All right, we're recording. Please go ahead. >> Okay. I would like to uh call a meeting of the town council's town services and outreach committee meeting for October 2, 2025 to order um at 2 minutes after
10 in the morning. And uh this meeting is being conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting can do so by Zoom or telephone um no person is in attendance uh
including members of the public and uh members of the committee. This is a meeting that is being held by Zoom pursuant to the open meeting law as currently uh provided
by the legislature. So, uh, that said, let's, uh, we do have everyone present. Let's just make sure everybody can hear and be heard. Uh, Bob Hegner >> present >> and Jennifer Tab.
>> Keep unmuting. I'm here. Sorry. >> Uh, councelor Lord >> present. >> And councelor Ryan >> present. >> Okay. Well, thank you. So with uh that introduction, what we will do is just follow the agenda, I think, of today's
meeting um and see if there's any members of the public who are present at the time. I believe that there are. Um and uh so I want to just see if uh there's anybody who wishes to offer
public comment and uh we uh ask that public comment be limited um to uh I think three three minutes if possible can be on any subject that is within the
u purview of this committee. Um, it does not have to be anything that's on today's agenda. With that, please bring Darcy Devont in to the uh room. Morning. Uh, Darcy, could you just
stay uh give us your name and you don't have to give an exact address, but um at least by u uh district uh where you live and then proceed with your comment. >> Thank you. Good morning everybody. Um, I
am Darcy Dumont and I live in district three. Uh, I'm just um calling in because I I I didn't watch your last meeting, but I wanted to know if there's an update on the getting a consultant for the haller RFP. It's been more than
a year um since this committee sent it on to the to the council and um I'm hoping that we can get this going so that we can do the critical piece which is the
cost analysis of what what it would cost to do this program. So, uh I'm hoping that you can get something today um to hear about it. Thank you. Um, thank you, Darcy. Uh, just so you know,
it's not on the agenda for today's meeting. Um, so we can't take it up, but um, it actually is intended to be on the agenda for our next meeting, which is October 16. So, with that said, I think I appreciate
your comment. Thank you. Uh is there anyone else who's member of the public would like to make comment on any matter? Seeing none, I think that we can say that uh we done with public comments and I'm going to turn it over to town
manager because next item on the agenda is the u town manager committee appointments and I think that you have three different committees and uh I just whatever order you want to take
it in. >> Andy, can we just quickly confirm that councelor Ryan can hear and be heard? think we did, but uh councelor Ryan, you did. >> Yes, I did. I'm here. >> That's all right. >> So, um back to uh where we were on the
agenda. Thank you for just checking the uh Paul. >> Okay, so the first one is for the community preservation act committee. These are four part of the committee is that representatives from five different committees send uh they designate people who will represent that committee on the
community preservation act committee. So these appointments are Jason Dornney from the conservation commission, Robin Forom from the historical commission, Angus Mloud from the planning board, and Jonas Cox from the recreation commission. We have not heard back from the housing authority yet, but they're aware that they have a seat on this on
the um committee. Um and this their they the applications for CPA funds were due last night. So their work will be begin in the next um month. So we hope to get someone from the housing authority as well.
>> So um are there any members of the committee that have any questions that you'd like to ask regarding these proposed appointments? I don't have any on this one. So, um,
guess the a motion is in order and, uh, I'll make motion to recommend to the town council the
appointments of Jason Dornney, uh, Angus Mloud, and Jonas Cox to the community preservation ation act committee for terms to expire on June
30, 2026. Andy, you want to add Robin Forom? >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And I would second that motion. >> Okay, there's a motion that's been made and seconded. U
proceed to a vote. Bob Hegner. I >> uh Jennifer Tab. >> Yes, >> Council Lord. >> I >> and Council Ryan >> I >> and I'm in I so it's unanimous
second group. >> So the next one is the cultural council and there are two members uh Joseph Ma Masses from Jeffrey Lane and Jessica Slatterie from Colonial Village. Um both are um one has a lifetime lifetime you
know grew up here and uh the second is relatively new to town and both young people interested in getting involved with town government and expressed an interest in uh willingness to serve on the cultural council which we are really grateful for them to do. And again the cultural council their work is starting
to begin too for uh awarding grants. Any questions on this one there? Uh I guess my one question is for confirmation purposes. Is that complete the uh uh committee appointments for
this committee or do you still look have vacancies? >> I think there might still be one or two vacancies. I would have to check on that. >> Okay. So, we just note that and encourage our counselors to uh help think of
people um who might be interested. Um there a motion. >> Yeah, we have two vacancies, Andy. Additional vacancies. >> Two additional vacancies. Thank you,
Councelor Ryan. So, I move to uh um that the uh TSO recommend to the town council to approve the town manager's appointments of the following individuals to the cultural council uh for a term to expire June 30, 2028.
Joseph Mascus and Jessica Slatterie >> second maiden seconded. No further discussion seems to be u wanted. So uh go ahead uh with the vote.
Bob Hegner. >> Hi. >> Jennifer Tab. >> Yes. >> Council Ward. >> Hi. >> Council Ryan. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I. So it's unanimous. So I think that there was a third group.
>> Sure. Is conservation commission. So, I'm there are two vacancies on the conservation commission at this point in time. So, I'm recommending uh or appointing Sarah Matthews uh who is an attorney um who has done she's not an environmental attorney but has done a
lot of work in environmental fields in courting and has served on the board of directors for Kestrel Land Trust. She co-founded the Western Mass Rights of Nature Group and has been advocating work on preserving the Connecticut River. Um and the other person is Carol
McNir who isn't has again has advocated an envir environmental causes for many years not in Ammeris necessarily but in Georgia and has moved here and became very involved in conservation efforts especially around applewood um and helped with the for the group called
health healthy applewood help health healthy applewood land um so she has experience in government but not in Massachusetts but very eager to uh participate in the conservation commission Anyone have any questions, Jennifer?
>> Um, yes. I don't have uh questions about these recommended appointments. I mean, they sound like they're very wellqualified, but I did want to I don't know if now is the time, I guess it is, >> to respond to an email that reached all the members of TSO this morning. I'm not
sure if everyone had a chance to see it. It's not long. I could read it if if um me >> anyone not >> is every anyone on the committee not had an opportunity to read it.
>> I'm assuming if there's no hands who've gone up everybody has seen the email >> so >> but go ahead. >> Yeah. No, I do have some concerns. So there are two vacancies which are
recommended to be filled by what sounds to be very wellqualified um applicants, but there is a third vacancy because um one of the terms of a current member of the conservation commission has ended. And as explained
in the email we received, that individual applied to be reappointed because he's only been reappoint had one term and he's applying to be reappointed for a second term and he was informed that he would not be
um and a reason well I have my own I mean I don't I know that this person because I tune in to conservation you know committee >> meetings is extremely wellqualified, you know, spend his most of his career at
the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Um, serves, you know, admirably and comes to media, I mean, is a very responsible member. And it sounds like one of the the initial response he received when he was told he wouldn't be reappointed is
that, you know, the the process is that you don't have to provide an explanation. And that I find very concerning. I mean that speaks volumes for the process if you don't need to provide an explanation that you really do serve at somebody's
um very subjective pleasure. So I would um I have concerns about the process and then I'm really challenged to understand how somebody this qualified who's willing and able to serve would not be granted the courtesy of a second term.
