 We can progress the way people will be able to view or see it if they'll have to use the template. OK. So they can, though. They can use the link. The Zoom is working fine. Well, I've seen them for some reason, but it's not pulling like it's supposed to. I see. OK. Yeah. The public is also invited to speak on each specific agenda item. In addition to the 11 members of the Board of Trustees, we're joined this evening by our general manager, Mr. Seth Garrison, our clerk, Donna Katsapikas, our treasurer, David Cain, and several staff members in the audience. We will begin by residing the Pledge of Allegiance. Hey, Donna, you could do roll call. Joseph Savisky, representing Cape Elizabethan, South Portland. Present. Louise Douglas, representing Windam and Raymond. Here. Daniel Ouellette, representing Gorham. Yeah. Guy Cody, representing Westbrook. Present. Matthew Beck, representing Cape Elizabethan, South Portland. Here. Gary Libby, representing Portland. Here. William Lent, representing Cumberland and Falmouth. Present. Kenneth Levinsky, representing Portland. Here. Frederick McCann, representing Portland. Present. Charles Shadak Haydorn, representing Portland. Present. OK, thank you. At this time tonight, we will be having the election of new officers, for the 2023 to 2024 time period. And Donna. So the first office that I will be taking nominations for is the Office of President. So does anyone have a nominee for president? I'll need a motion and a second. I would like to nominate William Lent to be president of the Portland Water District Board of Trustees. And do I have a second? Second. Are there any other nominees? Seeing none, the nominations are closed. And we will take a vote. All those in favor? All those opposed? It is unanimous. Second office is for Vice President. I need a nomination for a Vice President. I'd like to nominate Joseph Savisky for Vice President of the Board of Trustees. And is there a second? Second. Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, the nominations are closed. All those in favor of Joseph Savisky? I do. Opposed? It is unanimous. The next office is the Office of Treasurer. If I could have a nomination for the Treasurer. Yes. And actually, if I can group these next three. Yes, you can. For Treasurer, Mr. David Cain, for Clerk Donna Casuficus, and for Assistant Clerk, Carrie Cody. And is there a second? Second. All those in favor? Opposed? And it's unanimous. And the new president can now assume the chair. Thank you. Congratulations, everybody. You can stay just like that. And we'll just let Bill conduct a meeting. Thank you very much. And thank you, Louise, for your service. For the period of time you've been with us on the treasure. You're still going to be a trustee. So that's a good thing. And welcome to anybody that's new. Trust me, it was Vicki. Thank you. Thanks for everybody for their cooperation and their help in this process. So I'll stumble away here and see what happens. I'm looking for a motion to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of February 27, 2023. So moved. Second. Anybody want to make any changes or any situations they find not right? All those in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, it's unanimous. Next item is acceptance of the minutes of the workshop meeting of March 13, 2023. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Any changes anybody can see? OK. All those in favor? Opposed? None, it's unanimous. Now we have an invitation for public comment. And I don't see anybody from the public, so I would open it and close it. Now the second item six is for reports. Operations Committee, Trustee Beck. Thank you, President Lund. The Operations Committee met on March 13 here at the district. I was joined by Trustee McCann and then Vice President, now President Lund, along with Scott Furman, Seth Garrison, Josh Hudak, and Jim Wallace from staff. The following items of business were considered at that meeting. A recommendation to amend the Capital Improvement Program budget for the India Street Pump Station Roof Replacement Project, CIP 23-70-3254. Staff recommended an amendment to the project budget as the roof bids were higher than expected. One cause was a more aesthetic material due to the location of the facility and the elimination of archaic hatches on the roof that have chronically leaked. The committee unanimously recommended the request be brought to the full board for consideration. We also discussed a recommendation to amend the Capital Improvement Program budget for the Peaks Island Wastewater Treatment Facility Fire Monitoring Replacement Project, CIP 23-423-3277. Staff recommended an amendment to the project budget to include the replacement of the Fire Alarm Control Panel in the Peaks Island Wastewater Treatment Facility. Part of the budget issue is related to the rating of the area. It's a potentially explosive atmosphere and the need to have the proper equipment installed to accommodate this rating. The committee unanimously recommended the request be brought to the full board for consideration. We also discussed a recommendation to amend an engineering contract with Brown and Caldwell for the Biosolids Master Plan Project, CIP 23-21-3204. Staff recommended, I'm sorry, staff reviewed the recommendations from the Biosolids Master Plan that was shared with the board in October 2022, including the near-term improvements, mid-term recommendations, and long-term technologies. Staff recommended amending Brown and Caldwell's current contract to further develop the Biosolids Master Plan, to further define and develop potential solutions for long-term management that will likely involve regional solutions to those challenges. The committee unanimously recommended the request be brought to the full board for consideration. And finally, we had an update on the secondary clarifier sludge rake replacement, CIP 23-21-3147. Staff provided an update on the project and schedule. Clarifier mechanisms have already been specified and will likely be ordered in the coming month with installation beginning by the end of the year. And our meeting adjourned at 6.30 p.m. Happy to take any questions or refer them to staff if I cannot answer them. Thank you, Trustee Beck. Did you have a question or yes? Just one question to clarify motion from our player tonight. I did go by and see the industry pumping station. It is actually a very small building. So I was wondering if we can get answers to what's driving the primary cost of that? Is it the materials? Is it moving the hatches? Is it just industrial projects are more expensive than residential? Just so people have a feel for why