02:39The most notable discussion focused on the pilot study results for the district’s well sites, presented by an engineering firm. The board explored several scenarios for treating wells to manage PFAS contamination and water hardness. One scenario involved treating the Hickory Hills well alone, while another examined the Lancaster A wells, which faced hydraulic limitations. A third scenario considered a combination of Hickory and Lancaster A wells, while a fourth targeted the Keating well solely for PFAS. The most comprehensive scenario aimed to address both PFAS and hardness at the heating well but came with high projected operational costs. The board grappled with the financial and labor implications of each scenario, especially the need for a new full-time operator to manage salt deliveries and brine disposal.

13:46Funding possibilities were a concern, as the board considered reapplying for State Revolving Fund (SRF) financing. The competitiveness of securing such funds was highlighted, given the criteria for PFAS levels above ten parts per trillion. The Hickory well was pinpointed as a candidate for funding due to its potential score. The board also acknowledged the urgency of addressing PFAS compliance, as new EPA standards require action by 2031, with preparatory work beginning in 2027. The potential for administrative consent orders and financial penalties if compliance is not met was a concern for the board.

Amid these discussions, the board contemplated the challenges of constructing a treatment facility by 2027 or 2028 to align with the compliance deadline. They expressed concerns about the financial burden of rising costs and expiring funding sources, such as the bipartisan infrastructure law set to expire in 2026 unless reauthorized by Congress. The board considered conducting a survey to gather residents’ preferences on addressing PFAS contamination, emphasizing the need for broad community input to inform decision-making.

10:39The meeting also highlighted concerns about the adequacy of existing wells and the potential need for additional water sources. Problems with specific wells, such as low capacity and contamination, underscored the need for strategic planning to ensure a reliable water supply. The board debated the implications of adding more wells and the necessity of treatment plants to manage water quality. The vulnerability of the system, notably the reliance on a single main, was a point of contention as members discussed the need for redundancy to prevent supply disruptions.

01:30:45Another important topic was the proposal for radio communication upgrades, prompted by past communication failures during emergencies. The board considered a proposal from Modular Communications, with costs exceeding initial estimates. They discussed the potential for grant funding to offset expenses and emphasized the importance of reliable communication systems for emergency management.

01:39:34The superintendent’s report on a water main break on Lemus Road further highlighted the need for proper training and equipment handling by fire departments. The incident underscored the financial and operational impact of emergencies on the water system, prompting discussions about increasing hydrant fees to reflect true costs.

01:23:53Finally, the board reviewed a letter from the Woodlands condo trustees’ lawyer regarding a kayak rack, balancing due diligence with a desire for timely resolution. Concerns about the rack’s placement and its environmental impact were pivotal, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of easement regulations.