Board of Health - Regular Meeting

Everyone welcome.

I'm going to pause for one second as Libby bounces over. There we go. Welcome to the June 24th, 2026 Littleton Board of Health meeting. With me tonight, we have Matt Wason, Kevin Davis, Libby Donegan, myself, Dan Cain as vice chair, but acting chair this evening. We also will be introducing our new health agent momentarily. And for one of my co-hosts, can you move Michelle into the, move her up as a panelist?

Moving it now.

Thank you, sir.

Oh, she's just listening. I don't think she can participate.

Well, it's a good thing it didn't work then. She'll raise her hand if she has something.

All right. So the first item on the agenda, our last Board of Health meeting, we did share that our inaugural health director has tendered their resignation to be a little bit closer to home. So since that point, position has been posted. Interviews have continued. occurred and our first order of business this evening is to vote to appoint Kelly Calo as our new health director pending background and select board approval.

So just yeah, just to clarify there for folks. The process is we go through the interviews, then HR makes an offer, then this board votes to basically approve that person for hiring. Then because of the step level of the hiring position, it has to go for the select board because they just by default must approve something that is hired at above a step three, I believe.

Sounds like a plan.

So we're all aware of that. And then they have a meeting on July 13th. So any start date has to be after that because it has to go to the select board, obviously. So I'm pretty sure they're already aware of that. But in the absence of Chair Baker being here, Dan, if you wouldn't mind making sure we've connected with the select board to say, are we on that agenda? And make sure that's all going through. I'm betting Michelle took care of it, but let's just...

and uh mark is still our um person so i'll let him know that so you can take it to the select board i think would be appropriate mr chair thank you you're welcome i apologize i make my own notes of things to do i apologize one moment that's fine

All right, I think at this point I will entertain a motion.

I'd like to propose a motion to accept Kelly Kao as the health director for the town of Littleton.

Before I second a motion, there were some questions that the public had about the process. I just want to make sure these are answered publicly to ensure public trust in this process. Somebody noticed that Kelly's name is the only name on the agenda this evening, and they were wondering if other candidates were interviewed as well.

I was probably connected most closely, so I can throw out an answer. You are correct. Similarly to the last time we went through this process in Iron Francis, we did only end up with one name when it came time for the public hearing and public meeting. So similarly this time, position was posted, open for two weeks. That's the typical process. There were multiple applicants. Applicants were reviewed. And We, as board members who were involved in the process, as well as other participants from town, basically came to the decision that Kelly Kahlo was the most qualified candidate, and that was the one we wanted to move forward with.

Sounds good. Thank you. And you followed all the town bylaws and whatnot in this process?

Absolutely. The town HR director was involved in the process from the start to the end, and she makes sure we follow the rules and town administration and other folks were also involved in the interview.

Okay, thank you. I second the motion to move Kelly towards a vote.

If I could ask you to make sure you add the key information on the public hearing, which includes the date and the hiring level. Would you mind adding that to your motion, Mr. Davis?

I have no problem doing that. That would be for the health director effective July 13th, 2026 at grade 16, step seven with a subject to select board approval.

I second the motion. Thank you.

We have a motion and a second roll call vote. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Libby Donegan.

Libby Donegan votes yes.

Matt Wason?

Matt Wason, yes.

And Dan Cain votes yes. A tentative congratulations. So I did just take your feedback for that public question. It looks like we actually had 12 applicants for the position that were reviewed and that it looks like from the screening process that yes, Kelly. rose to the top very, very quickly. So yes, we went through the process and we had, we did have 12 candidates, you know, apply for the position. So, all right, Kelly, would you like to take a moment and just say hi, introduce yourself and tell us if we're pronouncing your name correctly, all those important things.

Yeah, sure. So my name is Kelly Callow. I apologize that I am in a car. I'm just leaving another board meeting. So I am currently the health director in Carlisle. I am looking forward to coming to Littleton. I'm excited to make some really good changes here and or continue the great work that the Littleton Board of Health has been doing. I am very friendly with the town and I'm looking forward to it.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. We are excited to have you join our little community. So looking forward to a strong and healthy future for our department as we continue to grow. All right. That was great.

Thank you.

I don't see any hands from the audience, so I'm going to say that audience is good. Libby, were there any other questions? I hadn't gotten anything from the public. Had you heard anything else or questions from the public about the process? It did go quickly. The position obviously is mission critical for our town, so it was not a long, drawn-out, patient process. It was done with intent, so it was... Purposely expedient, but not rushed, if that makes sense.

People wanted to know if Kelly would be committed to our town, but I'm assuming that with her being on the call tonight and making these efforts that she is committed to our town.

Absolutely. I actually grew up in Littleton, so I'm very familiar with the town and I love Littleton.

That's awesome. That's really good to hear. Thank you.

Hopefully, I Grew Up in Littleton is as strong an endorsement of Committed to the Town as anyone could ever possibly ask for. All right. Well, in that case, um, thank you. Congratulations. Welcome. We look forward to, uh, the select board process and HR wrapping up their pieces and hopefully we'll have a July 13th start. I now have it is seven 10. We can move to our seven Oh five discussion around private well regulation, which we've had in working on for awhile. And we had started working, started back on at our last meeting. I have it pulled up. I admit I forget where we left off. I don't remember which section we dropped off on.

Yes, if you pull it back up, I do remember which section we left off on.

Stand by. Working on it. No worries.

Thank you for zooming in. Thanks.

Definitions.

How's that? We are for all the audience.

I apologize. I'm scrolling really fast. I'm just trying to get back to where we were. I know we did water quality testing requirements and I think we ended up at.

We're past that or I think we're right at the maintenance. Let's see. There was a section right there. Well, construction requirements. We made it through all of that.

So this evening, while we do have Kelly is listening in, we are not going to make her work, although she is actually serving as our interim covering health agent until position is filled. So I don't think we want to necessarily stress her skill set unless she really wants to, as far as she has not had a chance to, I'm sure. Look at our draft well regulation at this point, and I'm not going to ask her from the car to try to actively... actively participated in the discussion. That's just not realistic or fair to her.

Dan, I'm actually not the interim right now. I believe that you have somebody else back to answer at the interim.

Oh, okay. I apologize for that misinformation then. That may have been a change from the last I heard. Yes, I believe so. All right. So I apologize to the public for that misinformation, but thank you for clarifying and speaking up. Well, then we're really not going to ask her for anything, right?