it would cost that much. Well, I know we did discuss the fact that those hatches have been problematic and would have to be replaced at a greater cost later on but there's probably more to it if you want to elaborate on that. Thanks. Mr. Krogos, our director of asset management and planning. No, you're correct. It's a flat roof and the roof is 40 years old. We'd made some repairs in 2009. It didn't hold up. So we have to replace the whole thing. So it is a challenging roof. We did work with the developer next door. They actually contributed $125,000 towards the roof as part of our agreement we had back in the day with at the time it was a juice once and I forget the name of the development. But anyways, it was something we had with them. They contributed. They wanted us to make it look like not just a black flat roof. So that was part of the additional cost but that was being funded by the next story developer. So it is a challenging roof and it's concrete has to be sloped. So they have to put insulation in and to make it slope so that it goes to the scutters and stuff like that. Those two, as Trustee Beck was talking about, those were part of the original design of the building had these blast, we call them blast doors and they're actually just dense on the top of the building. Challenging couldn't keep them from leaking. So all of that has to be taken care of. And on top of the roof is a concrete roof too. There are different gutters that have to be reshaped and moved. So multiple things added up to the cost. Anybody else, yes? So, Mr. Krovo, you said the hatches were originally for as a blast roof. So in my mind, that means that they were for, if there was an explosion that that would go rather than the whole roof. Yeah, I'm not sure. There's 1970 design vintage. We don't have that kind of stuff anymore. We have sensors, we have all kinds of different things in the building nowadays that we didn't have back then. It's not a safety concern. No, not at all. No, that building's been there for 40 years as well made. There's no safety concern at all, but they, for whatever reason, we called them blast roofs and they're not. Thank you. Any other trustees? Thank you. Planning committee, trustee Shadek had drawn. Excuse me. I think I might throw. March 13th, 2023. We had the planning committee meeting was held at 530. We had myself as the chair, Gary Libby. Guy Cody was absent and Libby Steglis, then president. We had the staff, Chris Krovo, Donna Kastavicus, Chad Thompson, Karina Brown, Paul Hunt and Kristen Ness. And then we had one person from the public, Mr. Parker. And we had four items that we took care of. And the first item was the sale of surplus land, the Manjoy Hill Reservoir on North Street, Portland. Silver Street, LLC, who was interested. Staff sought guidance from the committee to see how it wanted to proceed regarding a possible disposal of the Manjoy Hill Reservoir property, a history of the property and the encumbrances were discussed with the committee. Seth Parker from Silver Street Development Corp is potentially interested in purchasing the property for affordable housing. In order to proceed, it is necessary to have a structural analysis of the tank, which may be possible using TV cameras or we talked about drones. The committee voted to table the item for up to three months to allow Mr. Parker to obtain a structural analysis on their own and to allow for his further review to see if it's affordable housing could build on top of the site if that was feasible. Discussion of possible sales price was deferred by the committee to a future date. Very interesting. Number two, we had a request for contribution of up to $319,500 to Lune Echo Land Trust to support the Cervego Cove Conservation Project. The staff recommended an additional contribution of $119,500 to the board approved the amount, the board approved the amount of $200,000 to conserve 361 acres in the Spago Lake watershed in the town of Naples with 2,500 feet of shore frontage on Spago Lake. The reason for the additional funding request is that due to a key funder became unqualified to participate, which created a shortfall for the project of $700,000. The committee supported the request and voted to send it to the full board for its consideration and approval. The third thing we talked about was the watershed land trust acquisition within the two-mile limit. Staff, we went into executive session to discuss real estate acquisition pursuant to one MRS 405-6C. We went into session at 615 and we came out at 625. Then we had other business, increasing pollinator habitat and awareness update. This was the best part of the night. Kristen Ness, education and outreach coordinator provided an update to the committee on what the district has done in the past to support pollinator populations, what we can easily do in 2023 and what projects could be budgeted for 2024 and beyond. Past efforts included an easement for community garden in Westbrook, Facebook posts, newsletter, articles, plant recommendations through our Svego landscaping program and demonstration gardens at the Svego Lake Protection Office. In 2023, efforts include a native plant garden installation at the Standish boat launch in partnership with the town of Standish, highlighting native plants in the summer edition of Svego in depth, Facebook posts, plant recommendations through Svego landscaping program and installation of more native plants at the Svego Lake Protection Office. Possible projects of 2024 include planting plans developed by Wild Seed Project for our Svego landscaping program and resources for improving habitat for pollinators on districts right of ways. District staff also met with Wild Seed Project in Maine, Audubon about potential partnerships with both organizations and we're very excited at the prospect of partnering with us. The meeting adjourned at exactly 6.30 p.m. There may be some questions about some of these. I can answer some of them. