Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PFAS topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hallowell council backs PFAS information posting, outreach to businesses and a district letter
Summary
The council accepted personnel/health committee recommendations to post PFAS information to the city website and Facebook, to ask the water district to notify new customers, and to explore outreach to businesses; motion passed 6–0 with one abstention after public comments highlighted landlord responsibilities and ADA access concerns.
The Hallowell City Council accepted recommendations from a personnel and health committee to improve public communications about PFAS and to request the local water district take specified steps to improve notice and access.
Councilor McKee summarized the committee’s three recommendations: (1) post current PFAS level information on the city website and Facebook page; (2) consider inviting restaurant and bar owners (through the Hollow Board of Trade) to discuss whether they should notify customers about PFAS levels; and (3) send a letter to the water district asking it to provide notice to new customers, to highlight assistance programs and to consider modest improvements at public spigots to protect access and usability.
During public comment Maurino Bowling, who said she conducts housing inspections, urged the council to include landlords in outreach because housing-quality standards place a landlord’s responsibility on providing safe drinking water to rental units. Bowling warned that relying on a public spigot as the primary delivery method could fail accessibility standards for tenants with mobility issues.
Another commenter urged the council to ensure any spigot or distribution program complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and suggested the council include language pointing residents to the Hallowell Water District as the first point of contact for assistance.
Council members discussed technical questions — which PFAS threshold the city would reference (state vs. federal guidance), whether the water district is prevented from providing direct assistance, and whether the city should compile district notices on the municipal website rather than produce an independent analysis.
The motion to adopt the committee’s recommendations (post the district memo on municipal channels, pursue business outreach and request the district build guidance and spigot protections) passed with six votes in favor and one abstention. The council did not adopt new regulatory limits or require the water district to change operations.
What happens next: the city manager and staff will draft the web and social‑media postings and the proposed letter to the water district; the council discussed circulating a signed letter and allowing all council members to sign it for added weight.
