##VIDEO ID:fCTbkGpH8UE## [Music] [Music] today is December 18th it's 4:30 this is the water quality management committee meeting we have the usual cast of uh knowledgeable characters um we get out of here by 6:30 as we all know um fairly straightforward but interesting agenda tonight uh first and foremost uh Jonathan you going to take this on please is it okay if Jonathan takes it on you want to describe going to the selectman and what we yeah so uh on Monday night um Steve and I Steve Leon and I went before the select board to talk about our um the idea we voted on previously on the refundable versus non-refundable tax credits and how we believe that's the way to go for people having to upgrade to uh um the best available nitrogen reducing technology septic system or connect to the sewers um we gave I think a short and sweet presentation laid out the arguments and uh happily Doug and his cohorts voted unanimously to approve the concept of taking this forward going to other towns that are facing this issue talking with them also talking to the key state legislators in the uh cap and islands area um and starting to initiate the conversation of how we can move this forward what needs to be done they graciously agreed to write a letter to some of these politicians um showing their support for the concept and I think now we're in a position to talk about next steps as as the board what do we want to do how do we want to proceed yeah very well represented I do believe at least one select person if not more than one said this seems like a no-brainer yes so uh I would say that you and Steve should jointly continue to work together outline what you think the steps or opportunities are and then we'll bring it back and we can kind of run through that okay so maybe by the next meeting have some thoughts I because I spoke one time with Dave Vieira about this concept uh earlier and he was um positive on it I will reach through his office to try to obtain um a summary of when it went through the first time what the Department of Revenue got in terms of budget finances implications on tax revenue collections for the entire Cape so we know where we're starting from and where we want to get to okay good Excell excellent job well done um moving on to the next one uh I see we got George here which is good um we had a discussion before uh on the oh I'm sorry I jumped ahead I jumped four this is Steve Leighton now a discussion and vote on the fairness of subsidies for the installation of advanced uh septic systems um there were two pieces of paper that we sent around and the purpose of the first one is simply a suggested outline for our discussion today in other words can we see if we can agree on some facts before we worry about what we want might want to or not want to do about those facts and the second one called net cost to homeowner was my first stab at what the facts are but I absolutely want to hear from of any corrections to this that anyone wants to suggest does everybody haveen and if they had a chance to to read it do you want me to put it up on the screen that would be great why don't you walk us through this sniff okay so two columns one for sewer and one for IAS and I purposely didn't put any dollar figures on because I want to see if we can even agree on the qualitative aspects of it without getting bogged down and one thing is $700 now it's $730 or something um for the sewer the um main cost to the homeowner is the betterment because the the homeowner isn't actually buying anything the town's buying it all and then the homeowner is reimbursing the town and I'm saying the growth is what the town spends on the system the betterment is the 70% of it that the um homeowner reimburses the town um and the um less the state tax credit and plus the annual fees and for the uh and I'm counting this other things three things as zero as a baseline um I could put it as pluses there but I decided to put it as minuses on the other side so everything was a cost and the in the IIA I'm assuming uming at first that the homeowner pays everything the gross minus any subsidy they get from the town plus they have the Lost value of the extra bedrooms that they would have if they had sewer Instead The Lost value of the loose use of the land um above their leeching field that they would have if they'd had sewer instead and they still have all the costs of the title 5 itic that they wouldn't if they had sewer and there's also the state tax credit and annual fees and um I'm for purposes of this I'm saying the gross for the the gross for the sewer varies all over the place and I know it's a little more complicated than this because there's the central part of it that the um homeowner doesn't pay for it all that doesn't go into the growth that is used to calculate the betterment we can put that in if you want to and um the the point is as I see it there are no benefits to the homeowner from the IIA other than the cleaner estor that benefits everyone have the potential cost of replacement right 30 or 40 years replacing the leech field yeah that's right or it could fail be problem right right in fact it's it's unfortunate that the A and IIA means alternative because it really should be accessory it's it's not an alternative to a Title 5 it's an expensive accessory to a Title Five it's a supercharger for a Title Five but you still have that title five to take care of could stand for aggravation that's good too if you got if you guys are going to start start having a dialogue you need to go to the the podium that's okay all right just so we pick it up okay um I'm interested in any corrections to that that anyone wants to submit are you calling on people or I am I'm just I'm just making sure you're done finished yeah okay um couple of things uh thanks for explaining the Lost volume of extra bedroom cuz I was kind of puzzled by that line so you're saying if they got a sewer instead um they would probably be allowed additional bedroom right probably one one right there is a FL am got up you want to you want to clarify the flow neutral bylaw the flow neutral bylaw limits properties in the sewer area um to four bedrooms um whether they're you know so so it does if you we're starting with two or or three then the sewer does allow you an an extra bedroom but if you're starting at 4 you do not the exception is the new Silver Beach sewer bylaw um actually limits them to three um three bedrooms um so uh there is a slightly different question so in theory if you put in a dite system and it was sized for four bedrooms you could do it couldn't you yeah and if you had two bedrooms you could still add bedrooms yes but if your lot size limits the size of your leech field then that could be that could be true you know along that line there was an example when Little Pon sewer service area went on Street there was a house on a large piece of property that could have put in five bedrooms because they went they had to connect to the Sewer they were limited to the four they lost a bedroom because of the sewer okay so that door swings both ways and I think that's important to recognize because you know I I have a philosophical issue with the you me they had they had five bedrooms they could have five they had the land to and they were they bought a property for a million bucks and spent another three on it and could have and wanted to had a bedroom and they could have under Title 5 and town land size and everything else they were not allowed to because they were on a sewer they were limited to the four so they lost a bedroom because they were required to connect to the Sewer it's a two-way door is is the float does the flow neutral bylaw apply everywhere in Falmouth I mean all the proposed sewer areas or was it just Little Pond no the answer is in order to get a 0% loan from the state revolving fund you have to have a flow neutral Bor and so our expectation is that we are going to get a 0% loan for sewers going for from the state revolving fund so therefore it would apply right now it doesn't apply until we apply for financing under srf We could decide not to go for financing under srf and leave wide open for whatever people wanted to do but that would cost the town more money in terms of The Upfront Capital cost of the project so I don't I don't want to draw a hard line right now but it's pretty much go ahead Amy did I misstate it no just to to clarify the flow neutral bylaw applies to all sewered properties in fouth um so unless we changed the bylaw to refer to specific areas it applies to all sewered areas with the one exception of new Silver Beach which has its own bylaw okay so on that line we should put in sometimes in parenthesis right you know so that's that's not an absolute statement but you know I've just at a few other notes um on the costs you you correctly stated that the in the IIA column you have to have a Title Five you have to add if you're required under a town mandate an IIA module which may be able to be retrofitted into your title five or if you're new construction it's going to cost you another 2530 Grand to add the I modual to your Million Dollar Plus project um as far as the sewer cost there is a betterment and you didn't put the dollar amounts and I understand that but the betterment which under Little Pond was about 133 that is not eligible for the state tax credit betterment is not eligible for