The committee’s discussions began with the issue of engineering for PFAS treatment in the town’s water supply. With new federal and state guidelines setting a permissible PFAS level at 20 parts per trillion, Norton’s current water supply sometimes exceeds this limit, resulting in a DEP administrative consent order. The engineering work to treat the water, estimated to cost over $50 million, is a decisive step toward compliance. The committee considered using retained earnings for the initial $445,000 engineering cost, although concerns were raised about potential rate hikes if these funds were depleted. Despite exploring alternatives like purchasing water from neighboring towns, it was clarified that engineering work remains a mandatory compliance step. The timeline for adhering to DEP requirements extends to December 2026, allowing for a staggered approach to rectifying water quality issues.

In addition to the PFAS treatment, the committee tackled the necessary replacement of water mains on Elm Street. The existing infrastructure, dating back from the 1950s to 1970s, includes materials that fail to meet current safety standards, prompting a need for regulatory-compliant replacements. The estimated cost has escalated from $1.9 million to $3.5 million, with ongoing discussions about securing a potential grant tied to development prospects at Reeden Barton. However, the grant’s probability remains low. The urgency of replacing unknown or non-compliant services, driven by regulatory pressures, places the Elm Street project alongside PFAS treatment as a high priority.

Shifting the focus to school infrastructure, the committee deliberated on a proposed roof replacement project for the Norton Middle School, which has faced chronic issues since its construction. The roof’s problems, dating back to its installation in 1998, have led to ongoing disputes over responsibility and numerous temporary fixes. Despite a warranty from Firestone, the roof’s deterioration has persisted, with a significant need for a long-term solution. The committee reviewed options for either restoring the existing EPDM roofing or undertaking a complete metal roof replacement, with costs ranging from $8.6 million to $10.7 million.

The committee also explored the financial implications of the roof project, debating whether a restoration, which promises a 20-year warranty, is sufficient or if a full replacement, albeit more costly, would prevent future issues. Concerns were raised about the potential for mold and mildew if water is trapped beneath a new top coat, with some members advocating for a complete replacement to address underlying structural problems.

In other discussions, the committee addressed sewer infrastructure challenges related to a proposed large-scale residential development and drainage improvements for Barrows Court, impacted by previous flooding.