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you. We go to the Administrative and Finance Committee report. Trustee Savisky. Thank you. The Administration and Finance Committee met here at the district on Monday, March 13th at 5.30 p.m. I was in fact absent from that meeting but my fellow trustees, Levinsky and Willett were present along with David Kane from the staff. There were a couple of three items on the agenda that were covered. Couple of them coming up under new business later this evening but I'll discuss them briefly here. First was a water bond green designation. Mr. Kane noted the board had previously authorized issuing bonds to finance the following items. The first is the 2023 Water Main Projects and 2022 407 Zone Water Main Project in an amount of $8.3 million. Second was 2018 Windom Water Tanks, a project in the amount of $3 million and third, 2013 Water Bond Refunding in the amount of $4.4 million. It is intended to issue a consolidated bond in August 2023. Previously, the board declared item one as a green bond. The proposed motion declares items two and three as green and will allow the consolidated bond to be promoted as a green bond hopefully resulting in a lower interest rate. The committee unanimously recommended the motion be forwarded to the full board for its consideration this evening. Second was a Water Rate Change Policy Amendment. Mr. Kane noted that PUC approved exempting the district from their regulations with regard to water rate changes in 2015. At the November 23rd, 2015 meeting, the board adopted a policy establishing how water rate changes are implemented, including the requirement that a public notice be placed in the local newspaper. The proposed motion eliminates the need to do the public notice in the newspaper as long as all customers receive a notice in the mail and at least two of the following notification methods are completed at least 14 days prior to the public hearing. And those methods are email by Conspicuous Posting here in the main office at the district on third on the district's website, fourth on social media, on the district's social media accounts, or the five is other any other method reasonably calculated to provide broad notice to the utilities customers. The above standard is consistent with other consumer owned water utility standards. The committee unanimously recommended the motion be forwarded to the full board for its consideration this evening. Finally, under other business, there was an update regarding payment options. The new utility bill payment options approved by the board will be implemented in the coming weeks and announced in the coming months. Those options include American Express, Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal, Venmo, and Discover. The meeting adjourned at 6.15 p.m. I'd be happy to answer any questions and refer them to those who were present at the meeting. Are there any questions? Simon, thank you. Now we'll have the general managers report. Thank you very much. I wanted to point out a couple of items from the general managers report this month. First is there's a significant new environmental protection agency proposal for PFOS or the forever chemicals. They're proposing a limit of four parts per trillion, which is a very tiny amount, basically four drops per trillion drops. And for a comparison, Tobago Lake is about a trillion gallons in size. Luckily, the testing that we have done for 25 different PFAS compounds, including those that EPA is gonna regulate, have all resulted in results below the two part per trillion detection limit. So that's good news. We do not have detectable levels of PFAS in our water. The other item that I want to talk about is the financial assistance to qualifying low income households program that we have. PWD is participating through the main water assistance program, which was created by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and expanded by the American Rescue Act of 2021 to provide low income financial assistance to both water and wastewater bills. This is administered through the main state housing authority. The program has 4.7 million available in three priority groups. And those groups are those folks that have been disconnected for non-payment. Those with outstanding balances on their bill that want to avoid disconnection. And finally, those struggling to afford bills. To date, the program has paid almost $32,000 to 50 PWD customers with an average amount paid of roughly $640. The majority of payments have been under $600 though. Recently, the main state housing authority announced that on April 1st, they will be expanding the benefits offered under this program. Expansion will allow eligible households to receive now up to $1,000 benefit as a credit issued directly to PWD or another utility. And this money can assist for future payments on water bills or wastewater bills along with repaying pass bills. And the program will stop taking new applications in July and will sunset in September 2023. Thank you. Yes, thank you. That's your report. And hey, well, I'll take any questions. If any folks have any questions. Are there any questions for the general manager? The seeing none, then we can move along under new business. The first item is order number 23-011, authorizing the issuance of green bonds. Thank you. The following proposed language is presented for board of trustee approval. Ordered that the 3.0 million in water bonds authorized on June 25th, 2018 as resolution 18-007 are designated as green bonds with the proceeds to be used for green purposes and ordered that the water bonds issued to refund and refinance the remaining balance to districts 2013, $8.0 million water bonds authorized on July 25th, 2011 as resolution 11-013 are designated as green bonds with the proceeds to be used for green purposes. Second. Thank you. Background on this, the board authorized the issuance of $3 million of water bonds on June 25th, 2018 to finance the construction of a new Wyndham 407 zone water tank, the $3 million bonds to be issued in 2023, the water tank bonds, will finance the preliminary and construction costs of the tanks. Additional bonds will be issued in the future to finance additional construction costs. The board authorized issuance of $8 million in water bonds on July 25th, 2011 as a resolution 11-013, those are the 2013 bonds. The 2013 bonds were issued on November 4th, 2013. The district's financial advisor recommends the district consider issuing refunding bonds, the refunding bonds to refinance the remaining $4.4 million in principal amount outstanding of the 2013 bonds resulting in an estimated present value savings of $375,788 and estimated cash flow savings of $426,156. The actual savings will depend on the interest rates near the issue date of the refunding bonds. The 2013 bonds will only be refinanced if the actual interest rates on the refunding bonds provide sufficient savings. The projects previously financed with the 2013 bonds to be refinanced with the refunding bonds and the 407 zone water tank project to be financed with the water tank bonds are environmentally beneficial projects designed to ensure safe drinking water for the public in the state in accordance with state, federal and local standards. Therefore, such refunding bonds and water tank bonds can be designated