Board of Health - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to the February 9th 2026 Grafton Board of Health meeting. As a preliminary matter, this is Jen Maynard, chair of the board of health. Permit me to confirm that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Andrew Chuca. Andrew Chuca here. Karen uh Gusttowski Govin. Karen Gusttowski Govin here. Bill Muller. Bill Muller here. Staff and anticipated speakers on the agenda. When I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Annette Garcia. Annette Garcia here.

Thank you. I'd like to open the meeting. May I have a motion to open the meeting? This is Andrew Chuka. I make a motion to open tonight's meeting. Second. This is Bill Maler. I'll second that motion. [clears throat] Roll call. Andrew Chalupa. I Bill Mer. I Karen Gusteski. Govin. I

Jen Maynard. I Okay. This open meeting of the grafting board of health is being conducted remotely consistent with the act extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. Governor Healey has further extended this act until June 30th, 2027 of the remote meeting provisions of former Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. In order in order to mitigate the transmission of the CO 19 virus, the act extends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to participate remotely. The order, which you can find posted at the town's website at www.gfton- grafton-mass.gov allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so that the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. Ensuring public access does not ensure public participation unless such participation is required by law. There are no public hearings scheduled for this evening's meeting. If the public has a question or comment on an agenda item, please utilize the Q&A feature in the in the feature in Zoom. Please include your full name and address when submitting a comment. For this meeting, uh we're entirely remotely uh as identified on the town's website identifying how the public will join. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that all attendees are participating by video conference in accordingly. Please be aware that other folks may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Any supporting materials that have been provided to the members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda unless I note otherwise. Before we turn to the first item on the agenda, permit me to cover some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of our business and to ensure accurate meeting minutes. I'll introduce any speakers on the agenda for a topic. Uh after they conclude their remarks, I'll

invite the board members to provide any comment, questions, or motions. Please identify yourself by name when speaking. Further, please remember to mute your phone or computer when you are not speaking. Please remember to speak clearly and in a way that helps generate accurate minutes. For any response, please wait until I I yield the floor to you and state your name before speaking. If members wish to engage with other members, please do so through me, taking care to identify yourself. Finally, any votes on any motions made during this meeting will be conducted by roll call vote. Okay. And just acknowledging Nancy Connors and Allison Turner have joined us today. Um, all right. So, our first agenda item is a session a section for public comment. Um, this is open to all attendant attendees uh using the raise hand feature on Zoom. Um, I'm just noting uh we see several folks on the screen here. Uh, and then I see that there are three attendees. Thank you. Somebody just raised your hand. Um once I identify once I let you know that I'm uh bringing you off mute for comment uh you'll have a total of 3 minutes for your comments. Uh and then please in addition to identifying your name if you would also identify your address. So we have that for the remaining minutes. Um public comment is open to anything. As we said there are no hearings on the um agenda tonight. Um our public comment period will not exceed 20 minutes. So noting the time is 6:34. Um, so we need to uh we'll we'll stop that within 20 20 minutes. So 654. Uh, and if we end sooner, that is fine. Um, there is discretion if we have additional things that we really feel like we need to cover for me to allow for further discussion, but uh, we do like to try and keep to the 20 minutes. So I see two hands up. Uh, the first one was Ken Fulberger. I'm going to allow you to speak. Ah, there you are. Ken, can you hear us,

Ken?

Yes. So, uh, I'm Ken Hullberger of 47 Old Upton Road, and I'm speaking about the request to for by High Fields to, uh, to allow moving the location of their uh, well variants from one location to another. Thank uh the June 2025 variance from the Grafton well regulations was granted for an irrigation well to be drilled at a specific location. A variance request for an irrigation well at a different location should require the same procedure of request notification and hearings as the previous variance request. The the June 2025 variance was granted with little or no technical due diligence with no specific prior or post- testing requirements with recognition that the applicant did not comply with the reporting requirements of the variance for their first irrigation well with no requirements to report the volume of water withdrawn from the new irrigation well and the penalties for non-compliance of such reporting. and with no recourse for nearby residents that rely on private wells for their drinking water if the applicant's wells deplete the common aquifer below the depth of their wells. The board of health further did not provide any rationale for how that June 2025 variance supported the boards and the regulations purpose to protect the public health and general welfare and to protect the quality of groundwater derived from private wells. It is not the board of health's role to simply approve requests for variances from the town's regulations when asked to. There are good reasons for the