Yeah, I I can address that and if you'd like. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Yeah, I appreciate that. Uh, Jennifer, it's very fair questions. So, this is not an appointment I'm re I'm recommending at this point in time. So, M, you know, the the candidate that you're referencing graciously continues
to serve on the conservation commission and will serve until I make an appointment and the council approves an appointment um going forward. So at this point, you know, that's that has not happened yet. Uh and when when that time comes, I will give a full I will give an
explanation for what the what my thinking is and I I um will have to be judicious on and what I say. So I just I would just um not be prepared to talk about that today because it's not really on the agenda today is to fill these two vacancies. But when that comes to the
table and um then I'll have an explanation for that whole situation. I'll go to councelor Ryan and I'll see if councelor if Jennifer has anything further but councelor Ryan >> uh just a clarification Paul um I
believe you just stated but I just wanted to confirm it that this individual is continuing to serve on the conservation commission at this time >> as long as he's willing. Yes. >> Thank you. So, is there anything further, Jennifer, that you want to bring up?
>> Yes. Well, I I would this is a a vacancy. I mean, he's willing to serve, but his term ended and he was told he really didn't he didn't have an he was not going to be interviewed. He didn't even have an opportunity to apply for a
second term. So I just I am very concerned about a process and maybe we've this has to be part of the charter review commission where you know it it really is very subjective and it can feel personal.
You know, I I have not seen anything on any of the conservation com commission meetings I have tuned into that would in any way suggest that this person should not be able to continue for a second term. And I'm may not be the same with a
town manager appointed, you know, uh, commissions and committees. But on the council for finance committee, zoning board of appeals, and the planning board, well, we usually extend the courtesy of a second term if someone has served responsibly, meaning they come to
meetings and they participate and they're prepared, >> whether or not we, you know, happen to gel with their personality or at position, you know, positions they take aside. >> Yeah. And just if I can respond to that, I that's I understand what you're saying with that. And it's not just service on
the committee. It's also I will try to give you as best an explanation I can when this appointment comes back to the council when it gets presented to the council. There hasn't been an appointment or reappointment on this presented to the council at this point in time. Um
and and yes and and I'm going to have to yes I will be explaining this to the council as best to to the best by of my ability at that Titan. So, I'm not sure that uh we're not at a point where we should be getting a
motion to approve the people who have been recommended by the manager. I don't know that there's much else that we can do at this point. Uh Council Ryan, >> I'm prepared to make the motion. >> Okay. Um,
let me give Jennifer one last chance and then I'm going to call on you in a moment. Councelor Ryan. >> Jennifer. >> Yeah. So, this is just um more sharing also because I I I've expressed my
feelings about this particular incident and it sounds like it will come back to TSO before it goes to the council again. >> But just a little uh just an observation. I was recently privy to an email that a member of a a longstanding
community member of a commission in town who agreed to continue serving after his term ended. He was actually ready to step down, but his particular um professional skill set was required
on the commission. And then somebody else was appointed which was fine who didn't exactly have a skill skill set. So this person who was serving was continuing to come to meetings not understanding that actually he had been
replaced. And he received an email I mean I'm not going to name any names but from the staff basically saying you're dismissed and he'd been on this commission for maybe six or more years. And again, he had actually, you know, had said, I think it's time for me to step down maybe three years ago, and
they just could not find a replacement with his skill set, which by law is required to be on the committee. And I'm just con concerned that and that we be appreciative of our, you know, resident volunteers. I mean he was
dismissed in a very quote dismissed and it was very tur and it so you know we are challenged to have enough applicants for our boards committees and commissions and we really um you know should be appreciative of the time that
volunteers are willing to give. So I just want to share that. >> Yeah. and and just so you know for I've had a one-on-one conversation with that person and we have a full understanding of what the situation is at this point in time. >> Thank you.
>> So, Councelor Ryan, do you do you need a motion? >> Yes. Um, I'm move that TSO recommend that the town council approve the following appointments of the town manager to the conservation commission with terms to expire June 30, 2028.
Sarah Matthews and Carol McNary. >> Second. >> Okay, there's been a motion is made and seconded. Uh, anything further? Seeing no hands going up, uh, call for a vote. Bob Hegner
>> I. Jennifer Tab. >> Yes. >> Council Lord >> I. >> Council Ryan >> I. >> And I'm an I. So that it is unanimous. And so thank you Paul for presenting the
appointments this morning. Um there are no minutes for approval. So um I think our major items for the day are the town council policy and control and regulation of the public ways and the uh
committee charge. Um I think that we'll just stay with the order of the agenda. Um and uh what I had um asked Athena to do was to share
screen and put up the current version um as a word document that has been received and then uh um we need to uh continue uh to go through it by section by section.
Um but I see that there are a couple hands up. So, let me uh um hear from Bob Hegner first. >> Yeah, I just wanted to echo uh Jennifer's uh comment about um citizens
um volunteering to serve on commissions and boards. Um, councelor Lord and I sat at the table at the block party for better part of an hour and a half or more and we encouraged people to there
was a list of all the committees and commissions that had you know openings and we encouraged everyone to uh join in and we got very little response. So, it's very hard. I'm I'm sure Paul understands this. It's very difficult to
get uh people to to serve on committees uh and commissions. Uh so, just everyone needs to bear that in mind as we go through these processes. >> Thank you. Uh Jennifer. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I just wanted to say um
I was not going to be at this meeting because it's Young Kipper, but when when we received that email this morning, I wanted to tune in for this part of the meeting. So, I'm going to sign off, but I will see you at the next meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Um so we'll go back to the um document uh that we were going to discuss uh the town council of policy on control and regulation of the public
ways. And there are I I spent a lot of time at it yesterday and I um councelor Ryan and I did have a um conversation um sorts meeting was uh not verbal
conversation but back and forth in writing. Um, but it I it was after I had made a uh um decision that I was not going to see if anybody from KP Law
would be available for today. And I apologize that uh to councelor Ryan who apparently was not in agreement with me, but I did want to acknowledge that this morning. Um the
reason that I didn't was that I had spent a lot of time yesterday going through this um section by section which is what I think we should do today and I was really looking for
um where it was um affecting changes we were proposing in order to create a transportation and parking commission. And I felt that that was the key piece
to where we were going. And um most of the changes were actually um recommendations that the town attorney made um about the policy itself.
um and uh they weren't specific to the changes that um had to do with the transportation parking commission and I felt that there was a point of clarification that we're going to have to address as we go through it but it
really did not um affect anything that we envisioned for the TPC and that was the basis of my decision and If um I
disagreement with the decision I made, I apologize that it happened, but sort of it did. So uh unless somebody has a hand raised, what I would like to propose is that we
go through section by section with the letter numbers, the the capital letter numbers um in each one go through and see if there are any questions about
the the section and if there are not then we continue going on through the entire document and then um if we have any changes to propose we can do so. We do have some questions that we have to
answer um and then it'll get back to um TSO at its next meeting and hopefully they will vote to approve both documents and uh it can get ahead go ahead to the council.
So if there's no objection, I don't see anybody raising hands. Um then I would go through section by section. Um section A I think was pretty much
straightforward. Uh but uh councelor Ryan. >> So Andy um my first question is a very broad one. Um we've had the town council policy regarding the control and regulation of public ways for some time
and uh now we see a very extensive rewriting of that policy in these first in this first section. Um and so my question I don't think you can answer it um and maybe it's really not that important but the first question is well why is this necessary? um is it because
we're creating TPC and so KP Law feels that we have to take a policy that we've had in place for some time and extensively rewrite it. Um so that was a question that I wanted to pose to them. What was the the reason that they felt that this needed to be um you know
broken up into these sections? I you know I think we'll go through it. I agree with you. We'll go through it section by section. Um much of what is in here seems to make a lot of sense. I don't but I I have a few questions but my first question is one I don't think we can answer unless someone has some insight into this which is why they felt
this all needed to be done. Um but they did do it and here it is. >> Uh unless Paul or Athena who've uh had contact with town attorney have an answer to that. My assumption is
that when the policy was adopted at the very beginning of the council um that I don't I don't even recall whether we had it reviewed or not because I was
not on the relevant committees but um I think that what what I saw was a number of um sections as we go through it. Um, I think that they they each one makes
sense to me that um when the attorney saw the policy um recognized that there was some substantial clarifications that could be
made to improve the policy and uh I really actually you know from my perspective really appreciated ated u that those things were pointed out to us. It's not so much relevant in section
A, but when we get down to the next couple sections, um there are um things that are that are clarified and I'll point them out as we go. Um but that was my thought was what was happening.