the state tax credit so that is a total out of-pocket cost and yes it was 0% for 30 years I got about 26 24 more to pay I'll be a 100 when I finish but that is not eligible for the state tax credit you do have eligibility should your income allow it and you pay state taxes to get the state tax credit for your lateral connection from your house to the street that can get the state tax credit but only that the annual fees roughly with the betterment and the sewer use charge for someone on the sewer like myself is about 100 bucks a month 1,200 bucks a year very similar to the cost for the IIA so you know th those I think are important uh so so so you're saying the annual fees are approximately the same under each column yes and that under sewer unless state tax credit we should put for connection only is for connection only not for betterment you cannot claim a state tax credit for a betterment okay um the sewer connection um and the start of the betterment is on a very short time frame and I think that's important to note as we look at this issue uh especially going forward with timing triggers and what have you in the sewer you don't get 5 10 or 20 years to connect when the line's there I think it was a year after construction was completed the betterment charges began and you had to you had to connect and most people connected in a pretty timely fashion wanted to we're paying for it we might as well we're paying the betterment fee let's do it there was really no shortage of contractors that people feared would develop they Rose to the occasion a lot of contractors got themselves new back hose trailers and dump trucks and became you know made some good money over a few years of installing sewers and U running laterals so you know I don't think we should be too worried going forward about who's going to put all these things in um that's a different topic Co it is but I think you know it's it's kind of we're in a general what's going on and how what is fair uh philosophically I'm I'm very leery of the whole concept of any subsidy from the town towards this certainly I would not be comfortable with anything more than 30% of the cost of the I module I just want to do the facts at this point not how long it takes to build it or yeah whether you want subsidies yeah okay that's the next page right okay I'm done any other comments on yeah well there is one cost to the uh sewer uh folks that I think is not in here and that is that they are abandoning their existing infrastructure which they paid for uh you know they their septic system which you know there is some value to that that they are uh giving up when they hook up to the Sewer right if you I sorry I don't see that from an accounting standpoint if you when they purchased that they spent money on it that's a sunk cost right but if it had a 35e lifetime and they only halfway through it in a you could say advertised over 35 years half the value Still Remains I I'm just pointing out that I think it's a little bit not apples and oranges the way you've got it set up okay good point well can I can I step in are you done yeah that was it U two things both both on the financial front once the town says you can't use your installed septic system even if it was installed two years ago it's worthless in the real world I mean we can spend little castles of amortizing it over decades or whatever I want to jump in momentarily if I can that's the point Tom worthless hold hold it just want to jump in but you paid for it just hold on for one second I want to jump in here a little bit and George George's out there so George will help me out this when I was on the board of health and the maravista sewers were coming in the Board of Health developed a protocol that knowing that the sewers were coming in if somebody was selling their property and it failed the system or whatever they were put into a position where if the sewer wasn't built they'd have to replace the system and put a new title 5 in as I recall George otherwise they had to monitor the tank make sure it didn't overflow and hook up within 90 days of it being available something like that so the idea that somebody's got to put a new septic system in because they're transferring property and the sewer is showing up the next year the town work their way around that a little bit so it I was just using that as an I'm just pointing that out that's not a good example how's that well I think it's a valid example but I mean these things happen but the other point I want to make is is these extra bedrooms and Jed was on the board of health at the same time I'm sorry Jed I left you out the these extra bedrooms are not a gift they cost something and if you look at what it cost to do Renovations in Falmouth right now an extra bedroom is a very expensive extra so I don't wait a minute Steve so you can't just say it's the Lost value of extra bedroom that the net cost again taking Ken's model and amortising new construction over 30 years you've got a very valuable asset that you had to pay a lot of money for you might would have if you could have put that bedroom in so it's not it's not free that extra bedroom okay granted I I I mean I just see all I wish there was a real accountant here I'm not one I think I might be a little bit more one than some people here but I'm not one um the are there any CPAs in the room okay okay you're good recovering CPA the the the point is that real estate agents often use the phrase on Town sewer as a selling point for a property yeah they never say congratulations you have an IIA to take care of they might say where they know it's going to be mandated it's already there but that's a different thing that's a specious economic argument and um in the case of the IIA I think the definition of value is what a willing isn't it something like what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller given complete information MH do you see people don't go out and buy IAS unless they think they're going to have to or they're philanthropically inclined toward the health of the Estuary you would not quit your day job to go pedal IAS in some town where they're not required right no I and so I'm just trying to get a more accurate so so I'm convinced that the cost for the IIA is greater I'm just trying to get a handle on how much greater right all right I'm goingon to go to Jonathan I guess getting along what you're saying about the real estate value I think real property value gain when going to sewering but have we Quantified that so that we can put that into the calculus of this comparison you know what would a price of a little Pond home prior to sewering be compared to what it's sold for the same house same lot after you went to sewers I mean there's a real quantification of that value that I think needs to be done yes I wish I knew how to do that as said not a realate real you have to there they could correct for the inflation cor at the same time correct yeah correct so if you look on the thing that's in parenthesis at the bottom this is this is what Steve is this is what Steve believes and he thinks that this should be the position of this board to advise to the selectman which is that there is there are no benefits to the homeowner for installing an IA so I'd like I'd like to for you folks to consider Steve thinks that this board should take a position that there are no benefits to a homeowner from installing an IA and then let the the select board decide what to do with that yeah we can pass that along or not you want an opinion yeah I mean Steve wants this board to make make that make it either either vote it up or down I disagree okay I disagree okay I disagree okay yeah okay I disagree okay yeah what's the benefit well it's not a trivial thing if you uh your Estuary that you live on is cleaner you get a distinct no I'm admitting that benefit but everybody benefits from that well but some people benefit more and the people who actually live their benefit more but if you look at that map most of the people who will be are nowh near the actual Estero fair enough so their benefit is somewhat decreased as you go further well into the same realm as the people that don't aren't required that live over here the same distance from the Estero but they're not in the water set yeah it can't be perfectly Equitable I agree go ahead Tom yes um I know I'm going to get yelled out about this but suppose to simplify the argument we get rid of the history we don't worry about sewer betterments and reimbursements anything else we just say that our plans for geob boundaries are calling on a disproportionately small fraction of the people in town to pay a disproportionately large amount of money to benefit the community as a whole I like that thank you so anyway that's that that to me is the part of a very good way of saying clean way cleaner way of saying it rather than no benefit right so I mean it's obvious beneficial to the community that benefits are are diffuse in time and space but it's got to be clear if if you want to be dramatic with the state breathing down our on us with these deadlines is the town has to do something and I think and and I hesitate to use fairness but it is the fair thing to do is to help as much as seems to make sense for the people that are going to have to do this following through because I I could see anyway I don't want to get any farther than