Yeah, exactly. Real quick, Dan, I know we had talked about in the previous section about creating a table. Did anybody get a chance to work on the table?

Yes. I sent the table to Kevin Baker, not realizing that he was on vacation right now. Do I have permission to send it to Dan to give out to members here?

Sure. I just realized that we don't have anybody from the admin support side from land use at the moment. I am hoping they will review the tape for minutes after this, but I admit I am not taking minutes at the moment. I'm not sure if anybody else is taking minutes. And I have not talked to... Sophia, I believe, from Lanus, who is our covering admin.

I've been taking some notes. I can... All right.

So we will...

Thank you very much.

And yeah, hopefully she'll be able to just follow up with the video and we'll be all set. But I apologize. I just realized that... Trying to anticipate. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Good catch. Do we need to pause a little bit? Do you need to...

catch any details like do you have the vote recorded um i don't have the vote recorded um so kevin davis made a motion you seconded yep and then it was uh all four people voted so kevin dan matt and libby all voted in the affirmative Just a little housekeeping. No problem.

Okay. I'm good to move on.

Sorry about that. So, yeah, if you happen to have the table, then I will. pull that up and we can share insert.

Yeah, I think that was one of the major do outs from the last time was to get a table together. And then the other do out, if I remember correctly was, um, general wording around, um, uh, shells. Like we needed to figure out a couple of the shells cause we were, As Dan pointed out correctly, we were not, we were making requirements with that are not worded as thou shall or something like that. So we weren't doing the policy wording correctly.

If I may make a suggestion or request

Of course, go ahead, Matt.

I think we should try to just get through the rest of the document based upon the meat of the document. And then this thing has so many track changes built in. I feel like our next meeting, we should just start at the top and say, approve, approve, approve, approve, approve. And anytime somebody says, wait, wait, hold on, I'm worried about that. We say, great, leave it and move on. Because this thing is becoming so hard to read and interpret that I just love to get it mostly cleaned up. Then we can come back and just look at those few changes that were still left that we actually need to talk about. Like Kevin was saying, the ones where we might need to change some language around.

That makes perfect sense to me. I like that idea.

All right, so wall construction requirements, Section 9. Get it out.

Awesome.

Pretty straightforward, Part 1. Out. Part 2. Seems pretty straightforward. I'm just going to slowly go along, and as we get to anything of interest or comment, speak up. Section 3, straightforward. Section 4, agree, straightforward. Again, this all looks a bit boilerplate kind of language.

What I would ask is that we compare this to the draft. I'm pretty sure this was the draft language that we got from MassDEP. And I would make sure that we don't have anything and maybe bounce this off those. But yeah, it's all pretty straightforward.

It's a good question because I think this document is approaching two years old. So some of this language could have been outdated if there's been any updates. And you're right, if it was a draft, I'm not sure how solid the source document was.

When we started this, we took the model language from the DEP site. So I remember that specifically. We just need to finish this up.

But I'm saying, has their language changed?

Oh, peace, yes.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I guess we should... somebody needs to do a side-by-side.

You can just do a quick word comparison. Just get the source document of the new one. And yes, I have no problem doing that. I saw that, Matt. If at the end of this, Dan, you wouldn't mind just sending the team's location where that is in an email, that would be most helpful. So that way. I can just do a quick comparison, put it in the same directory. You're on mute. I didn't hear a word you said.

No, I apologize. I am on mute. One, I just did a quick look, and it looks like there is two different versions available, a 2023 version of model rigs and then a 2020. Four updated guidelines.

I'm going to go with the 24 if everybody's okay with that.

I would agree. So I don't think we have anything. I did not see in my very, very quick search anything newer than that, but. We can double check that as well. As far as Teams, Libby had a question about Teams. I went in and I could get to the minutes folder. That was the only folder I could access. So like the Board of Health files, I could not access. So we can put it in under minutes as just a draft, but just be aware that it's probably going to be there because the Board of Health generic folder was not accessible, at least for me.

i will check during our meeting and see what's going on so uh keep going and i will check right now so again this section all looks pretty um prescriptive

engineering tech engineering and operational techniques for how to drill a well meeting the regs i'm not sure nothing is jumping out at me as far as something that we would probably change either welded or threaded again this is probably beyond our technical expertise to to edit Okie dokie. And then we get back to edits that we have done in the past.

Yeah.

Again, not sure about our offsets, if that is local or if that was state recommendation.

I'll figure out something.

Relatively technical still, however.

Yeah. You should get her involved.

I'm looking at number three, irrigation wells. We prohibit the use of Silcox spigots for irrigation wells. But then line seven, which is spigots, not Silcox spigots. Sorry. All right. No, I apologize. I apologize. Yeah, I think that seems pretty normal. Don't connect non-potable agriculture wells to potable water lines. Seems pretty straightforward.

So just pause for a second. So we've said the irrigation well description at the very, the definition at the very top of the document. I know we have one for irrigation well. if a homeowner has a well and connects the town water because they have that convenience and then decides to just use their well for irrigation, technically, according to this, they need to apply for a permit to do that. Is that what we want? Is that number three or four? Yeah. Is that what we want?

So the reason, yes, because what you're asking them, you're asking them to label it appropriate. You're making sure that it's disconnected from the house. There's a whole bunch of things you're making sure that that is going to be happening. So yes, I think that makes a lot of sense.

And it doesn't put them into, I know our discussion last time, we took out a lot of requirements for the homeowner's private drinking well. And we similarly took it out because we were talking about only requiring things on commercial irrigation. I just don't want it to look like when you switch from drinking to irrigation, you have to actually go through a process. It seems a little wonky if that has a cost to it, for example. Yeah.

I hear what you're saying, but time to come out and inspect it, it's going to have a cost associated with going out and doing that.

But that's my point. I'm a homeowner. I've had a well for years. I've been drinking it for years. Now I just want to water my grass with it.

I understand, but there are things that we're asking that irrigation-only wells not be connected to the house's potable water supply, that we have a label on it that says not for use for human consumption. There's a whole bunch of requirements in there that we want to make sure that it's labeled appropriately and it's done appropriately. But that may be different.

Okay, so as a homeowner, I'll just completely skip the process and say that it's not an irrigation well. Because there's no other thing in the entire regs that urges me to relabel it. And so I would just leave it as a drinking well anyway. Right?

