
completion. Um uh the in terms of uh update regarding private service connections um at our prior meetings uh we we've continued to update the committee on how many people have uh connected to the water system
since this its installation. Um, so I provided in a table a chart here that that identifies how many properties have um a curb stop or water available at their property line. Um, we did, if you, if you recall, we did send out uh
notices and we did get inquiries from folks who did want to uh connect very early on. We're calling those folks early adopters. And out of those early adopters, we've had 46 connect and uh we we have five uh still pending and in process. So we've
got a pretty good uh pretty good uh turnout uh so far as far as um those first folks who wanted to connect. Um we uh uh with respect to the Keading earmark um
this is the CD also called the CDS 2024 seating uh CDS funding. This is that 959 some odd thousands that required a uh a match. Um we've we've finally met with the uh we've met with EPA a few times.
We finally were were able to get a hold of them and so that we can get the project um documentation in place and we submitted a work plan to them. They've accepted that work plan. Uh we've also provided provided them with a a cadex which is a categorical exclusion having
to do with um uh the NEPA pathway. Um and so the again the EPA's accepted the work plan. Uh the CADEX is being reviewed by their consultant and we expect a response to them in um 30 days
or so. Uh which still keeps the project um on schedule. And again, this particular funding is being applied to Briggs Road. We're calling that the Briggs Road Fire Station link. And that's where this Keing one earmark is being applied.
Um, so there are some additional administrative steps we have to walk through with the uh or undertake with the EPA. Some additional forms the town needs to um and I'll help, you know, make this happen, but the town needs to uh get on
SAM.gov. We need to do some administrative work so that when we begin to to submit builds as part of the project that um that administrative process has been completed. Um the fire station itself uh has been
surveyed. Um the uh so we took a look at the fire station and determined where the best location to bring the water would would would likely fall. Um this information has been transferred to uh to the design engineer Kleinfelder and they're continuing the design and
permitting. Um and that's also currently um you know on on on schedule. Um and we'll continue to coordinate with the fire department. Um another thing that we just uh we completed, we did submit or advertise
via RFQ which stands which stands for request for qualifications. Uh that RFQ um was um solicited as a requirement under the federal funding guidelines. So because this project
falls on the CFR, code of federal regulations, unlike MGL, there are some requirements associated with soliciting uh services uh for the design um for the uh not I'm excuse me, not the design, but the uh construction
administration services for the Briggs Road Fire Station link. Uh we also included in that solicitation the uh the work associated with the CPF funding which is the 1.1 odd money uh million dollars which we're calling the Keing 2
funding so that we won't have to go through this process again. So to comply with the federal procurement requirements tied to the Keading earmark funds uh we've moved forward with the RFQ. Um
uh the RFQ is a formal process that's going to require a um a three member evaluation committee. Um and we're going to go through a scoring process once we receive those submitts from the prospective uh consultants
and select a consultant based on their qualifications without knowing the fee. We can't ask the fee. As crazy as that may sound, it's not allowed on under the uh federal requirements or the state requirements.
Um and then we we negotiate the uh contract with the um highest ranked consultant. So I don't know if Jake uh um if if this if the board of selectman >> at this point I'll inform you that on Monday night the board of selectman
actually >> okay >> gave it to the infrastructure committee to act to set up. >> Perfect. Y. >> And so, um, we need to get three members for this committee, >> correct? >> And our our chair is is not here
tonight, but he's a perfect member. >> Are you volunteering him for that? >> There's this joke, you know, >> if you're not here. >> The guy who doesn't joke gets appointed. We've joked about that for years, but I've never actually done it. >> But I I have to suggest that Bob would
be, you know, the perfect person for this. And I guess other questions. Um, can does this have to be three members of the infrastructure committee or can it be our consultant or can it be our town administrator? >> So, we we'd recommend that one, you know, one of us would be there, Chris or
myself to so sort of walk you through the process. We've got it's we've got the forms filled out. Uh but usually it's a we think it's a good idea to have you know just the committee pre committee members weigh in and make that decision with okay
>> support from from us so that it you know it's not it's it's a little more open and transparent. >> Well we all know that Bob has you know >> decades of experience and then you know you would be a good person. I am not because I really don't know anything
about the bidding process. I've been to a couple bids in this room, but >> if if I could just say you even if you know nothing at all about it, it's not we're going to make sure that as we go through the process, you'll feel very comfortable about >> Okay. Would it be okay if a member of
the board of selectmen were to be on this? >> Jake's be on that plan. >> I'm here and I'm getting volunteered. That's fine. That's fine. >> Okay. >> Is it okay? So, do we have a three member >> uh board committee? Can it be Chris and Rod or did you say you're separate or
your advisor? >> Well, we it does there's nothing that precludes us from from being involved in that. Uh but we certainly would want to have either Chris or myself there with the group. Um it doesn't have to be a minimum of three, but we recommend at least three because it's sort of an odd number. >> Okay. Okay.
