The possibility of waiving system development charges took center stage as the board grappled with the dilemma of whether to limit waivers solely to wells confirmed to be contaminated or to also include those at risk due to drought conditions. The financial burden on homeowners, who face the necessity of connecting to the municipal water system because of PFOA contamination, was a primary concern. The prospect of offering a payment plan for the connection fee was put forward, with a suggestion that a lien could be placed on the property to secure payment. However, this proposal sparked debate over the legal ramifications of such an action.

In addition to financial concerns, the board delved into the responsibilities and liabilities of the water department, particularly concerning the installation and inspection of water connections. The confusion around the terminology used, such as “betterment fee,” underscored the need for clarity. The potential for seeking state financial assistance for affected homeowners was raised. Collaboration with other stakeholders, including the Board of Health and town administrators, was recognized as essential in addressing the concerns.

The meeting also touched on broader responsibilities of the water commissioners and the water department. The board reviewed the commissioners’ role in compliance, support for operators, budget approval, and public communication. The hiring process for water department personnel was discussed, emphasizing the importance of understanding the water system and its operations.

A positive report from a citizen regarding the efficient handling of a water-related issue by town personnel was acknowledged by the board. The board also discussed the need for a more detailed review of documents related to water regulations and acts, highlighting a recent meeting with the town administrator and another individual. The importance of safety measures, including the use of a trench box during operations, was also emphasized.

The board recognized the water department employees with applause for their safety performance and dedication. The discussion on safety training focused on competent person training and the importance of workplace safety, particularly in road work and trench operations. Ongoing projects were reported, including chemical feed pump installations, well upgrades, and the Lunenberg tank survey progress.

To enhance public awareness, a suggestion was made to highlight staff members and their work, but concerns about compliance with the social media policy were raised. The board stressed that any public communication should remain informative and within legal parameters. The discussion also covered the significance of tank size and turnover rates for water pressure and system operation, with a reminder to revisit the topic in future meetings.

The commissioners debated on the types of water tanks suitable for the town, weighing the pros and cons of cement versus metal tanks with a glass lining. The controversy over the construction of an 80-foot tall tank and its community acceptance was a point of contention. Presenting inspection reports of existing tanks to address maintenance issues was suggested. Water meter exchanges, increased water usage, and its revenue implications were also topics of confidence in the budget. The board voted to review monthly abatements and approved end-of-month reports, scheduling the next meeting for July 8th.