Councilor Ryan, >> Andy, that makes a lot of sense. As you recall that this is probably something they've never seen before. Um, we obviously be sending them bylaws, but um, you're right. We probably don't send them this kind of document. So, um, that I think probably answers my question.
The reason that these extensive additions have been made is because this is the first time that KP Law has actually seen this document. So, thank you. That does make sense. Paul, >> I I think you're right on that, Andy. And I think um one of the things the
town attorney had identified was uh the interest in the council to delegate some of its authority um to the TPC, such as holding a public hearing for poll hearings. And so since that is an actual state uh uh dedicated to the keeper of
the public way, she wanted to ensure that the procedures were in place so that um the the record was accurate and the full a full accounting of what happened at the public hearing was delivered to the council at the time of the final decision for a poll for instance. I think that's why she added
all this language into it. And I think that u there were other things that will come across um that serve that purpose too. Uh and uh things
that I think that make us stronger. Um we'll get to that and maybe we even start with section B. As far as section A is concerned, um the only thing that came up in the
discussion was actually um raised by um uh the go discussion and that was the word the wording that's changed in blue to um
in how it handles this keeper the public way. And I think that uh what um G was trying to do was to make sure that the language um was tracking better the charter
itself and um the charter language um is shall control and regulate the public ways. There is no mention in the charter of the term keeper of the public ways and
um but we use it a lot. So um this is a way of introducing the concept of keeping keeper of the public ways but having u the reference to the charter as it is actually um written and uh so I
felt that that was a particular improvement and I appreciated GL's pointing out the need to do so also So uh just for your just to let you know because I
spent some time on this yesterday. I did a feral as best I could a search of all relevant sections of mass general law. The term keeper of the public way is actually
something I did was unable to find at any point in the MGL. And when I just uh did a Google search of keeper the public way, there was some reference to the fact that this was an
historic u term that was used um by u communities and by counties at the time that counties were active in formed parts of government. Um
that goes back into uh apparently um even uh u from sort of more in the beginning around the 1800 period. So you know it is a term that has been that was
used in Massachusetts and obviously is is known and used but isn't it's not part of the state law. So kind of makes sense to just leave it as it is. But that was my thought about a I just
shared with you and go on unless there's anybody wants talk about it and go on to B. that um seemed to me um that um it's a matter of strengthening um what the town council is reserving to
itself and its right to make changes at any time. I think we always knew that but uh it to include that in the policy itself that um the T council reserves
the right at any time to revise or send the policy u and uh it just seemed seemed obvious but I think it's just um it's a good addition from my
perspective. I don't know if anybody has any thoughts on it. Councelor Ryan. >> So, if I understand it, also includes the the right of the delegate to say we don't want to deal with this and send it back to us.
Do I understand that right or am I misreading that second sentence? >> Uh, town council further reserves the right of any deleg. So, it's not our right, but their right apparently um to decline action on a matter so delegated and
thereby to return to the town council authority to review or act on any matter so delegated. So, the board of licensed commissioners, for instance, could at least in theory say we don't want to to deal with this particular uh you know, request and we're sending it back to the council,
which is I guess is okay, I guess. I mean, the lightboard used to deal with these anyway, so I just thought that was an interesting addition. Mhm. >> Yeah. I think that actually I was thinking of it more in the terms of uh for example if the town manager
uh was uh feeling that there was something that was delegated to him and there's a fairly broad delegation that >> is the town manager >> that if any time manager felt that
this particular request that I'm dealing with now is of such import that it really ought to be to the attention of the council that the town manager um should be able to do that.
>> Okay. And that seemed to me to be uh a good addition. And uh I think the KP laws probably serve the council and the town manager
or any other delegate well by that. Um I think those are the places where it's more likely to arise. Though it could be that the uh transportation parking commission could come to a conclusion also that it did not want to deal with
the delegation. Anything else we want to talk about with B? Okay. Then going on to section C. There we get into um
questions of public hearings and uh how u we should proceed and through public hearings. And I think that that is an area u where the
expertise of the our attorney is uh really particularly relevant and were there any looking at it Um there were couple things that came up um
in the discussion but councelor Ryan why don't I go ahead and hear from you before we go I'll go to what's in the comment boxes councelor Ryan. >> Yeah. Um she includes the attorney includes board of licensed commissioners
here. um which you know I just was what you know if the attorney were here I'd ask the attorney why they were included. Maybe you have a clear sense of why they're here because as you go through the rest of them sometimes TPC is mentioned sometimes the board of
licensed commissioners is mentioned. Um C basically picks out both TPC and the BLC. Um which would seem to me to mean that everything that follows doesn't need to pick out anything. uh it doesn't need to pick either of those bodies out because
C applies to both. Um C says this is >> right. Um but maybe there's a reason maybe and um so I had just puzzled by that um why she picked out BLC um is it you know there particular state
uh laws involved here? I'm sure there's a reason. I just don't know what it is. And then I was puzzled why sometimes TPC was mentioned and sometimes Yeah. done. I don't think anybody has an answer to that, but that would be a question I had, but let's I think we should go through
the sections. Andy, I agree. I mean, I think this is all important. Um, but certain just, you know, certain things just puzzled me. >> So, uh, go directly to the sentence that you're you're referring to. Well, look, let's take I mean, so first
we just note that both bodies are mentioned in C and then we look at number one, the notice requirement. Um, and apparently TPC is is is picked out here. Um, one wonders why because uh, you know, it seems to be that if I
understand C correctly, both bodies are required to provide notice. Um, and I believe board of licensed commissioners does in fact do this. I'm sure it does, but um uh I don't know why TPC is picked out here other than it just should I would read and any other manner required
by law or as uh shall determine is appropriate. Um so that was just a picky question as to why they pick out TPC here. >> Uh well the board of license commissioners I don't believe has hearings.
>> All right so maybe that's the answer. They don't have hearings. So when you have a hearing um right all right well I don't know yeah I guess they don't I what do we call what they do um I mean it's public and I assume the various
licensed applicants are present but I guess it's it's not the same it's a it's not the same thing as a public hearing Paul >> yeah I think I think we definitely need clarity from the town attorney on this but my my my guess is that uh TPC is holding public hearings on behalf of the
council that's why it's called out whereas the board of licensed commissioners has authority sitting authority under the charter already to conduct its own business. So I'm thinking that um that's why she mentions the TPC because it's making
>> it's a delegation of authority by the council to hold a public hearing whereas the board of licensed commissioners can have public hearings but it does so under the not by a delegation of authority by the >> by the under under the charter. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. And I was looking at it from
the point of view that the issues that are the matters that um the policy refers to the board of license commissioners are not ones that are likely because most of it has I think has to do with lunch carts
and there wouldn't be any public hearing likely to do with uh placement of a lunch cart but Uh if you we could
put a comment box in there that we want to ask that question too >> and if any of your uh well I just yeah I hope Paul will reach out and get clarification and I'm sure it's fine but I just I still find it somewhat puzzling but
>> yeah I mean I think I think trying to future proof this so if you ever delegate something to the board of licensed commissioners that might require a public hearing. You might might well include this, right? I'm just she should be thinking about that as well. >> Right. Thank you.
