The most contentious topic was the review of task orders for Engineering Services, centering on electricity for the Dana Street, Leominster Road, and Mass 1 pump stations. Commissioners were split over a $7,200 cost estimate provided by Right Pierce, which was considered steep given the tight budget. The looming May 10th grant application deadline added urgency to the debate, with some commissioners stressing the necessity of the review to qualify for the grant, while others balked at the expenditure.

Efforts to find a compromise included suggestions to consult external experts such as John Denapoli and pump suppliers, in hopes of obtaining the required data without incurring the full cost. Although there was consensus on the significance of the grant, the commission left the meeting without reaching a definitive solution on how to proceed with the engineering review within the financial limits.

Another discussion involved the efficiency of new pumps and Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs). Differing opinions emerged on the potential energy savings, with some members suggesting that Chapter 90 funds could be used to cover the cost of repairing sewer covers and manholes. The debate expanded into the need for an engineer versus a contractor to provide an accurate assessment and cost estimate of the required manhole repairs. Ultimately, the commission decided to await additional information before defining the scope of work and moving forward with the project.

The issue of billing was also at the forefront, with talks on how to handle a late payment from a business that could lead to the revocation of their license if not resolved by the agreed upon date. The commission expressed concerns about the munis system’s difficulties with tax and sewer billing. Deliberation on whether to vote on the license issue that night ensued, but the outcome of the vote was not disclosed in the summary.

Further complicating financial matters, the commission debated over the Q4 bill insert and the language to be used for an increase in the minimum charge based on water flow. Additionally, the draft turnover procedure sparked debate over the practicality of daily turnovers and the use of carbon receipt books.

The commission also faced decisions regarding waivers of interest for three accounts tied to a car wash and office properties due to billing issues. There was general support for granting the waiver, notwithstanding concerns about setting a precedent for retroactive fee waiver requests. This conversation extended into a larger discussion about the billing system’s failings, with some commissioners suggesting seeking retribution from the system provider.

Problems with the postal service and the late delivery of bills prompted the commission to debate the waiver of interest for affected customers. The commission passed a motion to allow customers a seven-day window to report late bills and have their interest fees waived, assuming they had a history of timely payments. However, this decision was complicated by the treasurer’s upcoming absence for surgery, raising questions about the logistics of handling customer reports during that period.

Lastly, the meeting covered updates on a significant clog in the sewer system, the current budget status, and the upcoming town meeting. The commission discussed the content of the sewer budget presentation, including whether to include a graphic image of a clogged pump to illustrate the system’s challenges. There was also a discussion about who would represent the commission at the town meeting and present the sewer budget articles in the treasurer’s absence.