So I disagree because it says conversion of a pre-existing drinking well to an irrigation well should require permitting and approval by the Littleton Board of Health. It's what it says. So I, you know, I think, and it's going to be one of those things that is probably going to come up during the sale of a house and you're going to look at it and go, oh, look, no, this is an irrigation well. Was it previously inspected? No, it wasn't. Okay, now you're going to have to go get it inspected. I'll be quiet now. Libby has her hand up.

Libby, your hand's up.

That's okay. I was following your conversation. Do we have a way to hold anybody accountable if they weren't coming to the town to ask for a permit and we weren't in the know? Is there a way that we would know about this and be able to hold anybody accountable? Other than, like you said, if this is coming up for the sale of a house, if somebody just wanted to use their well for watering their lawn, as you suggested, Matt Wason, then do we actually have a way to hold anybody accountable?

I guess I'm asking why hold them accountable? Why bother?

Because if we even have a way, like if you just decided to use it for your lawn irrigation, would we even know?

not right. Not unless somebody like turns me in or something. Right. So that's kind of, I'm getting, I, and Kevin mentioned like the sale of the house, like that's the, that's the one time that it starts to benefit me as a homeowner to all of a sudden say, Oh no, no, no, that's not a drinking well water. That's an irrigation well, because then I would have to have it tested before selling the house. So, but in, in the meantime, if I just decide not to drink it because I'm getting down water, I could still drink it. Right. And I guess maybe that's the difference. If I have town water, I might keep my well running to my house just fine. Because if there's some problem with town water, I can switch over to it.

So I don't know if there are already bylaws at LELWD, at the water department, that says when you get hooked up to town water that you must disconnect a well from your house. I don't know if there are rules around that. You're shaking your head no, meaning that you've already done that.

It's my right to have a well. Anybody can put a well in if they want, if they get a permit.

I understand that, but I don't know if there are regulations for that. I have no idea.

So... If I may, one, we decided we are not permitting irrigation wells. There is no permit process for an irrigation well.

Correct.

So if I convert my potable water to an irrigation well, potable or not, I have a couple things I need to do. Because one, so for example, highlighted area two here, is that you cannot have two sources of water into one building. So that would, if that stands, then that is going to be not a permitting process, but it is going to be a plumbing, a water department in conjunction with the plumbing inspector regulation, which needs to, they're going to need to make sure that the existing drinking water well is disconnected from the dwelling and when town water is now connected to the dwelling so that is not a permitting process so i think that that line of shall require permitting and approval we don't require permitting and approval for any other irrigation well so i think that language needs to probably go because that does not reflect any other language about irrigation wells however we above We may want to make it clearer, however, that with that switch, if you are switching or whatever, it says you can't have two water lines coming into one building, two sources into one building, then that's going to be a plumbing inspector enforceable regulation rather than a Board of Health permitting process.

And go ahead. Matt's got his hand up. Never mind.

At the top of this document, it's $100 permitting fee for irrigation wells. And I think we should have a permit for it at the very least because we talked last time about requiring potential testing if a irrigation well was used for commercial purposes.

I also so and the reason why number two is there by the way is so that if something's wrong with the well water That we don't have a backflow going into the town municipal supply. We definitely do not want that to happen So that is another reason why you disconnect if you're connecting from the town water. So yes, I understand Matt but no, I Disagree that we should allow if you've converted to town water that you should allow that. So I, yeah.

Okay. I apologize for not, not, I mean, again, this we've went through many versions of this document over, over time that we did require a permitting for irrigation wells. So again, I mean, I think two and four together meet the objective of eliminating cross-contamination and documenting a new irrigation well, even though it's pre-existing. Just change of use. And again, we have six no plumbing connection irrigation to habitable structure.

And then there is 11. Did we skip 10? I think we skipped 10. No. Oh, 10 was you do a thermal welcome net construction. Got it. And then there's 11 is irrigation wells. Got it. And then there's the worst 12. There should be no plumbing connecting an agricultural well to a habitable structure. All spigot surveillance itself must be identified by from. Yep. Totally.

Okay, all we have agricultural wealth. Was there anything else we. Mr. chair thought we had yes. Go ahead.

I do believe we, we reached out to the agricultural commission and asked for input on this and we received. Less than a positive feedback on that. So maybe reaching out again just to make sure that there are no other changes. Thoughts? One second, I just need to close the door so that way the sound doesn't travel. One moment.

Can you repeat the name of the commission he reached out to?

Agriculture. Agriculture Commission.

That's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you.

Yep. I'm back. Sorry, I was just closing the door to the room.

I feel like we had more of a discussion around agricultural wells as well.

Wasn't it that we basically figured out that that was all going to be covered by state agriculture requirements?

Yeah, there is.

We shouldn't do it.

Yeah, yeah. And even if we simply, you know, we may even just want to put a line in agricultural wells are, you know, water quality testing operations, et cetera, are governed by MGL, whatever. And, you know, CMR, whatever, and other applicable DEP guidelines and regulations or whatever, just reference it out. We just may want to acknowledge that, well, they should be anyway, acknowledge that that's kind of where we're looking for. Yeah, absolutely. The challenge, of course, is that if there's changes at that level or they change reg numbers, then we may need to edit buttons.

And I've talked to a couple of our farmers about this, and they wanted to make sure that we understood that they get tested, that water gets tested by the state, and that we should, as a board of health and a health department, accept that same state-level testing that they have to do for their agricultural wells into our stuff as well. So if we have to require testing, that they should do that too. Just feedback.

Yeah, if we can keep it as consistent across as possible. Agreed. All right, so homework, talk to AgComm again for thoughts, feedback.

Is there a situation in the agricultural community where they potentially are using one well for both agricultural and irrigation, and it's meeting the state needs for agriculture, therefore it's probably totally fine for irrigation, but we still might have some overlap? I'm probably talking about a very, very small percentage of possibility.

I can ask the three farmers that I've talked to, and I will find out if they have, if they, yeah, I'll find out. I'll ask.

Just a similar, like, kind of one of those, if you've met the needs of an agricultural through the state, then don't worry about our requirements for an irrigation well if they're co-purposed on your farm.

Yeah, yeah. No, I'm 99% sure an agricultural well is you, yeah, we, okay. Yeah, I'll ask.

Thank you. And before we keep going, I saw something up at just above section 10 geothermals that I need to ask about. Right there. Where did that point 10 come in that had municipal spelled wrong? Because I would say that is not in line with what our community members would want.