>> So, you got two. Anybody else know about contracts? >> Or unless like I said, if you had Chris or you sitting on it, right? >> Yeah, we could do that. Right. And then you have an alternate. So technically if Chris doesn't show up or you or vice versa, right? >> Yeah, I think that's a good idea. >> Okay. So, um would you like to recommend
somebody of the two of you? >> Uh why don't I talk to Chris? I mean, if we can leave it as one of us, one of the two of us or the both of us. >> So, one of you would be a member and one would be an alternate. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. And and just really briefly,
they're the the prospective folks that are interested in this are going to submit us um their qualification package, look through it. We have a scoring sheet and and it is intended the the review is intended to
be objective, but your opinion in terms of how they meet that criteria as odd as it can be subjective in the sense that I you might come up with the score on a particular item of 30. Jake might say they're 35. Doesn't mean you're wrong and you're right. But at the end of the
day, we we tally those scores. We come up with the results. >> Okay. So, >> chair, do we need to make a motion? Do you want me to make a motion on that? >> So, uh we have um why don't we why don't we make um Chris the third member and Roger the
alternate. Does that sound right or would you like it the reverse or >> No, that sounds good. I mean, I probably will be there anyway, but yeah. So, um >> you would be there anyway. Yeah. Oh, >> so that that sounds like >> maybe you should be the member and um Chris should be the alternate
>> if >> and so we have Bob Daylor, Jake, um you and with Chris as the alternate. >> Okay. >> I entertain a motion for that. >> And then I don't know if Jake has any opin
>> No, I mean that's I sorry about that. I don't Should we just make Chris and make you the alternate? Is that probably better? I don't know. I don't I'm just >> let's let's do that and if something goes sideways you're voting as me being an alternate anyway. >> Well, his office is across the hall. >> Yeah. >> So, from a from an availability
standpoint, he would be more available. >> Yeah. Okay. So, let me want to amend amend that motion. So, I amended motion will will appoint Bob Daylor, Chris Vitali as a town administrator and myself, Jake Mcwigan as a select board member uh to the evaluation committee
with Roger Fernandees as an alternate. >> Yeah. >> Second. Second. >> Okay. >> I >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay, perfect. >> Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. That's one of our two action item votes tonight. >> That would be why you guys get the big
bucks. >> Okay. So, your next um item is the PAS. So the PAS if if uh the committee recollects we we had voted um or the committee had voted a while back to um uh seek another uh trunch of money from
the mass D um we're calling it the PAS funding but um and we came up with a value of $300,000 to seek and and the reason why if you recall we came up with that value had to do with the fact that we just received $4 million and we wanted to
sort of target a number that was that was um attainable. So, we did reach out to the we did reach out to the to the folks at the D. I reached out to them and I think that number made sense because the first thing they told us was gez, you just got $4 million and the other thing that ended up being a good
decision I think was the fire station because it ended up being some critical infrastructure. So, it sort of there was an interest in that. Um so we uh we sent the um the grant application in. They received it. They looked at that. Um we
provided them with test results at the fire station that was somewhat dated. I got that from the health department. It was uh the last set of test results were dated 2016. The D came back and said, "Okay, let's look at your grant application of what you've given us to
this point." And they came back to us. Uh they emailed me and they let us hey could you you know we looked at it how about doing a more recent test of the of the water at that location. Um I think their responses I don't want to read too much into it is I think it's good in the
sense that I'm hoping that they wouldn't ask us to test the water if there wasn't an interest in funding it. So the um next thing we have to do is obtain a water sample at the fire station. test that for some of the uh contaminants that would satisfy uh PAS and uh submit
that to the state. Um and so that's that's sort of where we are with that. But so favorable, but nothing nothing that I would, you know, say is a guarantee at this point. >> Okay. Um in terms of the uh Keing earmark uh
number two again the CPF FY26 Westport uh received uh 1,92,000. Um that is also going to require a 20% match. Bear in mind we've already identified the 20% match through state federal funding for the KD1. So that's
taken care of. Um so we've got a couple things we've got to do. we there we've got to uh go ahead and pursue I would recommend as soon as possible the 20% match which which consists of about $273,000. Um and so uh we also need to confirm uh
timing, responsibilities, coordinations, coordination so the town's ready to proceed immediately upon CPF confirmation. And by that I mean um uh we've sort of have to go through a similar exercise as we did with this uh
