One item on the agenda was the challenge of managing water contaminants. The committee explored the history of water quality issues, focusing on the well on Newland Street. The well, currently disconnected from the treatment plant due to prohibitive costs, is a symbol of the larger problem of managing contaminants such as PFAS (referred to as posos in the transcript). The committee considered the need for additional facilities to address these contaminants and the associated costs. The timing of when the issue became known was a matter of contention, with implications for the construction and planning of the existing treatment plant.

The discussion extended to the national scope of water contamination and the lack of federal funding to address the issue. The reappropriation of funds from the wells 5 and 6 projects was proposed to investigate and design a new treatment facility at well 3 or to upgrade existing facilities. This decision underscored the urgency of the situation, as the committee acknowledged the risk of potential lawsuits and the necessity of prompt action to mitigate the contaminants.

Simultaneously, the sewer project was a focal point, with discussions about the sewer connection fee and its calculation based on title five flows. The cost of the project would determine the fees for each equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), with the financial burden on homeowners a notable topic. The potential for a grant to reduce the total project cost was considered, yet the debate centered on whether the developer or homeowners should bear the remaining share. The fairness of imposing the burden on a small group of homeowners versus sharing it among all ratepayers or the town was debated vigorously.

Members also debated the long-term benefits of the sewer project, such as potential cost reductions for septic system replacements and the impact on property values. The zoning changes and the development of the site were discussed in relation to the broader implications for properties along the street. The conversation revealed a divide between seeing the project as a benefit for the town as a whole and concerns about the immediate financial impact on individual homeowners.

One member brought up the dilemma faced by homeowners who had recently invested in new septic systems and the feasibility of additional costs for tying into the sewer system. An informational session for community members was announced, providing a platform to address questions directly with involved parties.

The urgency of the matter was punctuated by the timeframe for utilizing a significant grant, which spanned fiscal years 2024 to 2026, emphasizing the importance of breaking ground to access these funds. This underscored a sense of immediacy in resolving the water quality issues and advancing the sewer project while managing the financial impact on the community.