Actually, I think from a Board of Health perspective that that is a better... From a health perspective, that is a better way of doing things. Because you are guaranteeing that the water in town is... safer than the well water.

So I disagree that you can, that you can guarantee that.

Okay. So, so let's, I can see a couple of different things here. One, if I'm on town water and I choose to put in a well, I can still stay on town water. I can have a potable well that I just use for irrigation, but know that I have a backup source of water when the apocalypse comes. That's not necessarily a bad or problematic thing. I think it's consistent with our Title V septic that no new septic system if there's town sewer available in front of the dwelling. But I think I kind of agree with Matt going, if I don't have town water in front of my house and I can have a drinking well and I have to test it and make sure it's potable and all that goodness, Why is it that I can't do that if I happen to have a pipe in front of my house with town water? Or have both, not both connected to the system and prevent cross-contamination, but have a potable well that I just choose not to use as potable and just use to irrigate? I guess I'm just not sure. Our concern is, one, I hear you that hopefully our municipal water is higher quality, tested more often, treated more effectively than... a residential well, but as long as they're not cross-contaminating, I'm not sure what's to be gained by saying you can't. Other than it's consistent with septic. If you've got a pipe in front of your house, you can't have septic. If you have a pipe in front of your house, you can't have a drinking well. But I'm not sure if that really meets any meaningful function since you have to pick one or the other to be connected to your dwelling. You can't have both connected to your dwelling.

Mr. Davis. So I think if the language right now is that we're only supposed to be, so the town water is tested, I believe, if not once a year, twice a year for a whole litany of fun things. And I know the town does that testing. And if we are going to allow people to have a well that is on their property, then we need to have some similar level of testing that is done yearly if the town is doing the same testing yearly. So we can't have it both ways from a health perspective. if we are in town looking for things in the water and currently filtering them out, and then you kind of see the dichotomy here. Like, I don't see that.

Okay, I'll probably let Libby take this one. Libby, go ahead.

I think my concern here is that Based on our last meeting, I understand that a lot of this is just suggested guidelines for homeowners with private wells that we can't mandate this unless there's something like the sale of a house or a landlord. So are we saying that we're mandating this or are we saying that we're suggesting this?

The water quality testing or the well construction?

Well, both, I guess.

I know we went back and forth quite a bit on requirements for water testing for drinking water wells, for private drinking water wells. And I think we've kind of landed on at initiation, so a new well and a change of ownership. That other testing is challenging to logistically enforce. And, okay, so I don't test my well. We're going to go out there and turn their well off and cut water off. There are some enforcement challenges, I think, if we really try doing that. And I know we did get a lot of pushback early on in this process around water quality test, private well testing mandates due to cost. if it wasn't at some designated time, like change of ownership or some other concern, there's a spill, there's a, you know, an accident, there's a damage, a known damage, that kind of stuff, repair. Um, I guess I'm trying to figure out, so if we're not mandating annual testing of all private wells in town, then why do we do a mandate? Why would we, again, that face-ledley piece, why would we mandate testing frequency that matches the town water supply if I happen to have a water pipe in front of my house compared to if I don't? Because that sounds like, Kevin, that's kind of what you were putting there, that if I have town water in front of my house, then I have to test my well water the same frequency and for the same things that the town tests their water for. But we're not making that same mandate for a house that does not have a town water line in front of it.

So from a water quality perspective, we know that the town tests at least yearly for a lot of the things that we are asking private well owners to test for when property changes hands, right? And if we're not – if we're saying you can't – have a, you know, no new well, no new drinking well shall be, this is saying no new drinking water wells shall be constructed where municipal water is available. So that's what that's saying. So when we have new, like no new drinking water well. So if they exist, That's fine. We're not going to say there's a problem with that or anything like that. This is about new drinking wells. So that's what that's talking about. I firmly believe that if we are going to be doing... You know, if the town is doing that type of testing because of the size of the town and we have those requirements to do that, then the individual should be doing that type of testing for that thing. And then maybe what we need to do is team up with the water department to offer discounted water testing for individuals in town that are on wells. And maybe we should do that already. So just thoughts for that.

Mr. Wason, Dr. Wason.

First, I don't think the analogy between septic systems and drinking water is appropriate to bring up. It's in versus out. And so I think it's a very important distinction that we, I don't think it's the same kind of ballpark. Septic, yes, that causes its own issues with the earth and everything around it. And so we say, if you have the option to connect the town sewer, yeah, we're going to force you that so we can get that stuff out and reduce the risk to your property. Drinking water is an entirely different situation. So, you know, Mr. Davis says, guarantee that the town water is a better source. Well, Until we built a brand new water treatment facility down the road for me, I guarantee I had better water than what the town was providing because I have treatment in my house for my well. And so the town water, until we built that plant, had a higher level of PFAS, right? Because that was the line that was set by the state, and that's what the town was using. So I actually had better water. In addition, my water doesn't run through miles, right? of town water line. I appreciate that the water is tested, and it's a great source, and I'm not trying to say that people in town shouldn't trust it. It's a great source, but I think that it's inappropriate for this board to basically disallow people from having the choice, if they want to, to have their own private source of water. And no, I will reiterate that i don't think we should just like we're not requiring the drinking well water testing above i don't think that the situation should change at all here i think it should be a thing where if you choose to have a drinking water well on your property fine and here are the recommendations for testing that and as a board of health that's what we're saying to help keep you individually safe

Lily?

So if somebody wanted to put a private well on their property where municipal water is available, would the engineer for this well be responsible for making sure that it's following codes and bylaws? So there is some system of accountability with this?

Yeah, you still have to go through this process early on where you're applying for a permit and going through that, and there's initial testing, right? So you know it starts safe, and then you're saying, homeowner, keep testing on this cadence like every other well owner in town if you would like to do that.

And then just like with plumbing work, is this something that's inspected and made sure that it's following our codes?

Yes. We just passed a whole section that tells them if you're a well digger, you have to follow all of these things. There was a section above that we went through all of that.

Then I guess I don't see why a homeowner should be shouldn't be allowed to have this. I understand your point, Matt, where you were saying while there were PFAS in the town water for a time, you had well water with a treatment on it and you felt like that was safer for your family. I don't see why we couldn't allow that if you wanted to spend the money to install a well and have it follow our bylaws.