keying one money which is where where do you guys want to spend the money? What neighborhood do you want to go into? Do we want to send out survey to see if people are interested in in tying in? Because presumably we want to send the water somewhere where the the there's an
interest in tying in. Maybe there's a uh PWS somewhere uh on a on a prospective route. So, we want to do all that with the intent of having sort of a project identified for the Keing to money so that we're in a position uh to um design
and bid the next trunch of money in the winter. Those those uh advertisements tend to be a little better. Folks are looking for work. Um so, ideally, that's kind of when we'd want to have a bid out on the street. So, it doesn't give us a, >> you know, we've got time, but it doesn't
give us six months to figure that out. We've got to figure some We we've got to get it nailed down by the end of the year. So, >> um I've I discussed the uh and our our our key here is our our state senator. Of course, >> he was able to arrange the the first the
first one. Um and he said, you know, let me know as soon as possible on the second one. >> Chair, I just have a quick question for Roger. Um, yeah. >> What is the timing on that project that you're you're talking about trying to >> determine alternatives or or possibilities that this earmark number
two, I guess. What would be the timing for the project to begin? >> Spring of uh spring of next year. >> So, spring of 27, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Yep. Yeah. >> And to your point, Jake, I think uh and it's something that the the vice chair knows is there's always that risk of the
money being clawed back. And so, and I think we did get uh a recommendation from Kading's office and everything that I'm hearing even from the EPA. When I spoke to the folks at the EPA, their response was basically spend it as quickly as you can because we don't know
what might happen. And we do know that the um Keing 2 money is there. I talked I met with the EPA um a week or so a week ago um and she told me that the money's there. They're just waiting for guidance in terms of how to administer it. You know, the money's there. Um but
the but but we should to Jake's point, we should probably try to just get that queued up. >> Where does the match come from? Is that the town that >> the the state passed a $750 million bill in the fall of 2024
uh for two purposes. One was for the state matches >> and the other was I think to uh >> reduce debt. that that would be >> and so that that money has to be allocated by the end of this year. So there is quite a bit of it for the state matches.
>> As a fin, >> pardon, >> as a fin member, I was just thinking where would Westport come up with 27. >> Yeah. Well, we couldn't come up with it ourselves. Don't worry about it. We're not going to stress you on that. >> Had to ask question. >> Yeah. But the state matches uh was part
of the 750 mile. Yes. Okay. Good. >> Good. Um Roger, back to you. Um let's see. I think um oh we did want just um staple these out of order but um we talked
about the uh Keing planning um um the other the other sort of while being mindful I stay in my want to stay in my lane but we do we do need at some point like really soon I would recommend that the town start to look at um on and m fee structures uh the um implication of
the new intermunicipal agreement with Fall River Um there are uh as as the vice chair noted there are uh there's some advantages of the new of the new um IMA which in includes the tiered
reduction in the per gallon cost that Westport um uh purchases from Fall River. But there are also other costs associated with the uh with the system which include things like connection fees. those connection fees in the IMA. I read through the IMA once, twice just
to try to get a good feel, but a lot of those connection fees get conveyed actually given back to Fall River. And so, as we get folks to connect, uh we have things that we need to think about uh both operationally and administratively, fees um and um and
documentation that needs to be provided as part of the um the IMA. these records uh and these deliverables include things like a list of addresses um uh and sort of an updated master uh
master plan location of mains uh valves and hydrants. So there's it's there's a number of things that the town needs to sort of think about when it when it comes to actually now administering the the municipal water system that goes sort of beyond what we've done to this
point. And I' I' I'd recommend that that's something we get start get started on sooner than later. >> Well, I have a couple comments there because I remember many conversations with our previous uh town administrator in the spring of 2024 when we were
taking this to to the voters, the the sewer project to the voters and to the town meeting. And the connection um my I recall was we were proposing a $900 connection fee, 300 of which is required
by Fall River and we would require $600, but I bring that up. It all failed obviously. Uh but I bring that up because I think the Fall River connection fee is $300. So just and second of all, we do
allocate um H Heartet, our previous town administrator, used the number $50,000 a year, and I've got a print out of about, you know, our normal operating expenses of about 35,000 a year. This is Linda Korea for water testing and then, you
know, part suppliers and and what have you. We buy hydrants occasionally and um and this uh is built into the rate structure already. 50,000 is built into the rate structure. So, just so you know.