that but that's my idea is to the the S thing has kind of become a straw man that we can poke at and try to figure out exactly what happened when and why and how and the big issue is we're calling on a few people to make a much larger proportional contribution to this thing than the rest of the populace absent of absent of the Town agree into some form of subsidy for those people well the subsidy would try to balance no I'm saying without a subsidy right yeah without a subsidy it's unfair and disproportionate anyway that's that's the way I would like to leave it I I'll entertain the board I'll come back but I I want to give the folks in the audience if they if they want to chime in on this conversation to to speak George just yep what he said simply because just to make a statement to the selectman that there's no benefit to a homeowner no real benefit no cost advantage to do this I see no re I'm I'm wondering why the committee would take it up like that I like the idea of making everybody aware that people who put in IA systems May bear a cost disproportionate to those on sewer because I've always thought that the only benefit I'm going to get from a sewer direct benefit is I go take a dump where there somebody who's served on Zoe I'm going to go home and I'm going to think to myself GE I hope the EP doesn't knock on my door and make me put an IA system in so I definitely think Mr Duncan has a better way to phrase it because that's the truth of it you could say is it going to cost a homeowner more sure yeah if if you wanted to make that statement but why would you present that statement to the selectman for what purpose to point out a fact it's better to put it in context to the fact that these people who put in IAS divert urine put in composting toilets they are all going to disproportionately pay because they're going to pay for their sewer and they're going to pay for their system thank you George thank you George he said okay are you putting your hand up to speak Amy he was saying he agreed with your I just had a very quick thing which is following up on what Ed said originally the if you're looking at cost the sewer column is not including an important cost which is the cost to connect to the Sewer so it's it's making it look like the betterment is the only main cost but there are two main costs the betterment and the cost to connect to the Sewer if you were going to present this again and the homeowner pays the cost to connect yes yes okay but that cost to connect is also subject to sub tax credit but only that right state tax credit not the better can I ask a question you can when we came up you ask a second question too when the committee came up or whoever came up with it who came up with a 7030 split for betterment cost versus the homeowner cost uh versus somebody that did the first round well Road betterments are also 7030 aren't they Doug uh but each Community gets to set their better betterment scale Amy that is that was the that was what we did for for um marav Vista phes and there's no reason to do it differently in the future but it's there is that's not a magic number that there have been other distributions in the past in Falmouth and so I think there's a good precedent for that now but it's not a it's not a fixed number well I asked because you know if there was some real reason that would be worth considering but but absent that I'm going to try to answer the question I think back when Bo Boer was running the town he did some stuff looking at you know depending on where you set the betterments what how the numbers worked out and the town then agreed on that 7030 mhm but my memory of that was the precedent for the 7030 was new new Silver Beach yeah I think that let not get into that one no what was what was the I'll just say real first for not giving the people new Silver Beach anything right and re came back at another town meeting and said we'll we'll do it the way we've done it elsewhere well but the other thing about new silver is that we split the total project cost differently in new silver the people connecting to it paid SE paid 70% of the entire project cost including the treatment plant in the for other projects they we've split at 7030 of the collection system portion of the job so I it's it's been different over time I think the The Little Pond president is a is a good and reasonable president so I just I I would just I would just thank you for feeling that so there is some history on this 7030 number but I do believe believe that for any project that goes forward somebody I believe it's the board of Selectmen upon the advice of the finance director in the finance committee has to adopt a betterment for that project that's correct so you know at some point if that somebody wanted to make it 6040 or 75 25 they could so that that all goes back to again the overall finances the money available and how it's going to get paid sure I believe the precedent from when Woods Hole and Main Street areas were sewered was the opposite more like 60% by the town and 40% by the connectors and it was a lot of federal money involved and everything else 90 cents on the dollar was Federal yeah so was a cheaper project whole different dollar the philosophical percentage was different that H paid more than the homeowner whereas um federal government paid a lot more than the homeowner so you know it's a different animal but that that is a pretty good precedent now but yes it has to be voted on each project by the select board I remember very distinctly the night they voted on the 7030 because it was about 11:00 at night after a very long meeting and there was going to be a discussion and there was no discussion it was just this is what it's going to be bam boom we're going home anyway but I gu federal government budgets get pass okay just just for what for the way we kind of are looking at the big picture or you know where things may evolve to we're continuing to work within a 7030 model until we find out the something different okay I want to go back to can I say hold on one second I think I think the gentleman to your well I I mean I just I asked that question because you know I feel there's value to the fact that there's precedent and uh I I keep imagining that if I was on the sewer and you know I'm paying 70% and and the town is contributing 30 and then my next door neighbor I've said this before you know happens to have an IA system and gets 100% uh subsidy I would feel very cheated by that well but I don't think that's going to happen wait what about what about 7030 for the IAS yes is that what people are saying that's kind of what I'm saying is I think some subsid might be merited and but I I would go with just keeping our precedent so that everyone's treated the same can can I if we can do it sees the moment Mr chair I I cut Ed off to to let I just wanted to go back to your your very eloquent philosophical statement that we kind of decided I don't know what's the point of making it but the same statement can be made about people on the sewer because they pay a dis proportionate share of improving the estuaries that benefits the entire town but the same words that you use so eloquently applies to people that are required to sewer exactly I don't know what's going to happen and what the betterment numbers will work out when Amy gets her final costs and stuff for the next sewer phase I'm sure it'll be probably more than what we pay at Little Pond and then there's all the inflation and everything else so the numbers aren't going to go down no and I leave it at that no the only place they might go down would be seos Shore because seos Shore is denser than marav Vista okay I will get to you in a second go ahead Tom yeah just I'd like to propose in the interest of moving the discussion forward a motion that our committee is in favor of providing some sort of relief for those in individuals required by whatever conditions we have finally resolve some some sort of financial relief the details to be determined later but I think we need to make it clear to the select board what our feelings are just on that because that's a fundamental building block of any discussion any plans that go forward is is the committee think that's a good idea I would second that I I think that's page two of your presentation Steve yeah which we ought to go to um go ahead can we go to the second page we didn't really resolve one but we maybe we should keep going that's up to you um yeah well we we kicked around a lot of the cost I I think Steve got s to this board that this board does the majority of this board or plurality of this board whatever that is does not does not believe that we should we make a statement that there's no benefit we got a replacement statement from Tom that maybe Tom we can make sure that it gets in the minutes so that we have it there and we can start to use that phrase going forward that this is what's we're doing and this is what's happening is it is the ter I I I I don't like subsidy I I I I prefer the term Financial relief that that there should be some sort of financial relief for those individuals that are going to end up or assistance yeah or assistance what whatever term you want to you want to use all right I'm going to go to uh Jed Board of Health or citizen uh I'm speaking as a citizen I can't speak for the board so Jad Goldstone Precinct to um uh