Trustee Kenneth Shaw asked village staff on March 18 to explore independent air‑quality monitoring around the former mental‑health‑center property after residents raised concerns about possible contaminants from demolition activity.

Pat (staff member) told trustees he contacted Burke Engineering for vendor recommendations, received a quote and technical information describing how portable, solar‑powered monitors could be deployed around the site perimeter and at off‑site locations to capture wind‑driven particulate movement. Pat said a typical monitoring deployment would run about five to six months beginning in spring and continue into late summer or early fall to give ‘‘real‑time monitoring of the site and any contaminants that might be going there’’ and to measure dust levels, though he described the equipment as ‘‘a little expensive.’’

Trustee Shaw said the village needs an independent, transparent source of results that trustees and residents can access. He requested staff check whether vendors provide web‑based feeds or a data portal so the village could publish results directly online, rather than requiring residents to file records requests.

Other trustees and board members raised past environmental work on the property. One trustee referenced a Tetra Tech Phase II environmental site assessment completed in 2014 and a follow‑up report in 2022, and asked staff to ensure any monitoring includes the contaminants identified in those reports. Another trustee noted that an earlier contractor (Brown Enterprises) had been doing air monitoring and that subsequent OSHA site visits resulted in multiple violations and proposed penalties; the trustee said he believed earlier firm reports had raised concerns about worker protections. Trustees urged staff to contact firms familiar with prior monitoring to compare methodologies and scope.

Pat said he will seek additional quotes, confirm the list of contaminants to monitor (including whether earlier Tetra Tech findings should drive analyte selection) and determine if vendors can provide an online data feed or an embeddable transparency portal. He also said the proposed monitors would be solar powered, avoiding the need for electric hookups at perimeter locations.

Why it matters

Residents and trustees said transparency and timely access to credible air‑quality data would improve public confidence, particularly because demolition and earth‑moving can raise dust and airborne contaminants. Trustees emphasized the village’s duty to provide assurance to nearby neighborhoods and to reconcile any monitoring with prior environmental reports and OSHA findings.

Clarifying details from the meeting

- Monitoring duration discussed: about 5–6 months (spring into September); characterization given by Pat as typical for perimeter monitoring.
- Equipment configuration: solar‑powered perimeter monitors with the ability to measure dust and particulate levels; vendor described a web‑accessible data feed as possible but staff will confirm.
- Cost: staff described monitoring as ‘‘a little expensive’’ but did not provide a firm total; Pat will obtain detailed quotes and return to the board if the purchase exceeds procurement authority.
- Prior studies: trustees referenced a Tetra Tech Phase II environmental site assessment (2014) and a follow‑up in 2022; trustees urged that monitoring test for contaminants flagged in those reports.
- Regulatory contact: trustees cited OSHA inspections and fines noted in the transcript; staff will review OSHA findings and any prior contractor reports when drafting monitoring scope.

Next steps

Pat will obtain vendor quotes, confirm which contaminants should be included (based on prior Tetra Tech work), ask vendors whether they can provide a public web feed or portal for results, and report back to the board with cost and procurement options. Trustees expressed interest in making raw monitoring data available publicly if feasible.

Ending

The board’s request does not authorize immediate monitoring purchases; trustees asked staff to bring quotes and scope options back for review and to determine whether the expenditure falls under existing purchasing authority or requires board approval.