>> Okay. Yeah. Well, things like if some we've gotten two two additional calls already for folks that were not as not early adopters. These are new folks that are going to pay for their own trenches. >> So, you know, some of the, you know, what do they have to pay for fees? Who's
going to inspect the trench the uh from the curb stop to the house? Once it gets into the house, the plumbing department takes that over. Um so those are just some examples of of things that you know um what is that you know if the way the
IMA is written now depending on the type of building that's looking to connect you know a single family home it's based on uh 330 gallons a dollar a gallon if it's a multif family home it's a different fee so there there are some some structures there that you know I'd
recommend >> looking okay yeah Oh, and that's that's basically all I have as far as update. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you very much. And uh any questions for for Roger while
he's here? Okay. The next um section is new business. and we've already taken care of the presentation by our serpent representative, but we have to now move on to the waterline rate review. Uh with the Fall River water rate for
2027 holding steady at $424, um that was voted on by the city council just a couple weeks ago and our new 10-year rate agreement with Fall River. It is time to review our Westport water rates that become effective July 1st.
And this is an action item. And I've met with the town administrator on two occasions. And uh I want to uh he he was going to explain his his approach tonight, but he's not
here. So he wrote a a note to us. Did he send it to everybody? >> I don't know if he did or not. >> We don't have it. Um, our town administrator has written a
u a note on the rate review to the uh infrastructure oversight committee. And it's important enough that I'm not going to let you just read it. I'm going to read the whole thing. Okay? It's dated uh today, April 29th, and it's the 2027 Waterline Enterprise
Rate Review and Recommendation. As part of the fiscal year 2027 budget process, the town reviewed the water enterprise fund, including operating cost, purchase water, and recent system usage. Westport purchases its water from the
city of Fall River under an agreement that ties our cost directly to their residential rate. For fiscal 27, Fall River's residential rate will be approximately 424, well, it's exactly 424 per 100 cubic feet. Under this new agreement, Westport pays 55% above that
rate or $6.58 per ccf up to an annual threshold of 20 million gallons. Water use above that level is charged at approximately 5% above Fall River's rate or 446 per ccf. A CCF
equals approximately 748 gallons. Now, this is where it gets a little confusing because Fall River mixes gallons with CCF. And so, there's 748 gallons in a CCF. That's a key key number. 20,000
gallons, by the way, is about 26,800 CCF. So based on a review of the most recent 12 months of data, April 25 through March of 26, adjusted usage is about 29,421 ccf. This is slightly above the 20
million gallon threshold. Documented system blowoff is not included in the volume build by Fall River and the town's wholesale cost is based on adjusted usage. I might add at this point unfortunately
we have about um 4,500 of unbuild CCF which is basically system water that the system loses. So even though we are paying for 29,000 421 we're only billing about 25,000
and so that is a hole that we we need to to fix somehow. Recent annual usage has been relatively consistent re generally ranging between approximately 26,000 and 29,500 with additional customers now connected to the system. Usage is expected to
increase over time. Um the fall fiscal year 27 budget reflects a conservative assumption for water purchases to account for this growth as well as variability in demand and billing conditions. The proposed FY27 water enterprise budget is
approximately $317,550. The system currently serves 216 active customers, generating about 25,920 annually through the uh $120 administrative fee. We pay we charge our customers $30 per quarter as an
administration fee, which is added to our revenues. A review of FY26 year-to- date financial shows that after excluding the settlement partially funded through retained earnings, the system is operating near break even with the potential for a slight surplus. This
indicates that the current rate structure is generally adequ ad adequate to cover the existing operating expenses under present conditions. Although current revenues are sufficient to cover routine operating expenses, the existing rate structure does not fully capture the long-term cost of maintaining the
system. It does not sufficiently address capital improvement, equipment replacement or the administrative and professional support required as the system continues to expand. Accordingly, a mod accordingly, a modest increase in