I think you know thinking about this is a the the benefit is a diffuse benefit for everybody in town so if you take this to The Logical conclusion if there is no the benefit for uh that was allowed for uh going up to four bedrooms was something that then those households who are allowed to connect to the Sewer who are required to connect to the Sewer could go up to four bedrooms and they paid a certain amount of money and they got the benefit of having at least the permission to go up to four bedrooms um if you take the however if you take it to the logical conclusion of thinking about an IA system and requiring an IIA system or for that matter acquiring a sewer for a household that can't go up to four bedrooms that in fact there is not they are they're bearing all of the cost for diffuse benefit for the town and perhaps in fact you should think of it the other way the town should be paying everything except for those households that get a specific benefit I'm not necessarily saying that that's the best way of doing this but it is the in some sense it is the most Fair way of doing it I totally agree with you thank you Steve I just have one more comment yeah go ahead Jonathan John I I think it's the 500 pound gorilla in the room is we received a a note from a Town Council back in August that said basically um subsidies for IAS was not um recommended by Council because it's on private property correct and that's going to stand between us and having the town move forward unless there's a change in the interpretation of that law and I think Steve Leon and myself agree there's probably grounds to make that argument that you know it is benefiting the greater population as we've talked about unless it should be part of the town's it's my understanding that Peter Johnson stub and others are already working to change that right there are also many people who don't want to be named who know what they're doing who think that that opinion is incorrect but I mean which is an diplomatic way of saying that is is that it's perhaps not hard to get it changed or to establish that in fact it simply isn't true perhaps but we have to move forward with it has to be an important part of this if the fact that we might not be able to do it you could say therefore it's a waste of time to discuss what we should do I I think it's I don't totally agree with that I think it does no harm and may do some good to come up with what is equably fair as Jed Jared said well that's not what I'm saying you're misinterpreting what I'm saying is we need to have a plan like we're doing for the tax credits how can we help influence that decision with Town Council with the knowledge of the people on this board to move it forward because we all agree that some form of subsidy financial assistance is warranted for people going to IAS but there may be an interpretation by Town Council that says just the opposite agree with you at the current time I want to jump in at the current time we have the opinion from Town Council and it's the opinion of our town councils who governs this town whether other towns have a different opinion or not my understanding is there are two ways that we can get to allowing the subsidy on private land the first is to go to the legislature with a special act a home rle R petition I don't know if Peter Johnson St is working on that or not that's the first I heard he might be working on the second one is one that personally I think has got some political um value to and that is if we decided that the cost of this whole program is of of a scale that it warrants some level of proposition two and a half override specifically targeted for the money raised for subsidizing IA sewers that would be subject to a two-thirds voted town meeting then it would have to go to the general the May election and would have to get a majority of votes once that happens the town is then as a majority of the citizens of the town uh and and the two-thirds has stated that the town is on board with spending that money and we don't need a special Act of the legislature so you know to the extent that you go to the legislature then you turn around to people and so there's two ways to get there okay I keep looking at the numbers and I keep looking at the overall capital budget a little bit I haven't even factored in what some of the sewers are going to be and I see that there's there's a budgetary issue to both sewer and put IAS in that's going to have to over the next twoyear period be dealt with be dealt with and I it's the third reil but I'll sit here and say we probably are going to get to the point we have to do some specific proposition 2 and a half override okay I and I I think that the second one that you mentioned is what the Town Council was telling you and me when we met with her yeah unofficially but what I'm saying is I know that there's Avenues to get there what's our role in propelling that forward it doesn't happen on its own there needs to be some sort of driving for and maybe that's already being done by the select board or others but what is our role in moving that forward I think our role is to say things like Jared and Tom said admit that that there at least needs to be a 7030 split for the Doug Brown would like to speak hi Doug Brown select board um I would just say that you just recommend what you think is best identify any obstacles that may be out there and send it along to us and we'll try to get to work on it we're going where nobody's gone before with these IAS with the subsidy and I think the Town Council is right you know historically there's a Prohibition of spending tax dollars on private property but this may prove to be an exception because it's such a big just just initiative small clarification down Cape I think it's well Fleet they got an srf loan and they are subsidizing private property down there srf would not provide a loan for something they felt was not legal so our town council's opinion and the state srf Bond Council and weal leetes Town Council have a different viewpoint on whether or not you can do this or not and a lot of people were surprised about that but still also just remember the town council's job is to be cautious and to be I'm not warning us when we might be going astray and heads up this might not be legal um you know she advised us not to approve Seafood Sams because the restaurant service didn't meet the governor's covid requirements but we said you know we weren't willing to put a restaurant out of business because we might be in trouble so we voted to approve it anyway against advice and we said if the you know if the governor wants to come down and talk to us she can but nobody came so that's probably the same case in wle they're probably just saying it's for the good so you know let's just that's what the town wants to do let them do it so it could happen is doing it too yeah I just want to be sure you you done Jonathan yes okay Tisbury on the vineyard is doing it I believe they're using some arpa funds and when that money runs out I don't know what they're going to do but they are subsidizing I installation in their mandated Zone yeah I think the advice we just got from Doug is good advice we shouldn't necessarily have to figure out all of the mechanisms of the subsidy but as we put together a package to go before the selectman early in the year about where we're at with you know advice on the need for IAS and the potential extent for IAS we can include something in that about you know as we look at this we believe that to make it fair there's got to be some level of subsidy and that we need to find a path forward to get to that subsidy is that is that it sounds right okay so what does the board want me to do to edit this to pull everybody offline and try to fix it up or ignore it and just say be Fair Doug it's your problem or I think we already did a polling of the board and said there's a large majority that disagrees I'd say let's go to page two and see where we're at so okay so but I don't mind it it's just that okay we don't agree on the facts so let's just go ahead and decide what we're going to do I just think let me step in here it's it's let me just step in moment the the so the next step of where we've gotten to with looking at Ias and Geo boundaries is to put together some type of presentation in the 15 minute to 20 minute realm just tell the board of Selectmen where we're at with all of this we were hoping we were hoping to get through some joint meeting with the Board of Health that's I don't know if we have a date certain or not yet um but uh so I think it's a little bit resting on my shoulders momentarily and Christians we'll put something together and bring it before this board to go through what we've believe this board wants to articulate to the selectman around the idea of geob boundaries and fairness and subsidies okay okay I mean we've got a map that's show show a big map showing 6,000 7,000 Parsons in town and got there and everything and we need to let the selectman know that that's where we're at and that you know that ties back into I got to get from Amy revisit the timetable to to do the Watershed plans you when when are we going to try to line people up and get those done and looking at more sewers and looking at more sewers Steve could I just please John save me I mean I think if the reality is we're going to be putting in a