>> So, if you could add a comment box there since you have the it's with I think it's a >> Yeah, >> that would be helpful. >> Um, can you say that again? What did you
want me to add? Uh I think the question is um why u it's referring to um not referring to the board of licensed commissioners
in addition >> or why it picks out TPC at all since the the C says you know a following to TPC and PLC and so I'm just you know and Paul suggested there's answer to that. We just like her to confirm it.
>> Um, you're thinking that that addition should be your question though has to do with section C. >> Yeah, I'm just doesn't see, you know, cover everything, but maybe not. And so
that's why TPC is picked out. Um and >> just no it's not your question is why in the in se in the notice section C1 that is not mentioned is that correct
George It is. >> Yeah. So why why this >> uh Bob? >> Yeah. I I I'm a little confused
because um the board of licenses license um BLC has authority under the under the charter. I don't think the town council has. If you look at C recommendations
and other actions of delegates, has has the town council actually delegated authority to the BLC's um or is it already there uh under the under the charter? Maybe maybe the the
way around this is to state um above that um you know so C really refers to the the TPC, right? What what we're
delegating to the TPC and not what we what the BLC already has. Um and and it gets confused. I'm confused by this. And then number five where now we bring in
BLC. Um it seems like either separate them out into two separate sections, one on the BLC, one on the TPC, or put up a above something like to the effect of a section saying that under the charter the BLC has the
authority to do X with the public ways. Um, and and then we're done with it, right? I mean, they they have to do what they have to do. We're we're not really talking about the BLC in in this document.
I'm I'm >> No. Well, but there um we were sort of in this uh where we were recognizing that um KP law was uh reviewing the entire policy, not just
what we're adding for the TPC and there has there was delegation and has been since the beginning on lunch carts. >> Okay. and uh parking places. I think it was Did it also have to do with parking
places that have to do with uh uh where launch carts are located? >> Okay. >> So that was why u board of license commissioners in here I
think and so it's back to just the question that was raised going back to section two. Um just above or section one rather still
I'm I'm I'm sorry I'm this is still confusing because you know we referred in C we refer to both of them both organizations but it's really only five and maybe six that
there's under four I guess four, five and you know four, five and six refer to to both but one two and three only refer to the T >> TPC. So maybe maybe we break it up one
that refers only to the TPC and one that refers to both. I I think that's where we need the clarification from the town attorney, Bob. >> Okay. >> So, we're gonna seek that clarification. That's what >> where Athena was putting the note in.
>> Yeah. So if I if I may if I may just summarize for Athena's sake and for my sake and perhaps for the sake of all the members of the committee. Um I think what at least what I think I'm asking um and I hope that's what others are asking. Um it does focus on one but as
we said it really does include the entire section and um five and six as well. Why is the BLC here? Just help us understand why the BLC is here and what your reasoning is. I'm sure there's good reasoning. I'm sure she has an answer, but we just don't know what it is.
>> Is that a fair kind of summary basically what we're asking her? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. So, uh, you would put it. I think it's why the BSC is uh included
here but not in all subsections. Then we should just go on. And uh so what happened here? There's a comment way down in the document that um that came up from
G. And if you um if you go down to the section below, there was uh I me get on my own screen the uh
Andy, I thought we were going to go through it section by section. I know we've raised a concern about the entire um C and what follows. But then I thought we should probably go through one, two, three, four, at least briefly. Not so much about the language, but just that we agree and understand as to
what's being required. Um, and you know, I just have some very practical questions. I'm sure there are easy answers to it. Um, we'll get to um >> I I think Yeah, >> sorry. Um I think this is what's getting confused right now is that um the last
sentence on C2 um >> TPC shall deliberate the merits of requests um and make specific um factual findings.
Um, and then there was the um there was also and take any other action as may be required by applicable Massachusetts general laws and regulations.
And when you get down to um suggestions were made by go when they were talking about um section E subsection 3CI.
It was recommended that there be an include that this be included in the original. Um, so you'd have to go you have to go down to the comment boxes that have to do with section E3C
double I and u when they you tie the two together it that's what needed where that addition is needed and I put that in that last section and take other action as may be
required by applicable She's general law and uh that that's the explanation. So, um let me get back to where we George Ryan. >> No, no, I just I'm just trying to follow
you, Andy. I've lost you. Um I'm maybe I'm the only one, but I don't quite um Yeah. just take us to where you want us to to read you. Sounds like you put some language in here. The um
>> can you take us down to um section E for a moment? go a little bit farther down so you see Anna's um says Jo recommends it to be added up at
the top of the document as proposed. see that in the comment box and u so I was just take doing that recommends it be added at the top I uh
did so council Ryan are you following Er, look at the screen and you'll uh it's on the screen. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> See, it says
[Music] GL makes a recommendation, >> right? >> That's the addition that I'm talking about. Andy, are you saying that because you added it above, we should take it out here?
Um, we should probably uh consult with should consult with Joel too about that question. So, they're recommending that it be put at the top of the document. Um, and
hence the language could be deleted. Um, where at the top of the document do they think it should go? Maybe you've already said this and I dismissed it. >> That's what I did. >> Well, this is not the top of the document. So, back up to the top. I'm sorry. Thank you, Athena. At the top of the document. >> Yeah, this is going to be
>> right there. Okay. So, I'm sorry. And again, so it's been added here. You're adding it here under two C2. Um, and then hence at the other place that language could then be deleted is what you're saying. >> That's the question that u
>> that seems fine and that seems what go wants. It seems what the attorney wants. Um, and so it seems also what has been done. So, we just need to strike that language in the other place when we get to it. Or we can do it now, I guess.
>> Let's just keep going. And uh >> but the languages here you're pointing out. There's languages here that covers the entire thing. Okay. All right. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um I mean I just practical questions. I mean and I know they're dumb, but I just I just they're very practical questions. I mean item one says there should be a
notice. So that's not a I mean I just this is not going to be a burden or a problem. This is this easily done. Not a big deal because none of this was specified by us. We were leaving it all up to TPC. Um they had figured this out and the attorney said, you know, thinks it's appropriate that this all be
spelled out. Um so they will be required to post a notice on the town website at least one week prior to any public hearing. Um and again my question is is there's the meetings of this body are not public hearings. They're just meetings of this body, but occasionally
this body will convene public hearings um under for certain matters. Is is that correct? Um or is Yeah. So this is just applies to public hearings and because they're public hearings and I assume there's probably some state
statutes or whatever something governs this um and hence this language is here specifically to cover that. So it's clear to them and to everyone that if you're holding a public hearing, you TPC must post on the town website at least one week prior. In other words,
following the convention, right? So that's the point that that's why it's here. Um but if they're holding a meeting um of their regular body and they don't have any public hearings, um they're not bound by this. >> They have to comply with the open
meeting law, >> right? And that's just 48 hours. >> Yeah. This is for public hearings. >> Exactly. Good. Okay. I know. Yeah. >> Correct. >> Okay. the uh the one that's most specific and
Paul mentioned this earlier um in there is a state statute that um deals with question of poll hearings which we've talked about um and actually refers to utility structures or
or something some language like that that is there was a requirement that it be a public hearing. There's a requirement that the decision be made by the council, but the council doesn't
have to hold the public hearing. And that's what a lot of this is about is that in the end uh in order to make that work and that was a question that we asked um as you recall our one
suggestion from our committee was that the attorney answer the question about poll hearings and that was the answer. So, we are um setting it up to delegate the holding of
the poll hearing by the TPC, but the TPC has to report back to the council and the council has to make the decision and that's what the state statute provides.