Grafton well regulations proh prohibition of wells for irrigation and those reasons stand today. Authorizing a private high-volume irrigation well for commercial use is contrary to the mission of the board of health and the purpose of the regulations. Reducing the expenses of operating a private business and thus increasing its profits does not protect the public health and general welfare. Allowing a commercial business to extract unlimited free groundwater from a public aquifer endangers the quality of groundwater derived from for from from private drinking wells. The applicant has previously and should in the future purchase the excess irrigation water it requires on the open market at market rates. The board of health should require that the applicant's request for a variance for a high volume irrigation well at a new location follow the procedures for a new application for variance. New applications for such variances should be subject to rigorous technical risk and public value reviews. And if granted, the board of health should clearly and persuasively state how such variances further its purpose and the purpose of the graft and will regulations. Thank you.

Thank you, Ken. Okay, leaving just one second. All right. Um recognizing uh Phil, I'm going to allow you to talk. Um, if you could just state your name and your address. Bill, can you hear us? Uh, you have to come off mute. There you go. Can you hear me now? Uh, yeah. Can you get a little closer? Um, not sure where the microphone is on this thing. Perfect. That's perfect. All right.

Go ahead, Phil. Full area yellow heat written house road. Um yeah I want to you know Ken stated your mission which you know is as you know to protect the health, safety and well-being of the town residents. Giving precedence to an irrigation well over private supply wells is is kind of remiss of that mission. And there's there's two end points as I see it. one which uh Mike uh has already discovered. You know, you dig you drill a well and you get little water so it doesn't yield much. And that's very typical of an acryer of this nature. It's a it's either in a nice which is a metamorphosized granite or in a shist which is a metamorphosized sedimentary rock. They have very low yield properties. It's only when you happen to hit a a fault or some major fracture by chance, but I can show you plenty of evidence that says, you know, this is very rare. You know, you're not going to get much water. So, you know, they're drilling a well for for really no gain. Um the other end point is that well intersects fractures that are well connected and eventually you know they're getting anything productive out of that well. It could dewater the aquifer and this will happen you [clears throat] know when when the golf course needs water is when recharge is at its lowest. It's during the dry season. So, it could take a substantial amount of time for those wells to recover when you're pumping the heck out of it during a low recharge period. This is uh

you know, it could it could be a real problem for residential wells who could go without water for an extended period of time. So those are the two end points and depending on the characteristics of the fractures and the density of them you know it's hard to predict what is actually going to happen. In fact even I sent you a uh an abstract back after the first meeting was a uh from an article in groundwater. It's the preeminent journal for groundwater type issues and it talked about u even a well- conducted pump test conducted over I think it was 21 days with 24 observation wells they still had a lot of uncertainty and the behavior of that pump test is dependent on how those observation wells intersect with the fractures where the supply well is pumping. And at first it's kind of a an elliptical depression where uh the wells that have some good relatively good connection to that uh fracture uh will show a a very direct and quick response to pumping. the wells that aren't so well connected, they eventually show a a draw down, but over an extended period of time when all these cracks, you know, they're not they could be very uh uh what's the right right word? Um discontinuous and you know they go through some spurious flow path. So it can take a lot of time for response. But the the paper showed that um eventually leads to more of a uniform cone of depression that can extend for for some distance. And this pump test happened to be conducted in the same

material we're talking about in this area. So it's it's very relevant and I could show some slides. I'm prepared to do it if you want. You know those those are the two end points. So it's a essentially a lose lose. you know, either the golf course loses by pumping or drilling a well that's not productive or if they have one that's productive, it eventually would have to be shut down because it's going to adversely affect the residential wells. So, that's that's the way I see it. What should have happened is this should never have been approved to begin with and I think it's remiss to consider again.

Okay. Uh I'm going to um thank you for your comments, Phil. if you'd like to submit those slides, we do have the um studies and things that you have previously submitted after the last hearing. So, thank you for those. I need to talk about it for you to appreciate what they mean.