lot of these IAS and we're trying to think how we can equitably uh help those people to do that uh and we're talking about having a responsible management entity to deal with those things we can't do it with individual homeowners being responsible so it seems to me early on WE suggested one way we can do to help that is for instance to subsidize the IAS by buying the IIA Hardware and that means we give monetarily the same amount of money to every single person who's installing an IA the town and its management entity can put out to bid for the IAS we then have the advantage of having one type that we have to maintain for each specific project I just think that that makes a lot of sense for how we think about going ahead if I could I have that triggers a question for me for Amy how did we do the grinder pumps wasn't that the same kind of an arrangement yes so it seems like we've already got a model for it see just just to let you know Town Council has said we shouldn't have done that we were successful yeah I like John's idea I I think that people are confused a little bit let me give maybe a silly analogy but make Point let's say that John and I go out to lunch together and we agree it's going to be Dutch Treat but we forget to tell the waitress and we forget the fact that this restaurant prohibits split plastic so he spends 10 bucks and I spend 20 bucks and the waitress comes with the bill either he pays it and I re reimburse him the 20 bucks or I pay it and he reimburses me the 10 bucks the cash flow is exactly the same but one's a betterment and the other's a subsidy if one of us is the homeowner and the other one is the town in in other words functionally John's idea is perfectly good and I like it but and it's agreeing with me that there ought to be a subsidy it it is a subsidy Rel to the total cost I do think the one thing we have to remember about IAS is each individual installation is going to vary in cost dramatically depending on the site and what has to be done whether they can take advantage of their old septic tank and their existing field so all of that's going to vary and and that was our West fth experience that putting in these things is going to vary from property to property one way we can make it equal and that the town can help each participant equally is by providing the hardware and then if the homeowner wants to do a huge amount of landscaping or whatever that's on them to pick up that portion totally agree with you yes so John you know we've heard from at least a particular vendor that the hardware might be 23 or $225,000 so you're fundamentally proposing that the town pick up $25,000 or a fraction of that it might be tricky if if we say you got to use this unit and you got to pay the town back for the difference whatever again you know when we go out with a contract with economy of scale are they going to cost $25,000 they're not going to drop to five no they're not going to drop to five but they might come down to 15 yeah okay all right sure okay you know the the concept I think has a lot of Merit and the president that Doug and Amy confirmed about the the grinder pumps somewhat reinforces that uh I can't remember whether it's well Fleet or some other municipality in in the country that's doing an IIA subsidy and they are limiting it to the cost of the IIA add-on not trying to do a percentage of a whole new title five or anything else purely the IIA and I think what you're suggesting um I am concerned about the you know hey wait wait a minute how's he got an exclusive for the town of Falmouth for 10,000 or 5,000 systems that's another issue but to take okay we're going to contract for X number of IA modules and let's say they're 25,000 for a number and then what percentage of that would be the town's ultimate cost versus hey homeowner the total cost is 25 you're paying 70% and the town will kick in 30 I I I think it's not a bad pass should we agree that a subsidy makes sense and could we find the budgetary resource because it's not in any Capital plan to do this but that's a not a bad way to go but I I think what Steve just said a percentage of that Hardware cost is the liability of the homeowner so it's not 100% because if you gave the homeowner a $25,000 tank and a system cost 40 or 50 you're giving them a 50% subsidy and I don't think that's the direction we want to go but anyway I think there's there's some Merit in pursuing your thought just on that basis and then do Steve's idea of a percentage of that the homeowner will assume and the town will only assume a smaller portion of it the procurement problem I think would be solved by the town would go out for bids for say the first 100 systems to get a good price but not to commit to everything at once right for all kinds of reasons technically and financially and you'd install those and you'd see how it goes and a few years later they' got to bid again for say 500 and so on so no one company would be guaranteed the whole thing to begin with it's going to take forever to make the IAS work and improve the estuaries and I think our mission is to try and improve them quicker rather than later whatever I'm not speaking to the total schedule I'm just saying you do it in stages whatever it is yeah stages will stretch out the entire Horizon to do this thing and I think it behooves us to try and make this happen quicker so that some of us might see it of benefit In Our Lifetime but not all us all right I'm going to I'm going to wrap this discussion up unless there's something new um we not be at the next meeting it'll probably be the meeting after the next meeting I'll have some sort of draft for everybody to distribute ahead of time and sort of begin looking what do we want to say to the select in terms of what we've been doing for the last year and Advising them on things that are coming down and actions that they may have to take okay all right Ken I don't know if this is you or Kristen about an update on Snug Harbor I think it's Kristen so and I have been talking about the SN har prb idea looking at the number of intent the requirements for it so I've been talking with pauloski from isch about it um he is working on some cost numbers for it so it seems like we're going to move ahead with the letter of intent um see how that goes if we're invited to a full proposal so I've started drafting um Steve rafy put in to get on the select board agenda for consent to apply for it um so we're slowly moving along good Corin yes sir BBC willing to throw a couple of dollars to the project if we get it take that me take that request back okay yeah because it' be great to have of of the people that are participating and throwing in a little extra cash on the side be great to have you on board with that um Steve I have a question on that topic come back to you so at the select board meeting the other night you got a presentation from the association for the Pres preservation of Kate Cod uh they're looking at doing the engineering and permitting work to replace the cul what is known as oyster Pond out in uh back end of fouth Harbor up behind uh the chappie I think right um so to the extent that the one of the options is the bike path they're kind of in front of us about what does it take to get permission to do work we talked about that and the issue was that as you know it's the owned by the Commonwealth the right away so but ever Source got got got an easement for their cable so that it can be done I'm just point out that we've got somebody out there already engaged in how that how to have that happen and we can learn from that should we go forward so right yeah we talked about two the the two potential sightings right away of Nash wi Road or or uh which is closer to the harbor would have a more immediate effect and maybe you could go shallower uh versus the bike path where you're a little further away but don't have any of the issues of encroaching on Wetlands Etc we get a grant we take that to the next step and make a decision where we want to put it get a grant we make the next decision Tom yeah um I I don't know whe it's questions for Amy or Ken or both but how much do we know about where the quote clean water is relative to the bike path and relative to nashaa street because we we know a lot actually because okay cuz when I read the minutes it said you had data from 2017 yeah well they've continued you know the wells that we've been using are getting old so there some of them are failing so we're not but um you know there's actually a paper that is currently in review where they've looked at all the data up at far you know to 2023 yeah but by the way how how's how's the recovery from your operation I'm up and moving around and taking questions ter at the last meeting Ken gave a nice presentation I'm passing it to you which will in more detail answer your question yeah so um yeah my main concern was and because I did get a chance to look at the minutes um was that he cited data from 2017 yeah and given how finally grant funding Grist Mills grind and the length of time involved we get an application in and it gets approved and it gets funded so maybe three years from now we've got stuff in the ground and I just I don't know whether all of the livestock have already left the barn and we're slamming the door after they've left I I don't know whether it would be an effective use of resources so the prediction