Dina, that was uh I think our discussion of it, right? >> Yes. >> Does that make sense to you uh council Ryan? >> Yes, it does. I believe. I mean, yeah.
>> So, some of this was because we asked that one question. >> I know. We should never ask any questions. Okay. Um, and that may explain, again, I hate I would, you know, this is obviously it's difficult. It's tedious, but it is important. And I appreciate very much what the attorney is doing.
And I wish she were here, but she's not. Um, uh, that also may explain why it's only TPC mentioning number one, because the BLC doesn't hold public hearings. Is that correct? Is that I mean, again, I'm obtuse here, but BLC doesn't do public
hearings, but Right. uh >> whatever it is that they do is not considered a public hearing >> matters not matters related to um the referrals from this policy. Right. >> Okay. All right. Fine.
So item two again my question is just practical. The language I'm sure is fine unless somebody has questions about it. Um but they're going to be recording this and that that's something they can do. It's not I mean we have the means and and it's not I mean it's required so they'll have to record it um and be
formally open. So this is kind of language that applies to any public hearing and it's just stating clearly that this is what you got to do. >> Um >> yes. >> Okay. >> This is language that refers to any public hearing that this a body is doing
on behalf of the town council. >> Okay. Not any public hearing. You're saying if you have a public hearing on our beha be behalf, here's how we want you to conduct it. >> Okay. Okay. Okay.
>> So, I guess people are okay with the the requirements that we're putting in here that the attorney has put in here on our behalf. So, basically here the attorney is putting in a series of requirements for public hearings being held at our request. um of the town council and uh
what she is recommending is that these uh following things be done and so I think we need to make sure that that's exactly this is what we want done. Um so we wanted to be open uh the required public hearing on any pending matter and take such verbal or written testimony
and receive such documents as may be provided. Right. When all testimony and documents has been provided, the TPC shall formally close the public hearing and shall not reopen the public hearing and accept additional evidence absent a vote for such purpose. Fine. TPC shall deliberate deliberate the merits of
request and make specific factual findings in support of its decision. Seems pretty straightforward, but we're okay with that because they're speaking for us here. They're they're basically the attorney saying this is what the council wants you to do. So, this committee needs to be agreed that this
is what in fact we want them to do. It's >> it's two it's it's really about creating a record of the decision of the recommendation for the council. So you have so anybody who challenges this says the council had full access to information and a full report written
report on what the recommendation is and because you have you're substituting the whoever it is their public hearing in yourstead. And so if as long as you have all the information when you come to make your final decision because you're still the final decision maker on the
polls for instance. >> Okay. >> Okay. Shall we continue? >> So go to three. I mean again this is my suggestion Andy but you can overrule me quickly is just we need to look at each section just briefly at least to make sure that we're all agreed that this is
what in fact we want and that we understand what it is that we're asking for. So two I think seems good. Have three anybody? Yeah. Written recommendation. Right. Factual findings shall include reference to the location
at which the TPC public hearing and deliberations can be viewed if available. So we'll be these will be on these will be zoom recordings. Is that that's not a problem? It's not an extra burden. >> No.
>> Okay. TPC shall submit with this recommendation copies of or access to the documentary evidence submitted to TPC at the hearing by the requesttor, town officials or members of the public. Okay. And again, none of this seems overly burdensome or ownorous or creating
something, you know, or maybe the answer is whether it is or isn't. It's should it's proper procedure. This is what we should be doing. This is best practice, etc. Mhm. >> Okay. Because as I just remind everyone, none
of this was in what we wrote. But for all other matters in which the TPC or the board of licensed commissioners is authorized to act, they shall receive such documents and testimony as may be submitted by the requester, town officials or members of the public.
Following deliberation on the merits of the request, it shall make a record of its actions supported by fact written factual findings and including reference to the location of which the meeting can be viewed if a why is repeating it. If available and where documentary evidence can be reviewed. Okay, that's for all
other matters. That means anything not a public hearing. >> Okay. All right. Now here we have the issue of board of license commissioners. Again, I believe um
do they supply monthly reports to the council? I don't know that I ever see them, but that doesn't mean they don't. Um anyway, >> I've never seen >> a report. >> I think it probably goes I don't know. Um
>> they I don't think they submit reports. I think they do their minutes from their meetings. >> Yeah. So this would seem to be an extra burden now we're putting upon at least this is followed put it on the BLC. Um I'm not Yeah. And if that's necessary
or required or why it's being required of them now. >> Yeah. So my always my feeling on these types of things is that it is a burden. um if they don't meet for a month or they meet you know meet um I think that
a less frequent uh re um report or upon request to submit a report those are the two options I prefer. Um so for the air for the for instance I I in my monthly town management report I I
update you on anything that you've been that's been delegated to me in terms of the parking that you know the public way issues I report I just make a list of all the things all the things that we've delegated that you've delegated to me that I've acted on Um.
>> Mhm. >> So maybe it's not actually requiring monthly reports, but just says monthly reports submitted. So if they don't submit one, I'm not being required to submit them on a monthly basis, but when their report is submitted, this is what they must do. Is that the way one could read this? It says monthly reports by
the TPC or town board of licensed commissioners. It doesn't say uh monthly reports shall be submitted. It just tells us what they should how it should be done should they submit them. So again, I don't want to quibble, but maybe you could argue that this isn't
actually mandating monthly reports. It's just saying if you have them, this is the format you must should follow. And if in given month you don't submit one, that's not a problem. Well, we we should try to achieve clarity so there's not a debate about what it means. >> So, are we acquiring them or not?
>> That's your question. >> Maybe we should be putting in a comment box here to review the question of term monthly monthly reports. And I can check with the licensed commissioner staff to see if they
produce a monthly report already. Um, how ownorous that would be. I mean, somebody's got to do it, right? >> Yeah. >> Right. And uh the other question is uh should we be asking
the board of through this policy? Should we be asking the BLC >> correct >> to submit reports that are not on matters that are delegated by this policy? Mhm.
>> So, yeah, they could tell us about lunch cart decisions or whatever referred to, but it's limited. Bob, >> yeah, I was going to say that uh I would definitely want to pull out monthly uh
because I I think monthly is as um Paul said is very ownorous. Um and if they don't meet for 2 or 3 months um monthly report is sort of irrelevant. Um
so I again I would that's sort of sort of covered by the question about monthly. Um can it can it could it just be reports? Um >> well the board of license commissioner is required by the charter to make an annual report to the council.
