09:48The multi-use building project on West Main Street emerged as a focal point due to its financial and structural implications. The project had undergone significant revisions after feedback from the historic district commission, which led to a reduction in the number of units and a decrease in building height. The revised plan now proposes 14 one-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units, down from the original design. These changes necessitated a reevaluation of project expenses, with particular attention to sewer connection fees and water line extensions.

14:49The financial viability of the project was a concern. The developer proposed applying costs incurred from extending a water line at a different site to the current project to offset financial losses. This extension, which involved an old line from a desalinization project, incurred expenses exceeding $80,000. The board expressed caution regarding this request, emphasizing that typically, cost benefits are specific to the project directly associated with the incurred expenses. They deliberated on the proposed fee structure, considering how to calculate the Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) for the mixed-use building. The developer suggested a cost of $96,000 based on six EDUs, a significant reduction from the standard $240,000 for 15 EDUs if the building were considered as an apartment complex.

The conversation further delved into the sewer tie-in fees for the 10 West Main Street property. A letter was referenced, indicating a calculation based on the number of bedrooms, which could potentially lower the expected fees. The board weighed options on defining each apartment as a single-family residence, which would result in higher costs. They also discussed using a pro-rata adjustment for calculating betterments, deciding to refer to it as a “privilege fee,” a motion that was unanimously approved.

25:47Operational challenges were also a significant topic of discussion, particularly regarding a property on South W Street. The property, currently vacant with owners in Florida, reported unusually high water usage. This prompted concerns about a potential leak or unauthorized use. The board emphasized the need for proper procedures. They debated the implications of the owner’s responsibility for the bill and considered sending a letter requesting arrangements for the meter test, emphasizing adherence to regulations.

39:09In addition to addressing ongoing project and operational concerns, the Commission also provided updates on the Superintendence. A significant agreement was discussed for installing a tank aeration system, with plans to have it operational by spring. The water treatment facility’s backwash pump was successfully rebuilt and reinstalled, addressing previous deterioration issues. However, complications arose with a green sand filter, prompting repairs and additional gravel purchases. The Commission planned to request $175,000 from retained earnings at a special town meeting to cover these unexpected expenses.

47:51The meeting also touched upon the Elm Street project, which faced a lack of support from the select board despite finance committee backing. This project involves significant water and sewer enhancements, with a proposed $6 million funding article. The Commission expressed frustration at the lack of commitment from the prospective buyer and emphasized the project’s importance in the upcoming town meeting.

55:57Cybersecurity was another area of focus, with a multi-step analysis mandated by the EPA being conducted. This involved examining data access and security protocols, particularly for the SCADA system, which monitors the infrastructure. The Commission acknowledged the need for further clarification on the system’s operational and security aspects.

01:15:17Towards the end of the meeting, personnel changes within the water department were announced, with a staff member leaving at the month’s end. The board acknowledged the individual’s contributions and the positive impact during their tenure.