the water rate is recommended. A 5% increase will result in a rate of approximately $8.70 per ces per CCF uh versus the $8.30 30 cents currently and would generate additional revenue to begin addressing these needs while
maintaining the financial stability of the enterprise fund. A 5% increase is also generally consistent with the year-over-year change in the FY27 operating budget. The town also intends to conduct a formal rate study to identify long-term cost, including
indirect cost allocitation, capital planning, and administrative service needs. The results of this work will help guide future rate decisions and reduce the likelihood of a significant increase or volatility over time. I might note that that's a warrant
article. I don't know whether it's 18 or 19 or 20. It's right in there, but there's a request for $15,000 to town meeting to um conduct this formal rate study. I am respectfully requesting the infrastructure oversight committee recommendation on the proposed
FY27 water rate. The proposed rate will be presented to the select board for consideration at its meeting scheduled for June 1st, 2026. So that is the letter from our town administrator.
And um so I've had a couple of of discussions with the town administrator over the last couple weeks about about the upcoming rate and I come up with a different conclusion. um his is a long-term
recommendation and my conclusion is a short-term conclusion but I have you know done rate studies in 2014 2018 I did one last year with Harton and I did one again this year and my feeling is that the current rate of $8.30
produces a slight surplus and there's no immediate need as the town administrator has indicated for a rate increase. However, that is a short-term view and it would be view the review of of the view of the next up, you know, for the next year. And I also will note that
last year we had to really jack up the rates. I hope it's didn't add rate shock uh to the vocabulary in town, but we had to raise the rates from $7.20 for CCF to $8.30. So, last year we did raise rates 15%.
And so my conclusion is that we should hold the rate steady at $8.30 for the upcoming fiscal year. And um because we we we don't want to hit people twice in two years with a rate increase. And also Fall River did
not increase their rate this year. And um the the um the the other thing is we have this rate study coming up. And so my recommendation would be to wait for the rate study and um you know have that
available next spring as we review rates but to keep it steady this this uh this year at 8:30. So that's there are two recommendations. I was hoping to have a good discussion with our our town administrator tonight, but to give him,
you know, all in all fairness to give him his position, I I did read the letter that he wrote us every word of it. So, with that, I would like to open this uh to discussion. >> I support your position.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. So, >> I think I think you're taking the right. So, we are going to make a recommendation tonight to the board of selectmen and uh it will be presented to the
select board on the 1 of of June. I guess Jake, where do you stand on this? >> Mory, I just have a question and this is more from my since I'm newer to IOC. What do we know or Roger, do we know what the average gallon usage per day
for a general household that connects to the water line? what that number would be. >> No, we really don't. >> I just did kind of behind the back of the envelope with what with these numbers and I'm I'm saying it's probably around 275 gallons a day. Does that sound >> That's not that far off. So,
>> that was just using these numbers anyway. >> That would be a couple bucks >> as a practical number. That's close. Uh so, Fall Rivers IMA uses the u uh sewer design flows. So, one bedroom 110 gallons per bedroom. Okay. >> That's usually higher. So it's usually
closer to your number than 275 250. >> So basically in my opinion just by doing that it's the average water bill is probably $90 a month for our residents b using that >> you know I don't know >> 300 gallons. Okay. I'm just I was just using the numbers we had here. So >> but he he he mentioned that 110 gallons
per bedroom. >> Yeah. >> And uh that is what the uh >> the board of health uses. >> Okay. >> When it determines the efficacy of of the of a of a system. And um I've always thought that that was on the high side. >> Yeah. >> So that's 330 for a three-bedroom house.
>> Yeah. >> And um I I like your you know your 270 better, I think. >> Well, my 275 that was based on these numbers. I just used it on my my old on my old calculator. But no, so that was only my I was just trying to figure out what that average bill would be.