as green bonds. The district's financial advisor recommends the board pass an order indicating the project's financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the refunding bonds and the water tank bonds will be used for green purposes. Other than declaring such refunding bonds and water tank bonds as green in the related official statement, the only other obligation on the district would be to provide certain post issuance reporting showing the actual use of bond proceeds for their declared purpose. Staff currently estimates that the authorized water bonds are scheduled to be sold on or about August 3rd of 2023. Financial review, the district intends to issue refunding bonds and water tank bonds on or about August 3rd, 2023. The estimated annual interest savings in the first year of debt service on the $3 million green water tank bonds could be in the order of 20,000. In addition, refinancing the 2013 bonds would reduce the water fund debt service by approximately $35,000 per year. Corporate council reviewed the proposed motion and approved it as to form. Staff recommends the committee approve the motion of the committee voted unanimously to forward to the full board for its consideration. Before we actually vote on it, are there any questions that somebody might have relative to be sure we know what we're voting on? I don't see any. I'll ask for a vote. All those in favor? Opposed? Unanimous? The next item is order number 23-012, authorizing an amendment to policy 6.30-15, the procedure to enact water rate change. Administrative finance committee, Trustee Siviski. Thank you. The following proposed language is presented for Board of Trustee approval. Whereas on September 22nd, 2015, the Public Utilities Commission approved exemptions from certain regulations for the Portland Water District effective January 1, 2016. And whereas on November 23rd, 2015, the Board of Trustees adopted policy 6.30-15, procedure to enact water rate change. And whereas the PUC recently amended their water rate change procedures, ordered that policy 6.30-15 is hereby amended incorporating the revised procedures attached here to and incorporated herein by reference effective July 1, 2023. Second. Thank you for background on this. The PUC recently adopted a rule chapter 16, specific exemptions from regulatory requirements for consumer-owned water utilities. Rule eliminates the requirement of doing a legal ad in a newspaper for the public hearing on water rate adjustments as long as notice is provided in at least two of the alternative ways described in the policy. The alternative ways would be a more visible and effective method than a legal ad in a newspaper and would reduce costs. Legal ads cost of approximately $730 to be eliminated. Corporate counsel has reviewed and approved the form of the motion. Staff recommends the policy be approved as presented in the attachment A. The committee unanimously voted forward to the full board for its consideration. There's a red-lined of the proposed policy changes included with the motion for those who are interested. Before we vote on it, just for the sake of the people in the public, I don't see anybody here to ask any questions about it, but I'd like to know if the general manager would just highlight a couple of issues there of what we would be able to do away with and what the people now are going to be sure they're gonna be able to get as a notification to do that, please. Certainly. So we're eliminating the traditional legal ads that are in and taking advantage of the other aspects that we are using, email, the posting, web, site, which we've used in the past. We also do notices that go out to all the customers as well too. So everybody gets multiple notices that the rate changes are happening. So there'll be something mailed to everybody. Yes, that is correct. That's what we do every single time. I just wanted the people in the public to know that. Thank you. Mr. President? Yes. With all due respect to my colleagues on the administration and finance committee and to staff, I will be voting against this motion. I believe having those legal ads in the historic record by placing them in a newspaper has some value. I also believe that supporting the local newspaper that provides a valuable service to our community through the ad revenue is of importance. So I will be voting against the motion. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? With regards to the newspaper, were legal ads also put in to some of the other local newspapers such as over in the forecaster or anything of that nature, just the press herald? I know that our engineering firm, we would look at the legal ads every day just to see what was going on. I know a lot of people do look at those. And thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion? Those opposed? Trustee Beck and Trustee Libby opposed. Thank you. My next item is order number 23-013, authorizing an increase to the project budget for the India street pump station roof. Operations committee. Thank you, Mr. President. The following proposed language is presented for board of trustee approval ordered that the project budget for the India street pump station roof is amended by increasing it by $35,000 and that the total budget for the project is hereby authorized not to exceed $210,000 and that the general manager and the treasurer each acting singly are authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to accomplish the intent of the vote. Second. Thank you. The background analysis reads as follows, the India street pump station roof is the original roof that was last installed in 1979. Some patches and a portion of the roof were replaced in 2006. A recent inspection in 2021 determined that the roof was in need of replacement and the project was programmed in the capital improvement program to be replaced in 2023. The project was bid in January and the lowest bidder came in at $199,000 which is $24,000 over the board approved CIP budget of $175,000. The primary reason for the increase over the budget amount was staff decided to remove the roof hatches that are no longer needed and would eventually need to be replaced if left as is. The additional $35,000 requested will cover the budget deficit and includes a contingency of $11,000 for unknowns encountered while in construction. Project number 2023 subprogram 70 slash project 3254. Fiscal review and funding the $35,000 would be paid from withdrawal from the Portland wastewater renewal and replacement funds. The fund has $5.8 million. This project does not impact operational costs. Corporate council has reviewed proposed order as to form. In