Mr. Davis. But what we're getting at is once you install the well and we recommend that you do these tests, the town repeats the test so that you know something is going on, so you have an idea that's going on. We're not requiring people to do yearly tests if they have the drinking water well. And that is my point, is that we the town is doing a service to say from a health perspective we are making sure that our water is at a higher quality because you're not we're not requiring people we're suggesting and again that's the whole language thing that dan brought up we're suggesting that people do this testing um you know on a higher repeating process but we're not requiring And that's my point is that the town is required to do it because of the population size by the state, right? So from a public health perspective, I get independence and I support people making independent decisions, get it, got it. But from a public health perspective, and since we're a board of health, we should be focused on what that means. That's all I'm saying.

Can we have a two-tier regulation, however?

If you have a drinking water line in front, you need to do the yearly inspection? Absolutely. We can make whatever we want. It's our document.

Well, we can, but is that appropriate? I'm being serious. No, I know. Is that appropriate? And is that equal protection? Is that defendable? That if I want to put a well in, I now have to do all these other things because I happen to have water in front of my house than if I don't. Because now we have two different classes of drinking water wells. We have two different classes and expectations and costs to... for residents, depending on whether you have a pipe in front of your house or not.

And I'm not sure if that's defendable from a... Well, we have an amazing group of attorneys that we can ask.

I'm just not sure. I have a little bit of a concern saying two classes of well owners. And I find that a hard one to defend if we're establishing... they're both drinking water wells, they're both potable, they're both following the same rules, but this group has to use this stuff and some other group does not have to, I think that's gonna come up with a heat protection challenge.

Well, so we can ask, right? There's no question, there's no harm in asking, number one. Number two, again, if we're looking at it from a public health perspective, That's where my lens is.

I'm not... Well, in that case, then let's go back to the beginning then and make everybody have to test their water to the same regulation every year. I wasn't for it, and I got told that was not a good thing. Well, I mean, just if... I'm just trying to... If that is the mindset, then we need to be consistent. A drinking water well is a drinking water well. I'm... A different piece here that this line is, you can't put in a drinking water well if there's a pipe in front of your house. What your testing requirements are and those things, that's a different discussion. Right now, you can't. If we say you can, then we can talk about how you need to manage that well, perhaps. But right now, you can't from this draft regulation. Does that need to go away that says... You can. And now it's treated like any other drinking water well, except you have to pick. It's either pipe from the front or pipe from the back, which you don't get to have both going into your dwelling.

Well, that's in a different spot. That is you can't have two connected at the same time. That is not the same thing that's being said there.

Right. This says I can't have a new drinking well if there's a pipe in front of my house. Yep. Should we stick with that? Is that a reasonable requirement? If you say that you need to test and those other things, that's, again, a separate discussion. I'm kind of leaning towards if... Again, we see every summer with droughts, we get boil water orders because the water level is too low, contamination even through treatment plants, or you've got a break in the main, you've got concerns with boil water order, and I can go, the well in my backyard is going to be providing me cleaner water without a boil water order than what my municipality is able to provide me right now, even if it's temporary. I think we just need to look at that line before we get to, okay, yes, or if it's a yes, now how do we manage it? Libby's hand has been up, but I'm not sure if it just never came down. So let's go with Libby and then we'll go with Matt.

Sure. I guess if I'm looking at this through a real public health lens and I want to consider the bigger picture too. So, you know, what is the cost burden on people to test their water yearly? Because I, as much as I agree, I would want my water to be tested annually. yearly if I'm drinking it from a regulation. And when I'm putting in my body standpoint, we also need to consider the cost burden on people. And we do have several people in town on fixed income. So I just want to make sure that we're taking the fuller picture into account here. Is this going to be a burden on people to pay for testing every year? Or do you think that the water department really is going to be able to come up with a program that makes something affordable for people that are on fixed incomes?

So what this also means is because this has waters available, that means that the water is like in the street. That doesn't mean it's actually at your house, I would say. And so new drinking. So you can have a house where your water, I don't know. let's say your well runs dry and you have to re-drill and put another one in a different location, a different depth, does that fall into the new drinking water well? And because there's water under the street in front of you that's not connected to your house, this would say, sorry, buddy, you can't put a new well in your property. You are now going to be forced to do a plumbing project to connect to that town water. So I think that is, again, inappropriate. Second, I'll go back to a homeowner, if they so choose, can respond faster than the town. this town was notified that the state was changing the PFAS requirements. And the town said, shoot, we have to build a new filtration plant. Okay. That did not happen very quickly. And so if there was something like that, that happened and you as a homeowner said to yourself, you know what? I don't want to keep drinking that beautifully tested town water for this new concern. I, for my household would prefer to put my own well in at my cost and And put my own treatment filtration system in so I know exactly what I'm drinking. I 100% think that you should be permitted to do that. And I know we are a board of health and we are responsible for the public health. But I think we are coming dangerously close to overstepping what we should be doing. And it's been talked about a lot. And I still firmly feel like we should not be requiring testing of people who have this. I know one is where municipal water is available. But remember, the other group is where municipal water is not available. And the testing burden is expensive. And the state does not give us good guidance on how that should actually be performed. And so... I think the hand-holding needs to stop at, listen, homeowner, we're checking to make sure the well's good when you install the well. We're checking to make sure the water's good when you buy a house. And everything else is going to be your responsibility, but here's what we tell you that you should be doing. I think that's the way to stand on it, and I think that should apply exactly to somebody who chooses to say, you know what, I similarly don't want to pay the water rates of the town. I would like to put in my own well as an investment and then not be held accountable to whatever the costs are for that town water.

And these wells wouldn't be drawing from the same aquifers like the town water wouldn't be a conflict there.

Well, Libby, unfortunately the town decides to pull water out of an aquifer and it could be pulling out of my aquifer actually, because I don't have access to town water, but they're happy to pull from an aquifer that my well actually might be into. So I'm more worried when we connect the line to Harvard and say that we're going to start supplying water to another town. Because I happen to be on the Harvard line. And I start to worry about, hold on, when is my aquifer axis going to get threatened by that? Who knows, right? We can't see underground. That's a really hard thing to figure out. Davis probably has a sonar and he can sort that through. But I don't know. That's a tough question. But it's two-way street.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Davis. So first thing, first point, you as an individual homeowner, even if you're connected to town water like I did, I went and got a treatment Plant whatever word you want to use installed in my house to take care of all of that stuff. So I went and did that to filter out all the and all the other things that are there. So that is me taking individual responsibility, even though the town, it took it 2 years to put in the treatment water treatment facility. um so yeah that's there um second thing is um we can also put language in that line to say that if you have an existing well and it fails and you go to dig a new well this doesn't apply since we can create that policy we can also create that language to go around that problem so that way if an existing owner's well fails that we can add that language there to have that exclusion

But if you're so important on not allowing somebody to use the well water if they have access to tap water, why would you permit somebody to use the well water?