So, um I we are limiting comments to three minutes per person. Um we were not prepared for hearing a whole presentation from folks. If you'd like to submit them, uh we could uh look at them and consider having you come and present to us. We're not making any decisions on any requests this evening. This is a public comment for anything that folks would like to bring up. Certainly, we know this was an area that people would like to speak to, but um you know, we we are not looking for a full presentation from folks this evening. Jen, recognizing that this is a a public comment um you know, and not a public hearing, may I ask a follow-up question?

Sure. Go ahead.

Thank you. So Ken um and Phil, thank you for you know for coming tonight and speaking with us. Um I want to address you know one one thing that was said I think by Ken. You know the variance wasn't granted simply for improving the profits or or at all because we want to improve profits for a local business. Um I I think the variance request would be considered equally biased no matter who was requesting it. That being said, I agree that more technical due diligence would be helpful. I think the board is handicapped by us being essentially a bunch of medical professionals and not, you know, um, geology professionals and and Phil, do I recall that you worked for USGS?

Yeah, I retired from USGS. I worked for about 40 years. [snorts] Okay. So I take your point that a pump test could give essentially what you're describing as a false positive. Is that is that right? It it could even under the best of circumstances that is a well-conducted pump test with lots of observation while it's conducted over an extended period can can have a lot of uncertainty, right?

Okay. And how you interpret that will depend on how the pump test is conducted. So as we move you know forward to considering a second request what would be useful for us because again I I don't think any I think you know none of us have the technical expertise so as a starting point what would you suggest as sufficient evaluation or sufficient evidence one way or another? Like I said, even even a very robust pump test is going to be fraught with uncertainties. The um that paper I the abstract of the paper I sent you described, like I said, it was a either 21 or 24 day test with 21 or 24 observation wells. I can't remember which was which, but uh

they show So there is there any alternative to a pump test? Pardon me. Is there an alternative to a pump test?

Not really. I mean, in addition to a pump test, there should also be a lot of uh geoysical logging. You know, from the wells, they use a variety of equipment, calipers, I think gammaray to look at the extent and the number of fractures, the orientation and size. Um, so there's there's a number of tools. It's you know it's time consuming expensive process and I don't think the golf course you know given the uncertainty of like I said I can show you slides that uh the vast majority of wells in in this type of bedrock geology

produce no more than 10 gallons. Occasionally you get one that produces more when you intersect a large fracture, usually a fault type condition, but that's the rare occasion. You know, this was what I show in these slides are [clears throat] one from North Carolina in the same type of bedrock material that uh inventoried over 5,000 wells and had a lot of geohysical logging of those wells. Another one was conducted in the Nshoba terrain which is where this area runs through which extends from kind of the north eastern corner mass down to uh kind of the intersection of Rhode Island and and Connecticut. So it's that's where this area lies. That that was a report done by a couple of my colleagues in in office in Northboro and they showed both both cases the median yield from these wells was 10 gallons per minute as I recall.

Um okay you know it was an exception when you got anything more than that. Yeah, usually was less than five, but uh so you're taking a real chance even, you know, expecting to get anything out of a a well for for irrigation. Yeah. Or even for, you know, even homeowners, you know. Yeah. You drill a well, sometimes you can go five feet over and and get some, you know, a better much better yield just because you hit the right fractures. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, so Phil, I'm going to move you back to uh listening in um and just have a few sort of closing comments, but um we'll also check and see. Um anybody else of the attendees um if you want to speak, please raise your hand. So I can I uh we have a few minutes left and I do want to um just given this topic uh note a few things that we heard uh last week. Just going to give it another second before I start talking. Um, Andrew, thank you for um asking those clarifying questions. Phil, please do send that information. We might invite you back because as Andrew said, although those of us on the board are not uh experts in this area, we do consult with um Phil um with the alliance who has a bit more experience in this than we do. So, so that's one. And I think we'd want to um be able to have an opportunity to have him review what you're sending over as well as uh you know maybe dedicate some time outside of just public comment period for that. Um I do want to note uh as we discussed I don't know if folks listened to the select board meeting last week uh but we did talk a little bit about this. We talked about a few other things. Um but the one of the things was is that this was not the first variance of this type that's been approved in town um long before most of us were on this tenure. But um you know there were obviously one for this location before but also for the ball fields in the past um which you know we did have conversations about the public use of high fields and ball fields and things like that. Um but you know I also just want to note for folks um you know this is not the only thing that's being brought to the board for consideration at this point. Um you know uh Phil mentioned as well about how private homeowners might not get a return. So, private uh irrigation wells are not permitted by regulation. Uh but is also