conclusion, staff recommends adding $35,000 to the India street roof replacement project budget. The committee voted two to zero to forward to the full board for their consideration. And if you're interested, there is additional supporting information attached. Are there any questions? Yeah. This is probably towards the staff. Is it normal to expect a roof to last 40 plus years? Mr. Krovo from asset management planning. No. Okay. What is the expected design life on the roof? Expected design life 20 to 30 years depending on what the manufacturer says. And that's what I was thinking. I was just curious how it got to this point. We did some repairs in 2006 or 2009. I'm not sure. And we thought we bought some more time with that. We did buy a little more time. In the big picture, does it help reduce any of our insurance rates by having some of these, like a new roof put on? No, but it does make a big difference when you put new equipment underneath the roof that you want to make sure it stays. No, I don't think it really does, but this is a concrete building. Really doesn't, you know, it's a wet environment anyway. So our leakage isn't the worst thing, but not great either. So very good. Thank you. If I may just add for a second, you probably noticed a lot of roof projects that we're having. And that's just because of a life cycle of the wastewater assets in particular. So a lot were built in the late 70s and early 80s. So they're now all coming due. You know, our spagal lake treatment plant as well will require a new roof very soon because that is now over 30 years old as well too. So we've just now hit the life cycle that they're going to require a lot of roof replacements just for preventative maintenance activity. Any other questions from the trustees? Seeing none, all those in favor? Opposed? Anonymous. The next item is order number 23-014, authorizing an increase to the project budget for the Peaks Island Wastewater Treatment Facility Fire System. Operations committee. Yep, thank you, Mr. President. The following proposed language is presented for Board of Trustee approval. Ordered that the project budget for the Peaks Island Wastewater Treatment Facility Fire System rather is amended by increasing it by $5,000 and that the total budget for the project is hereby authorized not to exceed $35,000. And that the general manager and the treasurer, each acting singly are authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to accomplish the intent of the vote. Second. Thank you. Background analysis in the 2023 Capital Improvement Program, the Peaks Island Wastewater Treatment Facility Fire Alarm Monitoring System was programmed and budgeted at $30,000. The current monitoring system was determined not to meet the Portland Fire Code regulation and was programmed to be replaced this year. Staff bid the project and the bid came back at $31,827 which is $1,827 over the approved Capital Improvement Program budget. Staff is recommending amending the Capital Improvement Program by $5,000 to cover the budget deficit and provide a construction contingency of $3,172. Project number 2023, Subprogram 423 slash Project 3277. Fiscal review and funding, the $5,000 would be paid from withdrawal from the Portland Wastewater Renewal and Replacement Funds. The fund has $5.8 million. This project does not impact operational costs. Corporate council has reviewed the proposed order as to form. In conclusion, staff recommends increasing the project budget from $30,000 to $35,000. The committee voted two to zero to forward to the full board for their consideration. Any comments, questions? Trustee Savoski. I had one. This is a small project and it's a relatively modest increase being requested, which I have no issue with. I'm curious what the threshold is that would require this type of motion to be brought before the full board for approval. Let me pass that off to Mr. Cain, the director of administration and finance. And hopefully you can elaborate a little bit more on some of our other thresholds as well too. Well, in this case, when you approve the Capital Improvement Plan in November, the motion includes a clause that says the general manager has authority to spend up to the budget amount that you approve. So for $1 over that, it needs to come back to the board for approval. Makes sense. Could you just elaborate more on some of our other internal capital thresholds that are not in there just for education purposes? Okay, so we set a limit of $10,000. It's a capital project. It had the useful life greater than one year. The board amended that policy, affected this January 1st of this year to increase it to $25,000 in Portland in the waterfront because those funds are so big. Any other one that you can think of? I think those are the right ones. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, all those in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, this unanimous. Order number 23-015, authorizing an amendment to the engineering services contract for the biosolids master plan. That's me. The following proposed language is presented for board of trustee approval ordered that the engineering services contract for the biosolids master plan with Brown and Caldwell is hereby amended in an amount not to exceed $264,500. And that the general manager and the treasurer, each acting singly are authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to accomplish the intent of the vote. I'd welcome a second. Second. Thank you. Analysis, the reliable disposal of Portland Water District biosolids has been interrupted without notice due to challenges at the Juniper Ridge landfill. For many reasons, the landfill has essentially become the sole outlet for biosolids generated by many treatment plants in Maine. This situation reinforces the fragile nature of the waste disposal framework and challenges Portland Water District's ability to manage biosolids in the near and long term. The situation is expected to remain fragile due to issues with PFAS and restrictions on importing bulking materials needed to mix with biosolids for landfill stability. The biosolids master plan was completed for Portland Water District by Brown and Caldwell in October, 2021. That plan identified a series of immediate and longer-term project to manage the district's biosolids. The recommendations included immediate improvements to Portland Water District's dewatering systems to reduce the volume of biosolids and to improve the district's ability to produce biosolids more quickly. With dewatering improvements, the plan recommended consideration of sludge dryers to reduce the volume of biosolids to be managed. This