>> Annual report. Okay. An annual report. Right. But I think again this is a question for us and I think for the the both as a committee first and then as counselors uh do we want given what this we're delegating to these folks I think we probably would want um fairly regular
reporting we don't want to wait till the end of the year to find out about what they're doing. So this unlike uh the board of license commissioners or maybe not unlike them maybe we'd want both but certainly for this body I think we want regular reporting. Um so that's yeah
and probably monthly quite frankly um with this group um though Bob points out it's there might be some months where they don't meet or um but I think we'd like to be know on a regular basis what they're doing and and what decisions they're making. >> So the question is the frequency of the
reports not the need for reports >> right? >> Yeah. And I guess question for the committee is are people at least and this is for all of us. Um I would say just right that monthly makes sense for TPC. I don't really care about BLC. Um you know I think you're at least fine
but um maybe others disagree. Um how often do you want to hear from them? I I think I it seems to me that we ought to be thinking about how frequently matters are going to arise um for the
TPC. I mean, we don't deal with how many times do we deal with public ways uh in the council. I don't think it's on a monthly basis. >> I have a feeling there's a dam building up, Bob. I may be wrong. that once this
body is created, they're going to there going to be a fair number of people coming to them with with requests. Uh right now, because the process is so convoluted and somewhat opaque, um you it could go to Paul, could go to DPW, could come to you, it could come to the council, it could come to DSO. Like five
or six different ways people can raise these concerns. Things tend to kind of just uh get lost in the shuffle. Now, what we're trying to do, I believe, is create a one-stop shopping where we can say to our constituents and Paul can say to people come to him, all right, this is what this is what this committee
does. So, um I may be wrong. Um but I feel that once this is set up and running, um they should be kept on a regrett. I mean, we already have we have something that um councelor u presented
to us that you know and uh that we're be dealing with at TSO shortly. Um that would go to TSO, sorry, to to TPC. Um so, I don't know. It's spect. It's speculation. Maybe I'll be wrong, but I have a feeling that they will be much busier than we are with these issues
once people know it exists and once they know that's where they're supposed to go for all these sorts of things. I think that I agree with you and uh uh Northampton does meet monthly
and uh apparently they found that the experience requires regular meetings for their TPC and I guess that's one thing and the second is as previously noted if TPC
doesn't meet isn't very honored to put in a one-s sentence report from whoever is the chair. There were no meetings. >> I mean, I was just taking a making a list yesterday of things that I have in my district that um would go to this
body if it existed that I have brought to the attention of various well basically to Paul and it's just you know Paul it's only so much he can't deal with it. I mean, it's just too much. Um, you know, somebody wants a rapid flashing beacon here, somebody wants a bus shelter there, somebody wants a you
know, uh, I've got at least five, six, seven things that that I've been approached about. And, um, you know, that I'd be ready to take or urge people to go to this body to to deal with. Um, that the town manager just can't can't
deal with them all. Um, it's best, you know, it's just too much. So, we'll see. Should we go on? >> Sure. >> I think the only thing that I would ask about number six is whether that takes
care of the need in what I recommended in the prior section. Therefore, doesn't whether it existed all along. >> Yeah, I agree. I I think it's it's restating it. you either state it there
or you state it up. You know, >> it I don't I don't see any difference between number six and then the language you inserted earlier. >> Yeah. No, I just thought of that as we were going through it right now.
Um, so why don't we just make a note to to make sure and go on because then I can work it out with Athena later and not spend more time on it now is uh
that's good. conflicting reservations really applies to uh town manager more likely because uh it may it's going to more frequently
arise under delegations that are made. We're uh being able to use the common for a one-time event that conflicts with >> farmers market for example there.
So that would pass through is probably something that is being done already anyway. >> Yeah. I mean it's Yeah, but it's there. It's not objectionable. It seems like the obvious, but there it is. So, it's good. >> So, going on uh the changes uh when you
getting into the next section on uh reservation of public ways town commons. There was a lot of discussion in the go about clarification, but um
I would just leave that as is a go matter. So Andrew, your thought is there's nothing substantive um that we're seeing in in E1 um or E2
um we will see something substantive I think in E4 sorry E um what is it uh 2 D but uh E1 and two is just go tidying up things.
And so that seems fine. >> Which are you referring to specifically? >> Well, I'm just looking. We have some series of minor changes in E1 um and E2. I'm just suggesting that we don't need to discuss them because
>> Yeah, I agree. >> And >> because those were matters were handled by >> Yeah. >> Go >> and we don't object to the changes. We should just go on. So that takes us on going on down
to the parking section. I don't think there was much there. Uh yeah, I think the next is um E to D. That has got some problems. There's
something I think we need to look at, make a decision. E2D permanent or other requests. request for permanent parking changes, modification of fees or other requests relating to parking not detailed above. Um
she she has language that she suggests be inserted here to replace the existing language we need to make a decision. Let me see if I can >> Yeah, she has a comment in extensive comment in the box. And I think I would suggest that we take
her recommended language um at the top and replace it uh put it in place of what's there right now because there's some lack of clarity. What she says is if it's intended that TPC will hold a public hearing on all
permanent parking requests, which I assume is what we want them to do, we wouldn't want any permanent parking request change to be made without the public having a chance to weigh in. In her opinion, the language that is currently there should read the following and then she gives the language.
Um, if the text remains in its current form, it's not clear whether TPC is required to hold a public hearing on each request. So, I think the question for us is, do we want to require TPC to hold a public hearing on a permanent uh change per permanent parking change? And
given I think our past experience and how contentious this can be and how it affects neighborhoods, I think we would want them to hold a public hearing. >> Yeah. So um I would suggest that for the sake of clarity we follow her recommendation
and that the current language that is there be replaced by the language which is the second paragraph of her comment. The town council retains its authority as keeper of the public way provided however that prior to council action the TPC shall hold a public hearing on each
request and make a recommendation to the council on that request because we also wish to retain final authority on this >> agreement that does that make sense to people. Should anybody disagree?
>> Thank you. >> And I will note uh for everybody, councelor Ryan u this was one matter that go did not want to touch. They felt that it needed to be a decision of this committee
because felt that it was not about their responsibility consistent and actionable. It was policy issue and they wanted TSL to decide this one. So, is everybody comfortable with with uh
what councelor Ryan has proposed, which is to accept that language? >> Yeah, I agree. >> Okay. And uh Council Lord, I assume you'd agree too, unless you have a
>> I agree. >> Okay. And I do too. So we can go on. So the next is 3 C2 and I have no objections or concerns about that. Just clarification language,
I think. So, we're going to take that language out and assume that it is handled by one of two sections of in the first we're going to eliminate one of them. >> Oh, that's right. That's Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> I mean, I really ask I mean Yeah. Does it really I mean if you repeat something does that really hurt? I mean I mean it's already stated. I know but u you know I don't know
doesn't doesn't hurt I mean in teaching I know always was good to say something important like three or four times at least >> so in >> so in legal in interpretation of laws the in the mentioning and then not mentioning it's
an intentional act. So they say, well, they must have purposely not mentioned it here because they mentioned it here. So that means they didn't mention it here. So it means it mustn't apply here. So you just I think it's big clarity is this might be a legal question for Lauren. Yeah. >> Yeah. It makes sense to take it out of
what we suggested do anyway. Okay. >> Okay. I I actually had that same thought that I don't know whether it's you know laws but if you if you mention it in some places but don't mention it in others
then it it does indicate >> that intention rather than just you know you forgot to do it >> right that makes sense >> so I don't We're taking it out here. >> Yes. Yes.