not permitted is if someone has access to a public water source in town that they're not permitted to request a well. Um however, um if you're informed at all in town, you've probably heard that there have been some challenges with one of the water districts, which is outside of the board of health's jurisdiction. Um however at the select board meeting it was mentioned um that they would like us to review uh with outside parties and and that's been doing some work in the background you know to see if there's any kind of precedence and what those risks would be to um the supply and the water supply uh the drinking water supply in general because that is something that folks have expressed an interest in because they're you know not having the best experience to access to um what they're looking for for clean or clean water uh or um water that maybe meets their expectations with some of those uh districts and that is currently not permitted. So we're also being asked to look at the regulations for those things. So there is a lot of things happening around this but we appreciate uh the feedback. Um we do take our stewardship uh very seriously. I think this is certainly a very complicated area for everybody. Uh even even those of you that are experts in the field, it's certainly a very complex um system. So we appreciate your insights. Uh so please share them and we will um see if we want to dedicate some time on our upcoming meeting. Um not seeing any further hands and allowing the folks that are on uh that did uh raise their hands. Michael, we're going to shift to your agenda item in just a minute. Um thank you for joining us. Um, and again, I just want to I I'm going to close public comment. Um, and [clears throat] I'm just going to move along to our next discussion item and just again reiterate that this is not a public hearing this evening. We have asked Michael to join us based upon the the requests we received from high the follow-up requests uh based upon the drilling. Um,

so I think, you know, we can provide some insights on what we're thinking um to your uh but I'll I'll let you sort of kick us off and then um the the board members may have um thoughts and I think uh Annette and I have some thoughts on next steps as well. So go ahead, Michael. All right. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes.

Um well, thanks for meeting with me and let me join in on this meeting tonight. Um yeah, so obviously there's two reasons for this meeting. One, I wanted to, you know, I know I know we wanted to follow up with this uh well drilling that we did uh last September. So I just want to let you know that or as you know, we did go to a depth of 750 ft at the location from the previous permit and we were unsuccessful finding water there. um at least to the you know for us to trench it over to the pond. It just wasn't worth it. It was a very low yield. Um so we decided to cut our losses at 750 ft. Um I can't say I was surprised. I'd probably agree with Phil that this wasn't the best location to drill the well. Um, and I guess the reason I'm coming to you uh today is because the McGills are kind of in the process of potentially selling the golf course and I am in contact with the potential new owners and the new owners are very concerned with the water supply that Highfields would have. Um, so they asked me to meet with you and just to see um if if this is still a possibility to search for water. Um, I can't say it's going to happen or if it's, you know, we're going to ask for a permit this year or next year or what the case may be. They just simply ask for me to reach out to you and find out information regarding the well permit if we need to if we do decide to drill another well. um what that process would be. Um I do agree with Phil quite a bit that I think if we were to do this again

uh we need to do um more due diligence on um you know having a study done at you know where we should drill this well. Um I reached out to a gentleman by the name of Jean Shrager. He's a hydrogeeologist out of Portsouth, New Hampshire. He's done a lot of golf courses in New England. Um so he kind of does a study with topography maps with um overhead aerial view well data. um you know, obviously the the bedrock sediment study underneath the golf course and you know, he would he would give us probably a better educated guess on where to drill this well instead of just kind of going blindly at this. Um it's not a guarantee. I mean, you could be off by a couple feet and completely miss a water supply. But I feel that if we were to do this again, we need a better uh educated guess uh a better study as to where um if any potential water would be. Um so those are just kind of the two two uh main reasons I wanted to meet tonight. Again, I'm kind of working between two potential owners. Um, I don't know the outcome of Highfields right now, but um, these new owners, I guess it's it's a requirement for them. They want to make sure that if they were to purchase Highfields, is this still an option? Um, and I think this would affect the sale of the golf course. So, that's why I'm here um, uh, essentially on their behalf to try to get these questions answered as best I can.