>> Listen, I'm not one to increase. So, I think I think if if you're talking about a rate study and looking at a rate study to figure that out, I'm okay with obviously keeping the status quo uh before we would even think about doing another increase on this right now. So, I'm okay with you on that.
>> One thing I did forget to mention is that for years we were cruising along with a, you know, $200 to $300,000 surplus in our borderline um enterprise fund. However, we had a settlement with Fall River
for for blowoff water and it was something that um should have been handled a long time ago. It wasn't. Our previous town administrator Hartnett had dealt with it and as of January 1st, 2022, we're okay. But going back, the the city council of Fall River wanted a
$ 1.5 million from us for this blowoff. And we weren't supposed to pay for the blowoff because the water quality coming from Fall River created the problem. And so we got a negotiation negotiator. What do we what is the proper term for the negotiation? >> Mediator.
>> What? >> Somebody helped mediate the uh >> Yes, mediator. And so the mediator came up with the number of $293,000. So we did pay that and we paid it just a couple weeks ago, but we did pay it. 150 came from ARPA funds. So that didn't
hurt us. The 143 actually came 143,000 actually came from the Borderline Enterprise Fund. So that fund does not have the 2 to300,000 that it had for a number of years. It has more like 125 or 150 something like that. But um just so
you know, I think um our our new town administrator's concern is is is well taken for the future. But I just don't think there's any um you know any pressure right now to to raise rates. I think we've got a year and we've got
this rate study coming and I think uh we should let that study take its course and and um you know review it next year. So >> yes, >> well the rate study is a good thing and the economy is very stressful right now. So and we're making a little bit of
headway with the fee we have right now. >> Yeah. I I think we get you know >> and our system is not big Roger. Correct. >> We would need money in the future. It's nothing like Fall River. And what we have right now, Roger, it's in good shape. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right. >> I think you've got a newer system. Even
the existing >> We need to maintain some valves and some hydrants basically. >> Yeah. Yes. Yep. >> But the infrastructure is good shape. >> It's in good shape. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I will reiterate, we do have $50,000 built into rates for um
expenses, operating expenses. I would tend to hold tight for the taxpayers in Westport. When when we grow, we're going to need money for emergencies. Emergencies happen in the middle of the night in the winter and they cost big bucks, but we're not at that point yet.
>> Well, do I hear a motion? >> I get a motion to keep keep this uh rates at the current rate. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> I >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay. So, it's five to nothing to keep
the rates at $8.30 for one more year. And uh we'll review it again next year. >> Question. >> Yeah. >> Where does this new town administrator live? >> Well, he's he was from Dartmouth. I don't know where he lives. Do you >> Not Westport, right? >> No. No, he lives in Bington, Rhode Island. Um he had a family commitment, I think, this evening.
>> Okay. Okay. No, we hired him from uh from Dartmouth. >> Well, he'll catch on at the nesttown meeting, the annual meeting. >> It's about raising fees. Well, he's coming from a uh I think >> a town that's twice our size. They've got about 32,000 population and we've
got 16. So, >> he's looking at it more from a fiscal standpoint and an operating standpoint on that. So, >> okay. So, um so the waterline enterprise system is growing. Um I had, you know, both myself
and Chris to talk about this. I'll just talk briefly because I think um Roger already gave numbers, but it has grown from 168 to 218. So, we've got about 50 new customers and um I think those customers might throw us more over that
that break point, that threshold whereby we have enough gallons that we pay for uh that we are only paying 5% above the the the uh rate and that that works against higher rates. that would be um
something that would be positive for for the P&L of the enterprise fund. And um and so we have these other two projects. Uh we we talk about the uh the line going to Briggs Road, but it passes
about seven houses uh from Gford to Route 88. And so there are possible other other customers. And then we have Keading 2. And you know where do we put that? Do we put that on Route Six? And if we were to put it on Route Six, we
could um go one block further than where it is currently ending to South Balt Street. And Jake, you want to talk about that just briefly? >> Yeah, just just briefly. Um someone reached out to me with a concern. And I think that this is, you know, evident in
in kind of these clustered neighborhoods with smaller lots that they're having issues with old cesspools and and and whatnot and and now water quality. So, somebody did reach out to me on South Baralt Street that uh does have an issue. Their water did not test well at
all, like do not drink that water, do not shower in that water. Um, so I think that, you know, based on where that water line ends right now at the basically the UPS store, which is, you know, the individual can see the where
the end of the water line is from where he uh is located. So I think there's going to probably be if more people looked at their water on South Balt and uh South Berryman and even you know further down you have Crane A and Russell Street. So, there are a lot of residential areas that if you did extend
that project in that direction, uh you're going to have a lot more residential areas. And I do know at least right now there are two people uh kind of back to back on that street that have tested their water and it is not good. Like not usable at all. So, I mean, that's why I was wondering how
soon. I mean, this is a situation where the individual like, you know, do I pay $15,000 or take a loan out to get a $15,000 well, you know, dug because >> they have shallow wells there. They're using shallow wells, so everything probably is infiltrated into the well.