>> And we would have it covered above. >> Mhm. >> It's a general matter. >> Okay. uh taking just this part here >> um >> or I'm trying to highlight just this
>> shall otherwise uh be in compliance that general law and regulations. >> Yeah, that's the link. >> Yep. >> Yep. Just >> so it's starting with after town
manager. >> Just delete the rest of it. >> Okay. Got it. Sorry. This is >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. in a period after town manager probably to complete the sentence when you get down to
>> we'll leave that for go give them something more to do this goes back to them is that right I think is that would be what we find >> yes because they have not they >> they haven't seen the final version >> item they have not taken a final vote >> so George probably doesn't cross tees
just to see if they get do too. It doesn't You don't dot You don't dot eyes to see if they've really read it. >> They're paying attention, right? Yeah, we're paying attention. Are they paying attention? >> No, they are paying attention. They are paying attention. >> They've done a great job. I'm being silly. I'm sorry. Yeah, >> they've met twice on this already.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I know. >> So, u next one's a real This is This is a doozy. The one coming up. This is G. What is it? Um, three. >> So, you're going to have to now. >> Well, I think that's between what we just did. That's the only change. That's
is the 3G. And it's it's I don't about anybody else, but this one caused me a lot of headaches. >> This always caused you headaches in this. >> I know. It's I know from the get-go. And it's not it's not any less now. It's just But let's see. Maybe I missed something. I'm missing things today. So,
who knows? But um so this is other requests for permanent changes to the public way and uh she has a comment. She has concerns about how the authority being delegated to TPC in this manner. Um I think she's
concerned about um the funding aspect and she um has some fairly extensive language that she thinks >> go down to the comment box. Uh >> yeah, LG LG9 >> and it's an issue that I raised way at
the beginning. So my first concern or question before we get to that is just the language of of G uh I number one or whatever the hell it is, excuse me. all primitive changes to roads or sidewalks other than layouts,
such as the placement of utility structures and then a long list of stuff. So this includes the placement of utility structures. Okay. And the rest of it is just you know sorting out the language. Fine. So item
one says the town council delegates the TPC the authority to review any changes involving the placement of utility structures and to make a recommendation to the town council with respect to the same. So what if I understand this what it's saying is that in the end um this
has to come back to us by mass general law to make the actual determination. Is that is that what this is essentially saying? um that they can't make the deter. They can they can they're allowed to review it
um and make a recommendation, but it comes back to us for the final decision. And then number two, as it currently reads, says the town council delegates the TPC the authority to review and act upon
such changes subject to funding. So that makes no sense um at all. Um >> because so if I if my I one calls out utility structures and treats that differently because that's actually has to be a town council decision.
>> Exactly. >> And then you delegate everything else to TPC. >> Well, that's what it should say, but that's not what it says. It just says delegates to the TPC the authority review and act upon such changes. They have no idea what that means. So I think Paul, you're right. It should say something like the town council
delegates the remaining uh you know whatever words would be appropriate uh topics subject whatever to the TPC with the authority review and act upon them. Sub I think that I don't know where the language went um or maybe because of changes made earlier but I'm surely our
intent uh was then to say everything else TPC can handle. >> Yeah, that's the intent. Yeah. >> Right. But that's not what the language says. So, we need to change that language. Um, uh, so her language is actually the language you want. So, if you look over
to the comment box, the town council delegates the TPC the authority to review and authorize permanent changes other than those under the above paragraph. Good. Provided, however, the town manager shall retain authority with respect to implement thereof, and further that those changes requiring
expenditure funds may only be implemented in the event an appropriation or other funding is available for such purposes. Period. Now, that's what I would call subject to funding, but that's better probably better language. So, I would suggest we simply take that language and and
replace what's currently in in two with that language. And then that I think clarifies um what I believe was our original intent. I mean once we we had the question of can we have them also take poll hearings all the way and the
answer apparently is no we can't. So one addresses that and then two if we use her language addresses everything else and also includes the funding concern I think that Bob mentioned right from the get-go. So that's Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. No, I think that's what she's intended. >> Yeah, cuz the language is two as it's standing there makes absolutely no sense at all. And I don't think we were that out of it that when we wrote this, but maybe we were. I don't know. Anyway, so
I think that's what we need to do here. >> Is there agreement that I mean is consent? Yeah. I think it's okay. >> And uh attorney Goldberg's suggestion is really about provided however that the
town manager shall retain authority with respect to implementation thereof and further that those changes requiring expenditure funds may be imperning. um or other funding is available for such
purposes. That's the sentence that she wants to add to clarify the town manager's um authority to say, "Thank you for the recommendation, >> but we're not going to spend the money." Right. >> But I don't have the money.
>> Right. >> Bob has his hand up. >> Yeah. I was just gonna go back a little bit. Um where other it's G I guess section G um >> other requests you know within the first line there all permanent changes to
roads or sidewalks other than layouts such as I would say including but not limited to just because we can't think of all of the things that might you know I mean such as indicates that
but I mean if you just yeah this that parag Raph there right off the end of the first line. I would replace such as with including but not limited to. >> Okay. just you know that that's that's
that's kind of a good placeholder if you you know you some we might not have thought of everything as in the such as >> and um you know >> it's not intended to limit
things to only those things that we could think of today or last month. So >> yeah, that's for sure. We we certainly this is not an exhaustive list. I'm sure they're things we'll never think of or haven't thought of,
>> right? Or new things will come along. >> Yeah. >> Haven't been done before. >> Like you know, bike stations, bike, you know, charging stations. We didn't have those, you know, a few years ago. Right. Right. Right.
So, are people okay with that language? I don't have a problem with it making that change if uh included but not limited to to replace such as >> I think it's a it's a clarification. Much appreciated.
>> I have a deeper question if you're willing to entertain at this point, Andy. Um what this seems to suggest to me is that and maybe there's no way to ground this that the utility company is going to have to attend uh two separate
meetings. Unlike current situation where they come to us once now they're going to have to go to two different they have to go to TPC and then they're going to have to come to us. And um I don't always have greatest sympathy for the utility company these days, but um is
that a correct reading and is that a problem? Well, I think this is a matter that we really need to ref to ultimately get judgment from the council about because if the council decides that it
wants to keep the meetings with the utility company, then >> that's probably right. >> Yeah. >> They shouldn't delegate the authority to the TPC to hold hearings. And uh we need
to alert the council to the question, but not u I think our recommendation if we have a recommendation to delegate it then it is the whole
purpose. Am I correct in understanding, Andy, that the way this is written right now, the public hearing is actually with TPC, but it still comes back to us for a vote. So there isn't two public >> That's correct. And there's a whole lot
of language in here about and and that's why the language is here >> about the complete report of all of the things that happened at the public hearing. >> Remember that section above? Yeah.
>> And that was in order to make sure that u there's a complete understanding of what was said at the public hearing. Now um >> so normally the way it works Andy I guess is you have a public hearing and then you close the public hearing and
then you have a vote and now the way this is written they'll have a public hearing they'll close the public hearing then the vote will be held by the council. And if the council has questions or concerns or issues, um it's no longer public hearing. It's it's basically a uh a vote um a discussion,
whatever. And uh then the council votes, but it's not actually public hearing. It's just um right would would and so would you need the utility there? Maybe you would to answer questions. I guess you would, but it's not under a public hearing now. It's back actually under
the actual u v deliberation and vote of the council. I think you're you're based on on their re on the recommendation TPC, >> right? You got the recommendation in front of you. Um you've got them there. If you have further questions um and if you know people have concerns or
problems, you you hash it out and then you have a vote. Okay. But it's not a public hearing. Okay. I think that the uh you're getting it the key question is
>> do we really want to refer uh the whole public hearing process to TPC >> or should we drop that section? >> Yeah, I think um this this is this is what it would look like if you wanted to refer utility
hearings to the TPC. this is what you would look what it would look like and you can choose okay this is too complicated for us we don't want to do that or um it's fine by us we we don't we just don't want the public hearings on our agendas anymore
>> there's a certain irony in the sense at least for me I don't know for others that initially one of the impetuses for this whole process was the desire to get poll hearings off and now now it's increasingly looking like that's the one they we maybe not only shouldn't do but can't do whatever
but it's just sort of funny but yeah >> yeah though I have a couple >> I have a couple of replies on that one is that uh I think that um when we got the recommendation from Paul and Guilford that the recommendation was not
about poll hearings recommendation was not to have to have presentations made to TSO So, and then to the transportation committee as it currently exists
and to uh disability access advisory committee as it was then called and so you'd end up having town staff making the same presentation three times. >> U and I think we have succeeded
hopefully in doing that. uh and that was the key purpose. The other is that uh our friends across the river kept poll hearings at the council and now we may know why.