option could reduce biosolids volumes by 80%, making the challenges of landfill or management capacity easier to deal with. Developing thermal technologies such as paralysis, hope I'm pronouncing that right, are showing the potential to further reduce biosolids volumes, destroy or reduce PFAS concentrations and possibly produce an end product with some market value. The first step or dewatering improvements includes the application of well-established equipment that has been included in the master plan, as this would have immediate benefits and would be required as a first step to any future planning. This effort will develop a basis of design report to develop the expected scope and budget for upgrades at the East End facility and enhancements at the Westbrook Gorm facility and operated in treatment plants for years. This was referred to as the quote, no regrets option. This effort will also continue to develop the mid and long range elements of the master plan. The plan will develop siting requirements for the systems, review air pollution, permitting opportunities and challenges and recommend specific drying technologies with possible digestion, including co-digestion with food waste to support the sludge dryers and thermal processes like paralysis. This study will develop planning level costs and will further our understanding of applicable technologies and a path forward to implement those technologies. Project number 2023 sub program 21 slash project 3204, fiscal review and funding $500,000 is included in the 2023 capital improvement program. Corporate council has reviewed the proposed order as to form. In conclusion, staff recommends amending the bios, the engineering services contract with Brown and Caldwell to continue the development of the biosolids master plan. The committee voted two to nothing to forward to the full board for their consideration. Good questions. If I may on this one, this is the issue that everybody has been reading about in the paper on the biosolids, the environment as it's written in the background analysis is very fragile right now with some biosolids going into New Brunswick, others going to various other places. So really what this does for us is help us understand what both our midterm and longterm options are going to be, which have a lot of unknowns right now. Seth, when these solids are shipped to New Brunswick or other places, we don't have any long-term liability after that. I mean, there isn't a tail on this thing, is it? Well, we don't know the answer to that. I guess I would also defer to Mr. Furman as well too from wastewater if you have any insights on that. Unfortunately, there's always opportunities for liability. There's actually designation right now to include PFAS to be regulated by CERCLA or the Superfund Act in Maine, specifically. There was an exemption two years ago, Donna, for PFAS contamination and concerns provided that they were managed responsibly by wastewater and water utilities. So the liability question is a very good question and it's something we're trying to manage. Mr. Furman, while you're up at the podium, could you talk a little bit about sort of the latest developments because this is evolving day by day, especially possible changes with some of the legislation for temporary moratoriums or other things that might be going on with this? So a lot of material was shipped to New Brunswick. In fact, almost all of Maine's biosolids for a very short period of days were being managed elsewhere. One of the challenges is at landfills, in order to be able to accept biosolids, you need to mix that with something that's gonna give a little more structure. Seth, I've compared that to say somebody looking for a clean fill in their yard, if they're filling a hollow or something, they're not looking for soil, they're not looking for loose material, they're looking for hefty material, bricks, or other material. That's one of the challenges in landfills is trying to get material that you can mix with the biosolids to give it some structure. There was legislation that was passed concurrently with some of the legislation that moved a lot of material to landfills. That reduced some of this additional material that would go to landfills like construction debris to mix with biosolids. There's an effort right now to engage legislators and regulators in trying to find either relaxing the legislation the legislation that had reduced the amount of material to mix with biosolids. There's a lot of effort right now to find material to mix with biosolids. At the end of the day, we have policies in place right now that are directing all of our material to landfill essentially. There's not a lot of options and when something happens to that one outlet, we have the situation that occurred over the last month and proactively, we're trying to get ahead of it. We're gonna try to understand what our immediate options are for improving our ability to reduce our volumes and then long-term. How can we further reduce those volumes and make it more manageable? I don't know that I answered the question. Seth often challenges me with this kind of thing where when you're involved with these things as much as I am, it's difficult sometimes to simplify things. Thank you for answering that. It's completely as you could given the circumstances. Yeah, I'm gonna have an iceberg. It does point out the fact that it's a major problem that we're dealing with even though we're trying to get out in front of it but it's very difficult to do that sort of thing and I guess my only one question would be if you increase the drying ability, is that helping the stability of it? Does that cut back on the bulking agent that you have to have or does it still have to have the bulking agent because of the makeup that could be in fine? That's actually a question we're trying to get answered is if everybody were to dry, does that mean you can landfill all this material? I don't think it's a straight answer if this material is directly landfillable. It certainly reduces the volume. It reduces the amount of water going in and I know that landfills are looking to increase the number or the amount of material or I'm sorry, dryers to further reduce the amount of wet material going into the landfill. So dryers will help, less volume of biosolids will help. And it's not indicated here but I recall that it's about a five to one bulking agent to biosolids ratio that we need to have. So for every ton of biosolids you need five tons of bulking agent. Yeah, so for every truck of material that we sent to the landfill, they have to have a pile of five trucks of other material to