Thanks, Mike. Um, first I want to thank you for your transparency. I do think that um some folks are more informed about things happening or swirling around in the town and I think um it's better to have everything sort of out on the table. Um so I'm going to take the first pass Annette on some of these questions that Mike posed um and what we've heard for feedback so far. Um so the first question you had was has the current well permit expired? No, it expires one year from when we signed it, which was July 18th. Um, for the current location that you drilled the second well. Um, do you need to submit another well permit? If you are seeking to drill another well somewhere else, yes, it needs to be a new permit, but it also, um, I think we agree with what we've heard from what we've been talking we've been talking to folks within, um, the municipal center. Um and frankly it's a variance request again um to to you're looking for another location in another well. So we do think we'd have to treat it the same way with a public comment period. Um yes it would require another meeting. Uh and frankly um you know I I like how you're describing um further study. I would probably say that we would want to hear results of further study long before we're considering a variance request uh and make sure the public understands that. As just as we said to Phil, if we want to kind of do a deeper dive on these things, I think we owe it to the public to get all of that information out front uh before we're entertaining another request. Um and then yes, we'd have to do another um certified letter um informing folks of um it it'll be the whole public uh meeting process where a butters all abutters need to be notified. Um, I do want to add an additional thing that if you were to do anything further with

this second well, um, there were a few stipulations, but I, uh, and if you look within the well regulations, it's pretty clear of 48 hours notice of anything. So, um, we also need that to be not just a voicemail left. It has to be an actual physical contact with Nancy in the office or somebody in the office that you're doing anything because if you do anything in that will space to move things forward and we have an unintended negative consequence to the abutters uh we want to know about that and and we won't know if we f find out later. So I just want to be very clear to please if you decide to proceed with your existing permit in any way we really want a very open transparent process at this point which is what I think we set up last time when we spoke with you all. Um, but Annette, I want to see does that align with what we are hearing from folks about, you know, if they're looking for another location.

Yeah, I think that's exactly what what the process should follow. Um, because it is a a totally new plan essentially. So, it should follow that same variance process.

And um, go ahead, Mike. Did you have a Oh, great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah. Um, just wanted to check. I think when we spoke the first time, just wanted to double click on this. The original plan was for this new well to sort of replace the old well and the old well was going to be decommissioned. At this point in time, as it stands, the old well is still operational. Is that correct?

Uh, yes. It is obviously off now. And um [laughter] um yes, it it's you know once I need it, I could flick a switch and turn it on. Yes. U hopefully that's not the case this year and we get ample rain and I don't have to worry about anything. But yes, it is still operational. Okay. And the and the goal was um just to reiterate from our conversation to de if if this second well had been successful to decommission that well and use this as the primary. Oh, can you come off mute? Sorry. Yes, that's correct.

Great. Thank you. Um, yes. I want to open to um any members of the board who had any follow-up questions for Mike or any thoughts on um preparation before if McGill or the buyers or whomever it is decides to put in a new request for an alternate location? um anything that you would like them to um start to produce uh before we entertain um that permit request.

Okay.

I guess I I do have some questions. Um I wanted to make sure the board members had a chance, but I think and I'm catching up. So I started in August. So I was right after the last process for the approval. But I think there's some more information that we need to collect on kind of the the operations that the golf course currently has. Um so things like how many irrigated acres do you have? Um what's the design of your current storage ponds? What's your 90-day average gallon per day usage? So, I think there's a a handful of other questions that we'd want to collect during that um you know, variance procedure to make sure we have the full picture of like what is this new well intending to um help the the golf course operate? What kind of level and pull are you hoping to get from it? And what other water sources do you have on site that are helping support that operation? So, we're happy to, you know, follow up with those specific questions if you wanted to be able to kind of start working. I'm sure it's a lot of information that you already have. Um that that would definitely be part of the the next variance process as well.

Um yeah, I can absolutely get you those. Um they're imprinted in my head. So yes, I can uh I can get you our capacities, how much the golf course uses on a monthly basis, weekly basis, um and kind of what our well does now. and um you know just kind of our we keep a yearly record of how much water we've used through the season. So we have um we have all those numbers. I can I can try to list them out for you and print that out for the board of health.

Be great. Yeah. And if you wouldn't mind putting something together with Nancy and and Mike, maybe we can get that kind of formally responded. I think it would be just again helpful information to have on hand with all the things we've been talking around town about. Anything else in it? Uh, nope. I think that's it. I'll definitely work with Nancy on that. Perfect. Thank you. Any other members? Go ahead, Bill. You're on mute.

