The commission’s primary focus was the ongoing development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) policy. A commissioner raised concerns about whether a single water meter should serve both a primary residence and an ADU or if separate meters would be necessary. The commission noted that surrounding municipalities have varying policies, with some permitting a single meter and others requiring separate services. There was also mention of one municipality’s explicit exclusion of ADUs from elderly rate qualification.

The commission recognized the importance of establishing a comprehensive policy early on to set expectations for property development and avoid potential conflicts. This policy development is particularly pertinent given anticipated increases in multi-unit developments. By aligning the ADU policy with the multi-unit water policy, the commission aims to maintain consistency across regulations.

In new business, the commission discussed an update to the elderly rate policy that was previously addressed by the Select Board. A memorandum was sent to the Select Board, sparking debate on what would be deemed appropriate. This discussion highlighted the ongoing dialogues between the Water Commission and the Select Board, particularly concerning the sewer portion of the elderly rate policy.

Another topic was the implementation of a new reporting system to track water usage violations due to restrictions. The commission is considering partnering with SL Surfo, a utility systems company that manages programming for census analytics and weekly leak reports. The new system aims to replace manual efforts and neighbor reports, which have historically led to community conflicts. This data-driven approach is expected to enhance the management of water restrictions. However, the cost of $5,000 for the report’s implementation was met with skepticism. A commissioner expressed doubt about the necessity of the report. There was a preference to explore other avenues for utilizing technical support funds more efficiently. The commission was reassured that the $5,000 charge was for implementation only, with future costs being included in an existing contract.

The commission also discussed the state’s stance on enforcing water regulations, noting that there have been no mandates for enforcement thus far. A member mentioned their connection with the American Water Works Association and discussions with Springfield Water and Sewer. This uncertainty led to contemplation about delaying the report’s implementation until state regulations necessitate action.

Operational issues were another area of focus, particularly concerning a malfunctioning pump that had been out of service since the previous week. This failure increased the commission’s reliance on water from Springfield, and there was concern about the delay in receiving a replacement part. The age of the faulty pump was discussed, raising questions about the longevity of current equipment and the need for future replacements. The commission acknowledged the importance of proactive planning for equipment lifecycles and redundancy to mitigate service interruptions.