of the most recent paper that we I said as under review is that it will be 21 more years before we return to Baseline how could they get so screwed up on their predictions well it it you know it's the mechanism is uncle but you know the point is okay good I just the plant even though they're they reduced dramatically the inputs they're still inputting a lot of water right and nutrient and um until there's the outfall uh right okay that just occurred to me that you know particularly given the bike path site it's so far inland from the harbor that they may have missed it it appears that the optimum site will be in the RightWay Inland of nashaa Street yeah um so there's a question of of access there's you know privately owned property there's willingness of at least one homeowner already to allow access and others that'll probably tag along because they want to clean up that mess and what Ken saying is is the main point it's going to be years before what's in the ground flushes out yeah and my whole reason for looking at this starting last summer was damn this is a mess that the town created is there anything can do in a reasonable time frame at reasonable cost to correct this ameliorate it knowing that yeah 10 years we might have an outfall and we'll stop putting it in but it'll still be flowing through so is there something that can be done in the next 10 years that will help this thing and that's why we're going through the exercise yeah no I agree completely I mean it's improving there's no question of that yeah it's improving the more we put in the more nit even though it's only at three parts per million you know we added flow Little Pond sewer service area and we're looking at tasa and well that's the other thing is we keep bringing more properties online so that's where we're at you want to add anything nope okay so we I guess Doug we're looking to get on like one of the consent agendas or whatever get permission to submit gr application we submitted the paperwork this week and we need to do it by January 17th is that the yes so I don't know I don't have the schedule for the select board but you probably meet the first week and then the third week didn't mean to put you on the spot January 6th okay all right um no more on Snug Harbor good right moving on um a little bit of a continued framework discussion of potential rules for implementing Advanced septic systems um John you've been participa in the Board of Health and we have two Board of Health members here um there were a couple of items in what we were looking at as some of the rules that maybe we revisit or clarify a little bit yeah I didn't attend this week's meeting uh George but I think basically we're at a stage where we need a joint meeting of the two the committee and the Board of Health uh um I'm not sure that there's much more than that to discuss yeah so I'm going to do a quick poll of this board the the Board of Health you guys start what time George on on Monday nights Monday nights yes what time 5:30 5:30 so they typically meet Monday night at 5:30 an hour later than when we start the one of the issues when we tried to have a joint meeting was a number of people in the Board of Health being able to be available at 4:30 on a Wednesday yeah so in order to precipitate a some type of joint meeting if everybody on this board feels that they could make a 5:30 on a Monday night what I think I'd like to propose to chrisan if we can you know is not on one of their regular schedule nights the would the Board of Health would meet on a Monday night you guys all must have availability at 5:30 on a Monday night right so we could Pro try to set up a meeting on an off week from when your regular agenda is just for this okay and uh we'll work through Scott to try to set that up for a 5:30 time all right well you can find out right now I can't speak I can't speak for the Board of Health you no no who is anybody they can do the 5:30 on Monday what you think is anybody here not available at 5:30 on a Monday do you guys know what your off weeks are for January we are meeting on the 6th okay and we are meeting on the 20 so shoot for the 13th so 13th or the 20th and the 20th is a holiday they'll go for the 13th for a week after the sixth I should note I cannot speak for the availability of everybody on the board Heth because some people have work travel requirs yeah now we'll go through Scott on that but I just I got two of you here if I could get one or two more then I got a majority so are we going to agree on a joint agenda and post that ahead of time I'm getting a little bit into the Weeds now but I wanted to because it's not very far away the 13th I I would say that we we've had a working document from John for a little while oh okay so I would suggest that what we want to say is the that you know we want to look at this and say is this what where we are sort of at okay and then say you know this is where this board is at we want to meet with the Board of Health and find out where whether we're all we're in agreement on all the stuff or whether there's some Divergence in the last time around uh my recollection there there were two items um that that generated a fair amount of discussion one was um whether or not new construction was based upon assessed value or uh appraised value I think we as a group decided assessed value yeah just just that's in the minutes I'm going over this just to be clear on it the second one is whether or not new construction currently and I believe the Board of Health has been going down a path to say that new construction requires Innovative alternative systems and we've been sort of on the path of you know new construction in nitrogen sensitive areas not all areas and um that's an area that we probably need to have a conversation now there are several watersheds that are for lack of a better work that they're not nitrogen impaired or they're not listed as an impaired water shed there's at least one Watershed that's the state identifies as an impaired Watershed but it does not have a tmdl for and that's Herring Brook over in West Falmouth so I could see some rationale for saying you know that if the states identified a watershed as impaired or whatever Nary as impaired that you it would make it be logical not to build something new without an IA system but if you're building a new building say uh down on the merine running down to Woods Hole you're in a watershed but you're not in a nitrogen impaired Watershed or a thing designated by the state is impaired so and and if the town ever if we ever agree that the town has any share of this cost why is it anyone's interest to require them being built somewhere where they're not needed I mean you you want me to give you an answer because I don't have one you see my point though I do yeah you know and no yeah J do do you have J do you ever get a copy of what we've got as our sort of we call them our triggers so maybe the thing to do I saw uh I'm sorry I was at the uh yes I was at a meeting before um I just so I would suggest that we M I would I would entertain a motion for this board to forward our work on you know required use of ESV and S to the Board of Health for their have we seen I still move yeah we we saw this at our last meeting they've had it and we saw this at our last meeting yes this is and it's a public document so it's a public document it's been sent the Board of Health all have yeah but I guess I I'm trying to do move it along to that this board says this is where this is where we are at right now and and and and and this is where we this is what we believe but we want to meet with the Board of Health and finalize that well I made that motion I'm waiting for a second second you want to discuss this more I don't think we finished start discussion the last time that's fine no no all right well Ed Ed Ed has got a few thoughts on it well not sure I do but I think the you know we had talked about it a lot of notes um well that's that's from and then we did go through that but you know we talked about our position has been that we would require it new construction only within the Geo boundaries input we've gotten via John that the Board of Health is leaning more towards entire watersheds and I think that's worthy of consideration by this board in this policy statement or whatever we wish to call it um I I think there's a lot of Merit to say look if you're making the investment of building a new house and you're probably in the range of a Million Dollar Plus project spend the extra 25 Grand and make it an IIA you're putting in a new title five make it an IA if you're within a nitrogen sensitive watered or an impaired one on under the state definition which makes it one more evidently why not it's you know in the overall scope of the project a small percentage and who knows whether the Geo boundary idea is going to work long term dug on it if it's new construction anywhere within those watersheds put in an IA that's what I think our policy should be I throw that out for discussion um new construction start immediately any Improvement in that requires an increase in flow and a evaluation of the system or an expansion of the system start that immediately if the system fails it should start immediately um time trigger we didn't really talk about the time trigger much we just said this should be a time trigger but we didn't say