Unmuting. Um, this is Bill Mueller from the board. I do think another reason to revisit this and to go through the process again was that our process last time there there were several delays in terms of the um actual actions that were taken and I think um unintentionally that uh led to much less um public participation in the process and perhaps would have otherwise occurred. occurred. Um I think that um you know when the certified letter went out, it had a specific date that this was going to be um adjudicated and I think it was at least 2 or 3 months later when it ultimately was and there was no re um notification of people in terms of what the um uh where we were in the process. Um so I I think that would be another reason. The other question is and I forget who presented but um the golf course in Northbridge um there was mentioned that they I know that when um Highfields was first um built there was a discussion about using water uh from the river and um there was mention that actually the golf course in Northbridge actually has some approval to be able to do that and whether that is um an issue that needs to be revisited or is that just foreclosed um indefinitely in terms of another option?

Yeah, Bill, I don't remember if you were able to did you sit in on the hearing or and just not vote. I can't recall because I thought we did talk about that a little bit during the hearing and I know that you had to recuse yourself from certain areas. So, I think we did talk about that. I just can't remember if you were at the meeting or not. But the question remains if if a if a um a um similar facility in terms of a golf course in an adjacent

Well, that's that's my point. I think we talked about those things and found that that wasn't an option. At least that's what my recollection was um from the hearing that we asked about. I think at one point there was way before my time again talking about pumping from the Blackstone even things like that. I mean, we we did we did talk about those things during the public hearing. Um, so, you know, agreed. I mean, this is this doesn't this doesn't change the decision from the July permit. I just want to clarify that. Um, but certainly for anything moving forward and I think even with the, as I've said,

even with the one that is uh approved, if anything was to move forward, we want to know because now that we know that the drilling has happened, um, we we really need to know what's happening. Um but agreed bill there was there was something like um 300 plus butters. I I will say uh at least for us on the board um I don't know that all of those are butters or necessarily well uh you know well users. I think um it is also a mix of folks that are on um municipal water source one of the

ones. So, you know, I think we also it certainly could be true that the the messaging got lost. Uh but it could also be that while there's so many abutters, not as many have as much of a vested interest because they don't have wells as well. So, um just I just want to point that out because um obviously we uh I know Nancy and others try very hard to follow the the process. Um but not not everybody gets the the message. So, Right.

Great. Anybody else? [clears throat] Um, I just want to point out because of something Mike said, Mike, we appreciate the background about, you know, the internal changes at High Fields, but I think it does need to be said by the board for the benefit of the attendees and anyone else that, you know, being a hindrance to a potential sale cannot have any influence. influence on our decision, you know, whether it sounds like you haven't even decided if you know you will apply for another variance request. But I just want to put it out there that, you know, while it is good to know that, you know, there may be management or ownership changes, I should say. Um, that won't have any bearing on what we decide ultimately.

Yeah. No, thank you for calling that out, Andrew. I I guess we should note really anybody can put in any variance requests that they want. It doesn't necessarily mean it will will be approved and and and to Andrew's point that those types of things um um weigh in on the decision, but um certainly is helpful to note um because we do know people are well informed in town or tend to be. So, great. All right, last call for any uh items on this room. participants. All right. Um, so Mike, we will um be in touch with follow-up questions uh for public commenters. Uh please feel free to um uh send in any materials you'd like so that we can if we are entertaining a new request um or you know again even if we have other requests in the future and things to consider uh I think it's valuable to um get as much education on this as possible and also share with our staff that we um work with. Um public uh commenters are certainly welcome to stay on through the um end of the meeting. Uh but we will Mike, you are free to go for this evening anyways. Um and we're going to move on with the rest of the board of health agenda.

Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. And uh like again, Andrew, like I said, I'm kind of caught in between Yeah. two people here and I'm just uh you know, obviously I'm just gathering information. Um, and again, I don't even know if this is anything's going to happen this year. Hopefully, it rains. I understand why you need the information. I'm just saying, you know, we can't influence our decision. Um, but, you know, as Jen said, we will obviously consider any request that comes to us from anyone or anything. All right. Thank you everybody. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Phil, we've closed the comment period for public folks. I'm going to unmute you, but we do need to go on with our agenda. So, I will give you two minutes. I'll unmute you. Go ahead, Phil. Phil, you're on mute, but you've been allowed to talk again since you raised your hand. going once. Oh, go ahead, Phil.