If that is a concern and that is something that you brought up, we can put that language in there to say if you have an existing drinking well and that's what you want to do, then that is totally a reasonable thing to put in there.

If this point, if point 10 is important for public health, then you can't have an exception for somebody. If you think point 10 is important for public health, then you can't have an exception for, for how to well fail.

Matt, all I'm bringing up to you is that since we're creating this document, we can put that in there. I'm not saying I'm for that. I'm saying we can address that. Okay.

And, and I just like to say that if you have say an RO unit on your town waterline, you are paying a lot of money because that RO unit wastes a lot of water that you're having to pay the town.

I didn't say I had an RO unit on my house.

I'm saying if you do, that's one of the most popular water treatment systems that somebody had. I'm not saying you, Kevin Davis. I'm saying a homeowner in town. You threw out the suggestion that somebody could be on town water and add additional treatment options if they so wanted to be even safer than what the town is providing. And I'm saying if I wanted to, if I was worried about the PFAS because the town had to take a long time to build a facility and I wanted to put in my own RO unit, now I'm having to pay the town quadruple my rate for anything that I'm drinking because of the RO unit flushing.

So again, personal choice, if that's what they wanted to do, just like it's a personal choice to have a well in your house. Get it, got it. I'm only making a statement and a policy direction in one way. That's all I'm saying. We're not prohibiting people from choosing to do that, to put on an additional treatment in their house. Not saying that at all.

But I'm saying that if they choose to do that, you understand that it's at a much higher cost because they have to pay town water rates to get that water and then they choose to treat it.

Again, that's someone's choice to do that, right? We're not prohibiting a person from making that choice if they want to have an RO unit to do that.

But you're forcing them into a more expensive option is what I've seen. An RO unit on a public well versus RO unit on a private well versus RO unit on public water. That's more expensive.

I understand what you're saying, but that is their choice.

But I think if we're arguing choice, then I am not arguing that way since favor as well. Like if you want the choice to put a well in your yard, so you're not drinking PFAS while our town system is being completed.

I would actually think that you, so I think, I think because of the, it becomes, I feel like it just becomes ethically difficult to argue choice in that. No, actually, I think I actually, I have no problem arguing exactly the stand that I'm on right now. I have no problem doing that. None whatsoever. But that's my stand. That's okay. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with Matt's stand or your stand or anybody's stand. I'm just saying this is my preference.

Would we like to table line 10 for this moment? Sure. Or would we like to change that or remove it?

I have no problem tabling and I have no problem removing it. It's, you know, I've stated my opinion about it. And if we want to, if the, if the overall majority is saying remove it, okay. I'm fine with that. It is what it is. I've made my point. Not a problem.

Thank you, Kevin. I agree. We get to these lines like this, and it's like, well, do we do a quick vote of the group to just say, take it out or leave it in? Because eventually we're going to have to just do a public hearing on a vote of the entire 28-page document. And Kevin might vote no because of line 373, right?

And it's well within my right to do that.

That's his choice. Yeah, yeah. That's the linchpin for my no vote. That one word. I would like to not get there because I'd hate to have one line be the thing. But yeah, like I said, I don't know if we have the process. Do we do a vote? I'm happy also tabling. Kevin Baker's not here. If we wanted to make sure we got a fifth opinion. But yes, I think it's something that we should figure out as we work through a document of this complexity to say, okay, whoever has the typewriter in control gets to delete it and then we move forward. Or if we kind of have some other thing, we've heard a lot of opinions, but I couldn't tell you which way a vote of five of us would go on, you know,

So, by the way, Dr. Wason, there are multiple ways that you can remove PFAS from the water besides RO. And there are a whole bunch of different things that you can do. And I have a way of doing that without doing RO.

Yeah, I just think it's one of the most common ones because it's so small and compact. And people do it because even people who live on... like a municipal service water, they often be like, oh, I want the pure taste of an RO kind of thing. And so it just becomes, hey, we have good water here. I don't have good tasting water, but it can be a personal choice to do that.

Yep, yep.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are now at 8.03. Would you like to continue working on well regulation? Would we like to table the well regulation conversation and move on to the remainder of our agenda? I am open to thoughts from the floor.

How much more do we have left in the document? Question, Mr. Vice Chair.

I'm going to scroll. We went through agricultural wells and we have decommissioning requirements, enforcement hearings, appeals, penalties, variances.

I'm going to interject. I just pulled up the... If you look at the very top of this, it looks like this is from a 2023 document. So, Kevin, if you... If we're aware of a 2024 thing existing, I say before we spend any more time at the bottom of this, even though we probably don't have many changes, we should do the...

I'll do the merge. I'll do the merge. It's not a problem. It's super simple.

Yeah. That way, why waste any time on a sentence down there that's been changed already?

Yeah. No, I'll make sure that we put in at least another 14 versions of number 10 in the document somewhere else. Just kidding.

It'll be number 11 now and I won't know what it is.

We'll go to 11. Sorry. Move your reference.

All right. So we're going to table or close discussion for the moment. Continue discussion, but for this meeting for wealth.

We did great. We got through a bunch of sections. We did awesome.

All right. Thank you, everybody, for your robust discussion around well regulations. Again, I'm taking a peek. We do have folks in the audience. I apologize. While I was sharing my screen, I was unable to see if anybody had hands up.

I was watching. I did not see a hand.

Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah, because when I was sharing my screen, I looked. I couldn't get outside of us. So thank you for that. It is now time to move on to our infectious disease decision support tool. Dr. Wason, if you have anything to share. You're on mute, sir.

Not a whole lot to discuss wastewater levels continue to be like super, super low. You'll note that the Littleton weekly case count graph shows that we have a case in the week of July 11th, which is curious because it's June 24th today. So I have to figure out why the Massachusetts data that they put out has already started the 2026, 27 season and appears to include part of the month of July because all these, quote, zeros right here were just null values for weeks that were skipped in the data. So we're going to ignore that, but I think there's probably no cases. However, if we have one case the week of July 11th, I will be definitely watching this data as a future prognosticator of trouble.

What betting system? Is there some sort of betting system where you can bet on the future?