You could build and you could dig a 400 foot well, but, you know, that's going to cost you 15 20,000. So I think if we're looking for an opportunity and it's ending right there, we do have four residential streets that may be a possibility. Um so South Baralt, South
Berryman which are kind of back to back and then there's Crane A Russell and even Oakland because I know we talked before on Oakland. I don't know if there's a loop there or if that was the plan before it went to Briggs Road, but >> well that's there's a little bit of Oakland in in Kading Wong if there's any money left over from connecting the fire
station >> because I know there's always a concern with running a water line where it ends like those streets all kind of dead end so it's not like you're creating loops but if you can connect down to that Oakland one and then create that loop I don't know I just again that was a constituent that reached out and
horrible situation in a situation where they can't you know >> loops are ideal but they can be deadended Yeah, >> Roger. These um two families the council mentioned that can see where we ended that are having this problem. You're familiar with the infrastructure, right? Where he's talking about.
>> Do we have the money to help these families out to extend it a little bit? >> Not in the um not in the current, you know, the phase one project. I'm calling it the the $4 million project. There's nothing. It's gone. Um,
you know, if we did we did identify Oakland neighborhood as a as the um ad alternate in the bid. So, if the Briggs Road numbers come in good and then we have the ad alternate, maybe there's some money there that we could say go up. >> Families um
that are stressed and it's that close. >> Yeah. Uh they can't drink or wash. >> Yeah. That's >> Roger. Can we help them out temporarily as a as a you know, with a temporary line as um you know, it's done during construction until the next phase.
>> I mean, anything possible, anything that's really temporary is a is a surface line like hydrant to hydrant. You've probably seen them so that they can bypass the water, but there would be nothing that really you can do temporary. >> You could bury a temporary line to beat the frost. >> Usually you don't do it 4T deep, you
know, or 5t deep as part of because then you might as well just put the pipe in. Um but um we we should take a look at it. You know, >> you think you could you could check it out and let us know at the next meeting. >> Yeah. >> If something could be done and figure it out. >> Yeah.
>> It's on South Bal Street. >> Yeah. I'm I'm going to >> First house at that that close. Families that can't drink or wash. >> No, it's it's you know, >> but I I do think, you know, we will have upcoming discussions about >> um how we would plan to spend uh Keing
2. >> Yeah. which is, you know, $1.3 million. >> I know that's spring of 27, but it's still sooner than I I just don't know how you get, you know, how do you live a year without having any water? So, >> whatever, whatever. There's a possibility. >> We are so close and we have some money. >> You'll check it out, Raj.
>> Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. >> Positive 100%. >> I know we've talked about linking up with with Dartmouth and maybe we would put Keading 2 into the It might cost five or six million to bring the line all the way down route um route six to the Dartmouth line. And I would expect
Dartmouth to pay for most of it, but we could make a contribution. At the same time, um my feedback from our new administrator who does keep in touch with his uh former employer um that they've got other things they're thinking about right now and probably
not thinking about, you know, hooking up to our Westport line. So that would open up this $1.3 million to going into more neighborhoods along Route 6 that really do need waterline service. And Mory, if you're going that way, you're going towards Dartmouth anyway. >> Exactly.
>> You're gain You're gaining some distance. >> We might get another 100 another football field in Dartmouth. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. >> Look, it's right there. >> I know. >> It's right there. Yeah, >> I know. >> Okay. So, I think we have completed the uh the agenda for tonight. And I call for
>> a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Don't all talk at once. >> You did a great job. >> Thank you. >> Motion to adjurnn. So, let the record show that the meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. >> Okay. Thank you very much, everybody.
Thank you, Val.