Sorry. Um, I think I lost Mike, but I I had talked to Mike uh shortly after the last board meeting that you ruled on this. Um, and it had to do with, you know, having a an alternative location down near the Blackstone River in unconsolidated deposits which are much more assert to yield the type of pumpage that they they're looking to get. And it probably would have I'm not probably I'm sure it would have much less effect on any surrounding wells because it has a ready source of recharge from the Blackstone River. So you know this is the only alternative place I see as being viable. Anything in the in the up upper areas is just you know it's a chance. So I I wanted to try to get that out while Mike was still here so we could comment on it.

That's okay. Uh I think again we we did talk about that at the public hearing as well as that frankly um the alternative option was we talked about this because it was something I brought up uh afterwards and this would this would be the only place I personally would have knowledge from it. So because I I wasn't here. This is why I'm mentioning it here because I talked to Mike about it and I think I might have mentioned something to Bill but uh yeah I I as far as we can go back we can go back and review the um we record these so we can go back and review it's not there because I never talked about it

right you might not have but um I believe other people Bill that's why I'm thinking you may or may not have been because somebody did ask this question because I I personally have no knowledge of those things without being privy to these conversations. Um but um the other thing we did talk about was um them actually, you know, shipping water in was another option for them as well. So something that's on the table, but sure, you know, if they're looking to do another well, that's the only place I see being viable with some fair amount of certainty that that's going to yield what they're looking. Sure. But that would be different than a well, right? You're talking about it's a well it's just an unconsolidated deposits.

Gotcha. On the Blackstone there's sand and gravel deposits. You know may be stratified may not be but uh it's also in direct hydraulic connection to the black zone. In fact the town has two wells located in a similar condition. Um, so if you know if you're not getting enough uh flow from upland areas, it can induce infiltration from the Blackstone if needed. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Um All right. Thank you for that. Uh Phil, we'll go back and review um and we'll also um you know um and maybe we can ask a one of the follow-up questions uh to Mike on that specifically. you know what what if any investigation have they done to that as a possible source. Okay. Thanks, Phil. Yep. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you, everyone. Good discussion. All right. Next item on our list for this evening um is to appoint Evan Brassard as the alternate on the CMRD advisory board. Uh Ratica is going to be our uh primary point of contact and Evan uh has agreed to be our secondary. So would somebody like to make a motion? This is Andrew Chalooka. I uh move that we appoint Evan Brassard to the above named position alternate to the CMHD advisory board. [laughter] Yes, that one.

Is there a second? This is Bill Maler. I second that. Roll call. Andrew Chalooka I. Bill Muller. I Aaron Weski Govin I may die. There you go Annette. We got it. [laughter] [sighs and gasps] All right. And then um we have a few sets of minutes to kind of go through our Oh my gosh. And we have I think we have upcoming meetings already scheduled, but we'll have to check that. Um so we have four sets of meetings uh to go through for uh discussion and uh motions. The first being June 2nd, 2025. Any discussion on these minutes or would anybody like to make a motion?

Are the minutes sent through Nancy? Do you remember what day you sent them? Feel like I saw a bunch come through. Oh, it's been it's been a lot of emails lately. [laughter] Nancy, can you hear us? I can. Oh, do you know what date that you sent those minutes? I think it was the date that excuse me that I sent the proposed agenda. Agenda.

Okay. It was Thursday. Um, I think we have four listed here, but there's only three sets in our email is what Nancy has mentioned. Any discussion on did everybody find them? I move that we uh accept the minutes from June 2nd, 2025, uh February 3rd, 2026 and October 20th, 2025.

We do all three at once. Is that permitted or [laughter] do I have to do them separately? Usually we do them one at a time. Yeah. All right. I move that we accept the minutes from June 2nd, 2025. Second. Any second? I thank you, Bill. Roll [laughter] call. Andrew Juka. I Bill Mer. I Was an eye. 10 minute. I I like your style though, Andrew. That would be very efficient. Carry on. [laughter] Uh, this is Andrew Chalooka. We move that we accept the minutes from February 2nd, sorry, February 3rd, 2026. Second. This is Bill Mer. I second that. Roll call. Andrew Chuka. I

Bill Mer. I was ask. Jan Mer I. And the third one. This is Andrew Chalupa. I move that we accept the minutes from October 20th, 2025. Second. This is Bill Mer. I second that roll call. Andrew Chalupka I Bill Muller I go I Ben mean I

um let's see. Okay I think we went through all the motions. [laughter] I'm going to uh I mentioned under sort of old new business but I thought it was probably helpful to do it under public comment just given all we were talking about was Wells to mention um the commentary that happened from the select board meeting. Um, so I will kick it over to Annette to share any updates that she has with us. And if you want to share anything that we've started to do on the background detail there, please feel free.