Take your pick. I'm sure there's plenty out there. So, yes, you could be betting ahead on the data that we provide here in Littleton. Arbovirus update here. Both are still considered low for EEE and West Nile virus in Littleton. Littleton testing, it starts in June. As you also are aware, it's almost the end of June, and no test results that I have seen have come across. So no mosquitoes have tested positive for either Tripoli or West Nile virus at this point. And then it's the end of respiratory viral season, so they collapsed both the last sections for now. Any other questions or thoughts?

We just got to make sure that the conversations that we've had with Francis surrounding the number of vaccine clinics and things like that get passed along to Kelly. So that way we don't lose her momentum as we change to the new person. Pretty please. With sugar on top.

Yeah.

Makes sense. Sure.

Yeah.

And then I know there are a lot of other kind of infectious agents that are still popping up in the news. We don't have any risks to our community right now that I'm aware of. But Ebola had a positive test in France in a very recent memory, and I think that's the only other one that hit the headlines most recently.

The person who contracted or was exposed to the hantavirus on the ship was most recently released out of the Nebraska facility. So that was, he's no longer there.

That's all I got.

Thank you, sir. I see no hands or questions from the group or from the audience. Our next item is administrative matters. I know we did get a packet with some minutes. Folks had an opportunity to review the packet and any of the minutes in the packet.

And if it's not listed as a public hearing, can we vote on minutes? Yes? Kevin shook his head yes.

As I say, administrative approving minutes, yeah, we can approve minutes. Yeah, we can approve minutes.

But I agree with Kevin. I have not reviewed them.

I was going to say, so if I will ask everyone to review the minutes that were in this packet, including June 10, 2026. And I apologize. That's it. That's the only one from our packet was June 10th, so our last meeting. Any correspondence?

Mr. Davis. I did get one correspondence from a individual welcoming our new board member. So they were very happy to see a fresh new face on the board. So they were very happy to see that. So round of applause for that. And then the other concern they had also was the leaving of Francis. And I told them to stay tuned. good things are coming our way. We're actively interviewing. And so hopefully they'll get to watch this and see that there is the new person that's on there. So that's all I had.

Thank you, sir. Ms. Donegan.

I received some correspondence regarding tonight's meeting and if we had interviewed other candidates, but I brought those questions earlier in our meeting.

Thank you. I have not received any correspondence. Dr. Waste, anything? Correspondence?

No correspondence. I think the only thing I would raise is obviously Sophia Lindstrom was reaching out to help coordinate us for this meeting. That was just a gap in knowledge for me, for sure, because I didn't know what coverage we had. But we will still need something on the meeting of July 8th. So in advance of that, I just want to make sure somebody's taking the lead to say, obviously the minutes were created, but we just didn't know that existed. So if somebody could help run that and make sure we have our proper agenda and everything for that.

It was also stated that they have several applicants for the replacement of our admin staff. And that as soon as Kelly gets voted by the select board, that she was gonna have the opportunity to do that. So that is forthwith. So not negating what you said, just piling on to give information. Sorry.

Ms. Donegan?

Sorry, I didn't mean to raise my hand.

Okay, sorry. I think just for us, certainly we have identified Sophia's coverage for us in the office, and we appreciate that as we're working with our interim coverage professional as well as interim coverage admin support. We just need to figure out, and we'll talk with Kevin once he's back as well, about how we ensure that sorry, Kevin Baker, our chair, once he's back, disregarding kind of workflow process for correspondence, questions, concerns that they have. are retrieved either from phone or emails on a regular basis and then shared appropriately to appropriate parties. And we'll work with her. We know the cases that we knew for this one and any other hearing pieces we're going to have for the next board meeting. Just so nothing falls through the cracks for our meetings between now and end of July. All right. If we have no other correspondence, board member updates, public input, we'll start with our board. Any members of the board have any updates or anything they'd like to share? Nothing. Okay.

Last time we talked briefly about the natural gas storage that was raised. Is that... I'm not very connected to it. But is there something ongoing? Is there something we need to be doing? Or Francis departed, so I'm not sure if we need to be doing anything.

I would mark and see what's going on at the select board level to see if we're needed to interject from a board of health perspective, because we have different responsibilities. But the last that I heard, and so this was the chair turnover. Like, so I was the chair from the previous thing was that, um, We have responsibilities for noise, and we have responsibilities for nuisance things, so odors, noise, things like that. I have not heard back from town admin or from the select board to see where we need to interject. Let's start again.

I talked to Mark briefly tonight during his office hours, and he seemed to think that we probably wouldn't have much of a purview here. And I said, well, it's supposed to possibly emit a high pitch noise during the vaporization process. And it's my understanding that the equipment is on Littleton land. So I feel like some of the information I've received is conflicting about what our role is here. So that's about as much as I know about it right now.

Mr. Davis. So it is the, it is entirely in the purview of the board per CMR sections to deal with nuisance things. And noise is one of those nuisance things. And there are decibel levels and all that kind of good stuff. Cause if you go out right now and set your decibel level to say, this is what my noise was now before that went in there, this is now not supposed to be.

So I've done a little bit of research on some of these facilities, but most of the data that's out there is on more permanent facilities. So I feel like we need to hear from National Grid or from other facilities what the decibels actually are going to be like, especially in the wintertime when you don't have leaves on trees and things like that, for how it'll impact our residents. Because I've found information about bylaws. that it should be under 55 decibels, which is kind of conversational, but then also as loud as a motorcycle revving. So without having more concrete data on these sort of temporary facilities, like this one's supposed to run from November to April, it's hard for me to be able to say that this data would apply to this facility.

One of the challenges with our authority to deal with noxious odors and noise and those things is that we are unfortunately somewhat responsive because, again, some things you can predict, some things you can't. We have town noise bylaws that are measured at property lines, but you can't measure noise at the property lines until there's noise at the property line. So it is hard to... proactively address them, address some of these concerns. We can certainly, you know, reminders, whether it's from us or whether it's from select board or zoning or anybody else, reminders here are town bylaws around noise and you must be compliant that it's hard for us other than saying you need to follow the law. to take any really active, proactive action until there's actually a problem. You can't speed. We can't go out and stop people from speeding until they speed. We put up signs, we have regulations, but until it actually happens, it's hard to enforce.