very quickly incorporate into the landfill so that they maintain stability long-term but also so that they don't have their heavy equipment sinking into pockets of the landfill. And just us alone, we're about what 16 trucks a week or so? 16 or 17 trucks a week. And at one point we had zero trucks leaving our facilities and then I think our worst week we had five of those 16 or 17 truck loads that were leaving our facility. We estimated that we had about four and a half weeks before we would have significant issues at the treatment facility. Thank you. I guess one of the things that I bring it up for is the fact that the money that's involved in this issue is a lot and it's hard for people to understand that sometimes. And just these explanations that we're getting tonight fill us in so that as trustees where we do have the ability to make a decent decision. Even though it's not what we want to do, it's not pleasant but it's something that we understand it needs to be done and it needs to be done soon. And one of the things we've tried to highlight is the cost impact. But I think the last month and a half has shown us it's not just the cost impact but it's the ability to actually manage our waste streams effectively. And over the last month and a half I think for most utilities in Maine and wastewater utilities, the simple ability to get a truck to receive our biosolids, leave our facility so that we can continue operating and then dispose of that material and manage that material, that's been the concern. So simply managing it has been a challenge. Thank you. Scott, you may have mentioned this a long way but what do they mix it with? Do they mix it with soil or gravel? That's a great debate. And I talked about somebody filling their yard. You've seen those signs, clean fill wanted. And at some point they say, hey, look, I've got enough soil. I'd really like some bricks or I'd like some heavier material, gravel, other material. That really gives strength and stability. There's a lot of talk about mixing sawdust. Why can't you mix it with sawdust? The landfill operators are telling us that's a challenge. And with construction debris or even general debris like a couch, you're thinking a couch going into a landfill but they drive over that with heavy equipment and they break that couch up into about five or six parts of a couch. And if you imagine a layer of biosolids, part of the couch is able to get through that and into the layer below it and the layer above it. So it's just building stability within the landfill. One of the things I think we're seeing as well is our waste management systems are not very well understood by the public or at times it appears even our regulators. And we've done a great job of making things happen somewhat quietly without attention and awareness and unfortunately support. That's changing. The regulators, I should say the legislators are the ones who put themselves ahead of science here. They never should have banned out of state debris and that's one of the reasons why there isn't sufficient materials. We send material out of state from Maine but for some reason the legislators decided it was best to ban materials coming in that are useful and as you said, and that's what I did for 40 years. Those materials are gold in landfills and so yeah. Thank you. I guess we're gonna have an understanding before we pass the vote on this without any problem at all. So anybody else have any questions? Thank you. Any comments? All those in favor? Opposed? All unanimous. The next item is order number 23-016, authorizing an amendment to order 23-001, a contribution to Lunico Land Trust. Planning committee. That's me. This is a recommendation, the following proposed language is presented for the board for trustee approval. Whereas the board of trustees authorized a contribution to Lunico Land Trust on January 23rd, 2023 not too long ago in the amount of $200,000 for the purposes of conserving 361 acres property known as Tobago Cove and whereas a key source of funding for the transaction approved by the board has now become unavailable to the land trust and whereas after review of the revised transaction the board deems it in its best interest of the district to continue and to contribute to the purchase of a conservation interest in a greater funding level. Now therefore be it ordered that order 23-001 is hereby amended and that the general managers authorized to contribute up to $313,950 to Lunico Land Trust to support the conservation of land known as Tobago Cove located along the shore of the lake in Naples. Like a second? Second. Background is that the Tobago Lake watershed encompasses 235,000 acres of land which is primarily forested. The long-term water quality of the lake will be determined in large part by the conservation of those forests. Our watershed land conservation policy states our commitment to and support for locally initiated land conservation efforts since conserved forests naturally treat our customers drinking water. At present about 16% of the watershed is comprised of conserved land. Working with Tobago Clean Water Partners Portland Water District is working to bring that total to 25% by 2032. Portland Water District is present presently about 21,000 acres from that pole. The Tobago Cove property is 361 acres located in the town of Naples with 2,500 feet of shore frontage on Tobago Lake. Loon Echo Land Trust is purchasing a conservation easement on the Tobago Cove property. The property is forested and contains wetlands and 2,800 feet of brook frontage that empties directly into Tobago Lake. The project is supported by Tobago Clean Waters, a partnership of conservation organization Land Trusts and Portland Water District committed to water quality protection through forest conservation in the Tobago Watership. The analysis is that the board previously approved the contribution of $200,000, which was the amount requested by Loon Echo Land Trust. They requested that much because they thought they had secured the rest of the funding from other sources. One source funding totally $700,000 has not been realized. They are now returning to the existing funders to see if the pledged amounts can be increased as well as contacting new possible funders to try to close this funding gap. They believe that with this increase in funding from the Portland Water District they can raise the rest of the funds close and close in 2023. The contribution of $313,950 requested in this order is the amount calculated by the district site-specific assessment. The appraised value of the easement is $1,495,000. The recommended contribution represents about $554 