what our recommendation is so I think those we should try to firm that up and put that in this and then following your suggestion Steve send it on to the Board of Health I think that's the nature of the discussion between the two boards but does this board agree that as written this is what our feeling is I don't think we ever took a vote on it no we haven't that's why I was trying to that's why that's why I was trying to work a vote for what's on this piece of paper okay my suggestion is we modify the policy to start immediately in the entire fire Watershed for new construction failures or increase in flow due to expansion so under the conditions isn't doesn't doesn't that cover what you just said it's the area covered part I think no I think it's number one area covered we talk about only within the Geo boundaries in nitrogen sensitive areas and I'm saying as far as 2 a uh B and D make it the entire Watershed George do you want to comment on what the where the board help hold out we have somebody at the I Doug Brown again for select word I just wanted to throw out one more possible suggestion for consideration is that maybe there should be another trigger that's a substantial Improvement because it might not trigger a flow but if they're putting on a second floor a substantial investment maybe that should also be a trigger I don't know if it's a 50% trigger like if you do more than 50% in a velocity Zone you have to bring the whole house up to code maybe it's not even 50% some other percentage but that might be one more thing to add I would agree with that and I think we did talk about what would you use for that 50% of the value of the structure and a phrased number or the assessed and we agreed that it would be the assessed right yeah well that that that's the way the the wording is in other town policies that have that kind of a stipulation and I think we should just don't reinvent the wheel follow that same precedent and say yes the precedent in the town bylaw is market value of the buildings that's the way the B the town bylaw reads at the moment so that's essentially the appraised value assessed value is less but if you look at our bylaw the actual wording is is at the market value of the structures but you can have a multiplier to correct on average either one to the other one so all that matters is which is the simplest to measure and most reliable if you're worried that the assess value is too low say 1.5 times the assess value I'm simply stating what the town by law says at the moment if we want to change it that's a part difference discussion but the bylaw at the moment reads at the at the uh market value of the structures that's probably correct but that doesn't mean this board thought that the assessed was more reliable that should be part of our discussion I would ask Doug isn't it your understanding that's the assessed value of the structure not the an appraised when I do construction project if we're in a velocity Zone we use the assess value because the town doesn't require us to get an appraisal but you have the opportunity to go up and geta if you want to contest the assess value yeah we had language like that before John it seems to have not not be in the current version so right if if you look in the the the bylaws of the town of FMA yeah it says the way that you define major reconstruction is 50% or more of the market value of the structures like that because if anybody's going to contest say a person that's been paying taxes for 40 years would never improve their property so now the new buyer comes along and says this thing's not worth that I'm going to contest I'm going to get my own appraisal so that's probably why the bo is in there yeah maybe maybe I've got a little Nuance here John if I look over here if I look at this sheet the current Chic the major reconstruction is not on here it may be defined someplace in the bylaw for what it is but it's not it doesn't say that you have to do says new construction improvements where there's an increase in flow transfer of title that that's quite an old sheet you've got really okay sorry I I will have to go to my computer and find the current one and it anyway all right I think the point is I think these are the exact things that we want to chat with the Board of Health about you have the same one I have yeah sure can I just see yeah I mean we Ed and I both have that one I I maybe what got maybe what got posted up or showed up no this is thank you thank you Doug same to you thank you for the candy we're all we're all jacked up yeah you're a nice guy this a much earlier version than what we've been chatting about Christen can you can we just make sure that make sure that whatever John's lat John send your latest to Christen she circulate I've got the one I have says substantial Improvement of a structure okay as Item B okay for the triggers okay say as defined and sound leave that that's what I can you send been trying to get you to stand up I'm not sure what for George but I could State just briefly that uh everything I've heard today is we're not struggling with anything at all the only one point of sort of discussion will be failures a failure uh when somebody's system fails they're at a pretty critical point in your life it's like somebody told you have to go to the doctor and it's going to cost a lot of money so we are discussing having as we do now as a policy anywhere in the um tmdl areas or assigned nsas according to the state that anybody putting in a system in there now has to have a block on on the engineer drawing where that IIA would go if we're not requiring it right then and that's where we're thinking of going with the repair situation because somebody has a fail system you're not going to whack them with an extra unsubsidized at this point uh fee so we said put the thing on the plan and at the next Real Estate transfer when that property trans transfers it must put the system in so that gives a homeowner a choice it can say gee look down the line and see I'm going to sell this house it's going to have that tag on my deed restriction so no I'll put it in now if they can afford it if they can't and they're strapped what are we going to do say oh no you have to put that in go double mortgage sell your kidney do something else so that's what we're sort of settling on but everything else is the same we looked at the Geo boundaries and uh we have some Provisions for the sewers anticipated within 5 years of uh not putting it in however having again that being on the plan uh if you are planning on putting in the sewer just in case something happens there so I think everything that you've talked about is we'll probably find General agreement on and we went with the assess values simply because it would catch more most likely would catch more people would have to upgrade I mean it's at a point where they're doing something to their home which is fairly substantial adding a bedroom or doing something or even if they're not adding a bedroom uh we felt that within the NSA nitrogen sensitive erors as defined by the state that they should put an IA system in I think we're very close the other sort of nuance here is as the Board of Health you can do certain things without the selectman giving approval and we are an Advisory Board to the selectman so at some point like I say we're going to put together a thing tell us selectman where we're at with all of these NSA you know nitrogen sensive areas and where we think we're going to get the select board to accept or agree with what we think we yeah the only one was a question for us the nsac see there a boundary they're already defined and when a Board of Health makes regulation and in order to avoid arbitr capricious we have to have some boundary that's accepted since the Geo boundary had not been accepted yet we figured well we are concerned about the whole Watershed so we're looking at the Watershed not necessarily the Geo boundaries which weren't really defined as saying this is where you need to put all your IA systems that was no no AR no argument with you we're just suggesting the extent to which IAS may be required but we have not done a watershed plan and said this is the this is the Line in the Sand now could would you allow me 30 seconds of rant flow neutral bylaw wait a minute minute just passed four wait a minute hold on 30 seconds okay let me get 30 seconds ready got the stop watch going go flow new to bylaw is not flow neutral uh we approved a restaurant in town that otherwise would not be able to fit a TI system so to me it's a misnomer we gave 2,000 plus gallons to a restaurant that doesn't exist in an existing building that could never put a Title Five in it ranked me and uh I'm just letting you know that that's my 30 seconds for is a misnomer you got 10 seconds more keep going it is a misnomer all right Steve a question here so I'm still concerned about the the definition under the time trigger that after 15 years and we touched upon this last week saying that you'd have a lot of systems the vast majority of the systems are not going to be covered under a through D they're going to be the ones that have to upgrade right and and we're going to say in years 15 through 20 we're going to have to put in whatever number of five 6 thousand of these systems it just doesn't seem realistic to me is there is this going to be discussed with the