Awesome. Thanks so much. Um, so yeah, just some background for the wells. Um, I've been speaking to some folks in the well program at Mass D that helped kind of inform some of those follow-up questions. So just so everybody I think I sent the email out, but um, just so everybody kind of knows where those came from. Um, Bridget couldn't make it tonight, but I have her public health nurses updates. Um, so the state dashboard is reporting high flu-l like activity um with low flu severity. Uh, we're definitely starting to see cases decrease across the state and in our region. Um, in January there were 50 reported influenza cases in Grafton compared to 54 in December. So, not a huge difference, but a little dip. Um, and then as always, just reminding that these cases only reflect individuals who receive laboratory confirmed testing. Um, so anybody who's doing at at home tests or um has the flu and doesn't get a test might not be counted in there. Um, in January, there were routine two routine disease investigations that were conducted, but none linked to any restaurants or possible outbreaks. Um, and then Bridget has scheduled a tick education presentation with the Council on Aging on April 22nd at 10:00 a.m. So, that's going to be great timing right before people really start getting outdoors um to do some basic tick education. So, we're excited for that. Um, let me just pull up our inspection numbers real quick. Um so in the month of January we did conducted 11 inspections um one food and then 10 tobacco inspections. Um the age compliance checks so where we have somebody under the age of 21 go try to buy a cigarette. Those were conducted in January and we had a 100% success rate. Um so all of all of the establishments in town were compliant with checking IDs

and refusing to sell when they couldn't produce an ID. So very excited about that and want to give a huge shout out to all the tobacco retailers. Um that really shows their efforts in training their staff and making sure they have good procedures in place to keep nicotine out of um youth's hands. Um we have our first regional advisory board meeting happening on Wednesday. So we're excited to fully get up and running with that. Um and we'll make sure that monthly we bring back presentations. So, our meeting in February, um you'll get an update in your March meeting, kind of what we talked about to make sure that not only your representatives, um updated during the meeting, but the board as a whole kind of has a good idea of what's going in um going on. And I think that's all the updates I have, but happy to answer any questions. very thorough as always. Thank you. [laughter] And efficient. All right. Um I'm just looking at our agenda. Um I don't see I can't remember if we came up with dates after March 9th. I don't have them on my calendar. So if we did, I didn't hold anything. Um maybe we can go through for So we have March 9th coming up for Zoom only. I think our hope was to do hybrid April, May, and June. Um, do we want to do April, May, and June dates so that we can try and reserve some spaces for that? What do we think about um with April 6th work for folks?

Yes. Hybrid. Um May 4th or the 11th your preference. Let's do the fourth then I think the 11th is better. 11th is better. Okay. 511. And then June. I know. Hard to believe we're talking about June already. Uh the first or the eighth?

For me, the first will work. The eighth likely won't.

First work for folks 61 hybrid. All right, let's see. We'll need some rooms. I think people maybe like to have a in person as it gets a little warmer option. All right. Is there any other um I should probably flag under uh correspondence um Dan Fins uh shared with us that he'll they'll have a um uh more of an update on the opioid grant uh group next month because they have is it your monthly meeting is tomorrow or something like that Bill? Yeah. So um we'll have more details there. Um [clears throat]

um we um don't have anything new to share on our uh ambulance and first aid uh group. We have a couple of follow-ups, but there's a lot of things happening that uh people are focusing on budgets and stuff right now. So um we've given a little space before um sending in some of those things. Uh but we do want to have a followup with some stakeholders. Um uh but nothing nothing new just yet. Anything else from folks or I can entertain a motion.

This is Bill Muller. I move that we adjourn. Is there a second? Andrew Chalupka. I second that motion. Roll call. Andrew Chalupka. I Bill Muller. Iron Mowski. Jen Maynard. Eye. Thanks everyone. So nice to see you.