Yeah, I fully understand that. My guess is should we have a representative at the public hearing with planning board scheduled for July 9th to go in and say, here's our board of health. We're asking you, you know, to tell us what the decibels would be, which was asked of them to bring to this meeting and the May 14th planning board meeting. A planning board member requested that they bring the decibels, you know, the expected decibels to this July 9th hearing. But should we send a representative to this July 9th hearing with planning board to say, we're asking you to really respect this? And if it's louder, do we need to work with planning board on this to mitigate things or what's the plan? Do we have a responsibility to try to get ahead of things?

Mr. Davis? I believe we do have a responsibility that we should at least state that the board of health does have a legal responsibility around noise as a thing. I believe select board member Mark Rombacher is incorrect in his statement that the Board of Health doesn't have any jurisdiction and that I believe is completely inaccurate. because we have that in the CMR and I believe we've gone over that several times. We can go there and there are, like you said, there are town bylaws which already have that in place. I believe that I think we should go in there with that and send somebody to state that. The other thing to do is to, I do recall us saying that we needed to send something along from our health director from the two meetings ago. I believe, and I don't know if that actually went. So I don't know how we want to follow up on that, Dan.

Matt, go ahead.

Yeah, this is a really crummy situation. And I'll repeat again, it's the same stuff where the authority we're given is, as you said, Dan, it's reactive. Yes, there are town bylaws that talk about noise. but they weren't created by the board of health. And so I don't, I don't understand. I don't think we can demand to be involved. I wish, I wish all the parties were working together enough that we would be included. And I think maybe the right thing to do is for our chair to reach out directly and say, we should be involved in this to Libby's point, having a representative at that upcoming meeting. But the, the, The town has decibel level requirements. And so I can only assume that they are then following those appropriately and not setting themselves up for a failure of that regard. Because, yes, whether we get a complaint or not, if it's over the decibel limit, it would be on the town then to address it because it's still over the limit whether this board gets a complaint about it. So it feels very awkward to me, and I do wish we had some future where... This Board of Health was involved preemptively in any commercial system that was likely to cause noise or olfactory disturbances so that we could be ahead of the game and be partnering with people and not having to be reactive and trying to be, you know, everybody was great about it until the Board of Health came along after and was negative about it. I don't know how we can really do it in the framework that we have right now. But if you can find something, awesome.

I mean, did you guys endorse the school building project? That's not built yet. But did you have a public stance on the school building project about whether or not that would be good for people's health or not?

Not that I would have. The only project I know we've really been involved with was the expansion of the marijuana processing plant, but that was... pitched to us as a courtesy presentation, not something that we actually had a say in. Even though that was a facility that had outstanding complaints about voters.

Mr. Davis. So just for everybody's reference, 310 CMR 7.10 provides the legal framework for controlling noise in Massachusetts with clear definitions, enforcement, authority, and health-based rationale. Boards of Health can leverage it to protect public health, safety, and quality of life. Just FYI. And in there, there's nothing to say that you can't say something ahead of something, knowing that the gasification process is going to create a high-pitched noise that's going to be blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Great. Then it's our purview to ask for a sound analysis of what this is going to produce so that we can review it. And I think that means that we should have a say in the approval of any steps going forward. I think it still means our chair needs to talk to whoever's in charge. And Mr. Baker's at town.

And then that question, of course, is who actually is the... I mean, ultimately, it's the select board, but it's also planning and the building inspector. So, as we've seen, certainly, we have a variety of Departments and boards who have standing and concerns around issues and it's how do we work together and have a unified voice townwide of how best to address these issues. Certainly from our town bylaws that the noise ordinance appears to be enforceable by the senior police officer on duty at any given time and the building inspector. Despite noise also being under from the state level a board of health enforcement so not saying that the town can't add additional people to be enforcing town bylaws perfectly appropriate but it's how do we best work together that be consistent across the board mr davis

Uh, 7.52 is the enforcement provisions as any police department, fire department or board of health official acting within his or her jurisdiction area is hereby authorized by the department to enforce as provided by blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So.

There are enforcement provisions already laid out.

I'm just going to go turn on the light. I'm not leaving the meeting. Sorry. Just means that the sun is set. My apologies.

Um, I will reach out to Kevin. And does anybody have an interest in being at the July 9th planning board, even if it is simply as a resident with knowledge and interest as opposed to actually representing the board? I don't think we need to do a joint meeting. If we have three or more members, obviously it becomes a formal meeting that we would need to post and

If I'm back in town from vacation, I would love to go.

I'm probably going to be there with the sustainability committee anyway.

Please be clear which hat you're wearing when you speak.

Oh, yeah. For sure. Always. Okay.

All right, LNG, for those who haven't looked at it, there is actually a page on the town website regarding the project, if you haven't had an opportunity to review it. It's going to be on the old Kimball, I forget the name of the farm, but the Kimball residential area behind... The Toyota dealership, where the homes were built but not completed, it's going to be taking up basically one lot in that area. So it actually is some distance away from residential properties, it looks like. But there is a... a focus map and a little bit of what to be there but it sounds like it is in fact all tractor trailer based other than manhole connections into the gas lines everything else is trailer based on concrete pads that will be brought in for winter and then removed after that so that's a residential district though it is a residential district without residential things it does look like there's lower limits

Yeah, it's zoned residential. It is not zoned industrial or light industry. So Matt, you are correct.

And the access road, is that like bus entrance at Kimball's?

Yes, it is. Correct. Yeah, so it won't be through where the road is blocked off of Great Road. It'll be access from Kimball's.

And I've learned that the vaporization equipment will be on the Littleton property. Okay.

All right. Any other administrative or board member updates, comments, or discussions? Seeing none. Anything from our audience? We have a few folks in our audience. I don't see any hands. We certainly appreciate folks coming and attending our meeting. We certainly are open and welcome to hear any comments folks may have or any issues that we may need to address that we are not aware of. Again, we like being proactive, but often we need to be reactive because we can only work with what we know. Same thing I used to tell my students, I can't fix it if I don't know about it. So as folks are aware of things, we appreciate you being here attending our meetings. Please share comments, issues, concerns with us so that we can be do our job to the best of our ability, protect our town and our residents. All right, I believe we're at the end of our agenda. We have some homework for all of us. Does anybody have any last comments? Otherwise, we will entertain a motion.

Make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, roll call vote. Kevin Davis? Kevin Davis votes yes. Libby Donigan?

Libby Donigan votes yes.

Matt Wason?

Matt Wason, yes.

And Dan Cain votes yes. That concludes our June 24, 2026 Littleton Board of Health meeting.