Board of Health that are there ways we can phase in this um the construction of the septic systems much earlier and over a longer period of time so the there's a there's a little bit of a who's on first exercise here we've been looking at this concept of geob boundaries inside watersheds and then we've said you know what are the what what's what are the what sort of rules are likely to be required once we finally Define where those areas are we've not we don't have any final definitions yet John okay final definitions will come when we get back into doing the Watershed plans and submit it you know we might expand the areas for sewage and reduce the areas for IAS for the next several months or over the next year when we get to the Watershed plan okay so I agree with you that for now the action that's going to be taken is going to be action taken by the Board of Health right but that when we do Watershed plans we're probably going to come back and say Here's a 20year plan for these water sheds or this Watershed here's the expectation of how many IAS we will get by this date or time okay so that that 15 years is just a it's it's almost like a placeholder right now okay how is it what what made 15 the magic number is there some basis for that technically pull it out likes is one of his favorite numbers I had no and the time trigger is clearly the soft part in that whole we've got to think about that much more critical well there's 20 years to implement isn't that the we've got a 20-year window right so from the date that provides you with a cushion from the date that the Watershed plan is approved by the D you got 20 years we've got a 19.8 I can't remember we have a two two or three year period to create the Watershed plans right now Amy something like that originally was it five it's over the next four years yeah not they all go at different times so but so there's 20 to there's probably 22 to 25 years right okay depending on which water ship it's reasonable to have a cushion and a Target that's less than the max I would agree but one of let me just one of the problems that the Board of Health is the board is as George just articulated the Board of Health has to do things based upon something that's known so the Board of Health can say inside an NSA we want to set these rules now the Board of Health could turn around and say people have to have have have some configuration or they they could choose their own timeline for that for the entire water shed okay they there's no defined Geo boundaries yet so they couldn't turn and say for people that are inside a GE boundary you have to do this because there's there's officially no GE boundary yet we've not done a Watership plan to create them yeah I see what you're saying I'm just saying that you're delaying something that we're probably going to have to fix because you don't want to push this all out to year 15 they're not going to push it to year and and if we're saying in the detailed Watershed plans will mitigate that issue that's fine in my mind I've always had the once we work our way through the subsidy thing we turn around and say okay any individual homeowner will get I'm just going to choose go down John's B $20,000 for a unit okay if you put it in year one to five of The Watershed plan the Tom will pay $112,000 of that 20,000 if you do it in year 6 to 10 the Tom will pay $6,000 and if you do it in year 15 to 20 the Tom will pay 3,000 so it'll be a decreasing number that the town will pay the longer you wait to put it in so there's a carrot there they do it sooner that's my that's my proposal I brought that up that's that's that's yeah that's his proposal I I said that it's fine um I don't think the argument that even though it's true that you may increase the number of sewers and decrease the number of IAS it's still going to be thousands of IAS so John is still right on that point but the other thing want I have a question for George how does one decide where the jurisdiction boundary is between the Board of Health and the water quality committee I mean I know you probably know more about IAS than anybody in this room but is it really a health issue especially in that you're planning to allow plenty of people to keep their Title Five because because an NSA as defined in Title 5 now and the new regulation which talks about nitrogen sensitive areas the Board of Health can regulate it and I will say just parenthetically the split between Public Health Department of Public Health and D is really kind of rare around the country uh we're we're supposed to regulate IC Systems in Title 5 but Department of Public Health has nothing to do with it zero to do with it so our jurisdiction comes because our Authority has been granted to us for Title 5 enforcement we have the local Authority for that once D defined an area just like they did around zone 2os They said in a Zone to you can only do this this is what the Board of Health needs to enforce now they come with a new NSA a new nitrogen sensitive area considering Marine environments they've defined where it is just like they Define a zone two and a interim Zone 2 at so many feet from a well we have to enforce around it the latitude we have in there is you know they're not even sure what the town will do to meet their tmdl and we're not sure what you're going to do all we know is that we need to be moving toward that Target so that's where the best available nitrogen Technologies came in once they put that list together God that that helps us a lot because we know there are a lot of Technologies out there that those dog won't hunt they should take them home and there's a few top dogs that we say yeah we would like to see these in our town now that they're on an official list the Board of Health can say look we have nsas we have best nitrogen sensitive uh nitrogen available technology we're going to require it we can do that so we go on boundaries that are set by D because they said these are the nsas they give us some other tools because they didn't with those IAS and if they didn't come out with some sort of preferred list for Within These Things believe me they would have just said use anything you want there that has a general use approval for nitrogen removal and that would have meant using all those we could have used in zone twos which is you know the the levels for Zone twos are pretty high it's 5 milligrams per liter or 10 at the property boundary these uh these levels that need to be set are a lot more strict than 19 millgram per liter so that's our Authority that's how we do it and we just we plot along like you guys we do the best we can within the regulation boundary given us that's our boundary so question for George so you've you this language says something like 10 milligrams per liter um shall operate at 10 milligrams per liter or less and maintain that level for the life of the system right none of them are perfect under 10 all the time correct so I just wonder if we shouldn't have more accurate wording I think I think Ken we can take care of this okay within our regulation I mean median performance average performance already inside the Board of Health home rule regulation there's a definition of how to measure right what constitutes performance which allows a couple of looking at this a couple lines yeah so we need to we need to in terms of our recommendation tie it back to yeah as measured in accordance with the current the entire home rule regulation allows you to show us that it's an equivalency because somebody given 300 milligrams per liter as an influent can't meet five there's that but there's also just VAR day-to-day variation yes and I'll tell you I think that D needs to start considering uh those nsas and the permits that you're going to get as being somewhat like a Wastewater permit and saying you know you're going to have you're going to put 5,000 of these things in a watershed and they're going to say everyone has to meet this well some are going to do a lot better and some are going to do a lot worse they don't presently allow anything such as averaging or saying okay in general here's our loading we're giving you there's a lot of I could go on forever with the problems of not treating a watershed permit like we treat Wastewater permits but that'll be a discussion with the Board of Health we're glad to have it we're glad you guys are engaged and we're ready to have the discussion Amy I say Amy I just want be sure that nobody else has a question for George Amy I just wanted to bring up two things about the IAS and sewers and both being in the town's future um so the this number one under this list you're talking about says um that it's going to be cover areas excluding those properties identified for future sewering that's unfortunately less clear than we'd all like it to be at this point so that will have that's something we're going to have to resolve in order to do this the the last the targeted watershed management plan had you know concrete plans for Great Pond Phase 1 and two everything else is a pink you know blob on a map that has not gotten that much consideration yet um um so uh there are some areas north of Route 28 which will likely need to be sewered at some point but that the town will it'll probably it will definitely be more than 20 years and could be 30 years before they're sewed so I'm less concerned about that I think that