per acre of protected land within the watershed. The district's contribution is to be used towards the purchase of the easement. The district contribution of $313,950 represents 15% of our total projected match toward the RCPP award. Contributions were projected based off the staff time and district funds spent on activities that support the goals of this project. According to the watershed land conservation policy the details of this project require that the district obtain a real estate interest. Loon Echo Land Trust will purchase the conservation easement and include in the easement language which names Portland Water District as the third party holder of the easement. The land for Maine's future fund will also be a third party to the easement. The fiscal review and funding. The recommended contribution of $313,950 is the amount calculated by the district site-specific assessment. Portland Water District's intent is to borrow from the drinking water SRF to make this contribution an issue bonds with a 20-year term. Because Portland Water District expects as many as six conservation projects to close in 2023, it may be more fiscally prudent to contribute this to this project through a withdrawal from one of two watershed funds. Portland Water District proposes to use the most favorable option at the time of closing. On May 24th, 2021, the board authorized issuing bonds up to $1.4 million for watershed protection easement purchases. To date, bonds of $500,000 per good river have been issued and prior commitments to other projects of $398,000. Rolf and Edward Mills have been made. The remaining amount of the $1.4 million authorized and available for proposed project is $502,000. More than enough to cover the cost of this project. Corporate council has reviewed this proposed motion and approved as to form. The conclusion is that this project will contribute to the long-term protection of the Sobago Lake and recommended contribution meets the guidelines of the district's watershed land conservation policy. The committee voted unanimously to send it to the full board for their consideration and there are two attachments, the Cove project location map and the Sobago Cove revised budget. I can take some questions. Any questions? Yes. Yes. I had a question, yeah. So we've approved a contribution of $200,000. So what's being asked is an additional, essentially an additional $113,950. That's fair. And the basis for that is, or in the analysis here, this total amount of $313,950 is the amount calculated by the district site-specific assessment. So I recall we do that every time we're asked to contribute to these types of projects and we come up with our own sort of recommended contribution. And it is what we're offering, is what we're voting on now, the full amount of what we contributed or what we thought would be a reasonable amount to contribute to this project at the beginning. What was the, so the site-specific assessment was 313, but we only ended up approving or only asked to contribute initially $200,000. That's right. They had funding through a different supporter. And then my understanding is that, that they were disqualified because of, they were for an entity of some sort and some complications, legal complications. And so they didn't need the 313 to start with. They only needed 200,000, but this is still, it's within the parameters of our site assessment. Gotcha. Thank you. That's my understanding. You did very well. That's perfect. Any other questions? Seeing none. All those in favor? Opposed? Anonymous. Item number eight is an item may be added to the agenda provided seven trustees vote to waive the rule regarding agendas. I don't think we have to do that tonight for anything that I'm aware of. So that's, that takes care of that. The second invitation for public comment is nobody from the public here and we still have nobody calling in from outside. So we'll close that. It comes to trustee comments. Are there any comments from the trustees? Yes. I just wanted to thank the staff for scrambling to make sure that biosolids kept getting disposed of given the current circumstances. It really is unprecedented. And we are stuck in this position of having only one reliable source to dispose of biosolids in the state. And, you know, kudos to everyone because kept working, you know? And I'm looking very much looking forward to this plan to reduce biosolid volumes by up to 80%. It's, you know, like everyone spoke about we're in a bad spot. We don't have a good way of dealing with PFAS. We're in a tough regulatory situation. I think this is gonna make a very big difference and just wanted to thank the staff for all the hard work. Any other comments from the trustees? Yes. Yeah. Louise. I wanted to take a moment to publicly thank Donna and Kerry for your never ending support while I served as the president. I think, you know, we often hear people say I couldn't have done it without you. Well, I probably could have done it without you but it would have been a lot more clunky and a lot more awkward. So seriously, thank you so much for always being there answering all my questions and making sure I was prepared. I just wanted to mention too that during my time as president, we had the COVID issues. So it was really fun going from running a meeting remotely and then coming back and doing it live and then going back to remote, it was just a lot. And then of course, we hired a new general manager which I took, you know, very, very seriously took that to heart, brought it home at night, so to speak. But thank you to everybody, the entire staff. I really appreciate your help. Thank you. I'd like to follow up on that particular thing a little bit because it's been, I've been right alongside of Louise while she's been the president and it's been a joy to work with her. She's been very easy to work with and very much interested and we relied on talking with each other about issues a lot. And that made it interesting for me and I think it helped her a lot. And so she's done a great job and I'm glad she's still gonna be a trustee. So I understand that she's got a tremendous busy schedule and I understand that issue. Unfortunately for me, fortunately for me, I don't have a lot going on at my age so I can take the time to do some of this stuff but it's been good working with Louise and I appreciate that. And I'm looking forward to working with the new general manager for the next year along with the rest of the board members. Are there any other trustees that'd like to make a comment or anything? Seeing none, if there's no more business in front of us, we'll call it a night. You can adjourn.