>> But I do we want to change our recommendation on poll hearings ourselves or do we want to leave this and then just alert the council that they need to think about it? Yeah, I would vote for the latter. I think it's up my feeling. I don't
>> If there's no if there's nobody's making a motion to change this policy or proposing to change this policy as is presently presented, that's where we are. >> Okay. >> Yeah, there's a change in two.
Is that Yeah, that wasn't intersection control, traffic lights and roundabouts. Is that something we did or is that something they added or where did that come from? >> Yeah, this is uh
lost in this thing now >> in G you mean? >> Uh it's just beneath just literally the section below what we've just been discussing. It's it's it's ro it's two item two G2. Yes. >> It looks like you added this George. Uh
this commit no I didn't person did I person >> I don't even know what intersection control means >> well this comment this change belongs to you so >> I must have been oh lord okay
>> um well don't ask me what it means because I have no idea hope somebody else hopefully somebody else understands it um all major roadway and sidewalk res redesigns, comma, intersection control. Maybe Guilford gave us that term. Maybe
that's where that came from. Uh, and I I seized it. Intersection control, comma, uh, parenthesis traffic lights and roundabouts, but not many roundabouts. Okay, I guess we're going to let that's us, so we're going to let it stand.
Um, again, okay, so maybe that anyone have thoughts on that last bit? I guess it's okay. We're going to retain authority and hold we'll hold uh Wait a second. But TPC will hold a public hearing. Okay.
Yeah. >> But it has to be considered a major, >> right? But what we're saying is that we're keeping authority, right? >> But TPC has the hearing. Yeah, TPC has the hearing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We'll see what the council thinks
of that. >> Andy, you think we have time to get through the draft charge? The changes there are not as extreme, I think, but uh we're running out of time. I think we have about >> Yeah, because uh >> 15 minutes >> we have about and I want to uh we have
another important matter to get up get >> so let's uh are we concluded and then I'll work with Athena in putting this together and getting it back to go so we can keep it moving along. Bob?
>> Yeah, I'm sorry. I have one simple or one simple question. Does intersection control also include stop signs? Um, cuz I think the town manager already has the authority to put up stop signs.
He's occupied. >> Paul, >> I don't remember if it if I have that authority or not. >> It's in here somewhere. Signage is in here somewhere. That's signage, but stop signs may be different. >> Intersection control.
>> That's intersection control. That really is intersection control. >> I would consider to be in intersection control. >> It is. It is. >> Absolutely. Right. Right. Okay. >> So, we need to include that in there. >> Yeah. Okay. So, um or can we call it wrap?
>> Yeah. That was it. Sorry. >> Okay. Um, is there any need to talk about the committee charge? Is everybody a chance to look at it? >> I I think it's fine. >> I'm sorry. The draft charge that go went
through and has some changes to Yeah. Is that what you're saying? I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Uh I think it was pretty much as it was last time with that uh >> well there's extensive language that was added uh two paragraphs added uh under
the charge um again by the attorney >> but that was that was prior to the last discussion Ren, >> I'll tell you the one the reason I'm brushing it along is that I want to get back to the uh public urination
defecation um >> right issue. >> Well, I just need clarification. under charge. There are two paragraphs that I certainly didn't write and I don't think
any of us wrote that are there as the attorney's additions to the charge document. Um this under charge um there's three paragraphs, one of which is slightly amended which seems fine. Um and then the other the subsequent two
paragraphs are her language including a final paragraph says the town council may reserve the right to make a final decision on request but nevertheless delegate to the TPC responsibility for conducting a public hearing okay within 20 days of the public hearing. TPC shall provide to the town council detailed
individual findings of fact and related supporting evidence information and or testimony as well as a recommendation to approve or disprove disapprove the request. And that's probably fine, but is 20 days sufficient? Is this something that we think this body with, you know, given
the demands on it will be able to do or does it matter? But that is new, right? That's that's something that's been added by the attorney. >> The purple text was added by >> Yeah. Right. >> their attorney. >> Yeah. That's fairly substantial. Um,
>> I would make it within 30 days. I I think 20 days is pretty fast turnaround, >> right, >> for a recommendation because they have to they have to meet >> and vote and then write a report.
>> That was actually a go recommendation to give specificity. We can recommend that it be changed to 30. And >> I think that makes sense. I I like 30. I don't see that that any of this requires excessive haste.
We want, you know, move with all deliberate speed, but 20 seems I think 30 would be a reasonable uh change. There's also a change u I don't want to jump ahead, but there is one other change we should discuss before we get
on to urination. Um, but let's How do people feel about 30? That makes sense to me. I don't know. Bob agrees. Anyone else? >> I think if I can jump in, Andy. >> Sure. >> I think for some of the poll the um
Eversource requests, 30 days might be a long time. Um, there's already a notice period of a week for the public hearing held by the TPC and there's a notice period for a Butters. um those need to go out 14 days
in advance of the public hearing. It has to be noticed for a week before they can hold their hearing and make a recommendation. And then if there's another month after that, that that's a a fairly long time for um the utility company to get a decision from the town.
There's one coming on Monday for um an underground duct to provide electricity for an a bus EV charging station at the middle school. And I think if if that project were delayed for more than a month before they could get approval,
that could pose some problems. And I think there are others similarly. Um there was a one of the recent hearings was for a property owner getting electricity to their home. And I think more than 30 days is quite a long time
in my opinion. >> Mhm. So you would recommend leaving it as it is? >> I think 20 days is a long time. >> No, you like to cut it. >> 30 days is long. 20
>> 24 hours. >> Well, I think in in those cases, um, approval from the council is the the last hoop that's needed to be jumped through before a project can move on.
and um and and a lengthy process is um that you know the process is already cumbersome due to the mass general laws. Um and so adding a 30-day period where >> TPC is is writing a recommendation, it
just seems like a very long time to me. But again, that's just my my opinion um from the experience that we've had on these projects for the council. Okay. Okay, >> you're really getting into another
question as whether we're making a mistake by delegating the poll hearing. >> I was going to keep that opinion to myself. >> All right. No, that's Yeah, that's a good point. Again, that's maybe we'll leave it as it is then perhaps, but that
fits into the larger argument and could be used as a a talking point by one or more of us if we want to. Um, but I guess I don't know how Bob feels, but maybe we should just leave it leave it as it is. >> I'm okay with leaving it. I was maybe we should, >> right? >> Maybe we should actually make it, you
know, as soon as possible after the public hearing. Um, and in no more than 20 days or something. Um, but I mean it's that's I don't know. >> Let me just ask a question. Does
>> this uh addition does anybody want to suggest that we drop the whole pole hearing referral? It's been a torturous process, but we're learning a lot. >> I think at this point, Andy, my feeling is that that we should leave it to the
council. Um uh it's it's we've reached we've gotten a document that allows for this possibility. There are some concerns, but at this point I think it should unless I just don't think we as the five of us are going to come to any consensus. Um there are good arguments for and against. I think at this point
it should go to the council and let us hash it out there. >> I agree. >> So but you would change propose changing it then to as soon as possible but been >> No, no. I I don't want to touch the language. I'll just leave it. >> Yeah, I want to leave it. I want to leave it. >> Okay.
>> Athena raises good concerns. Bob has a good argument. I think we need to talk about it at the council. We're not going to settle it here. >> So, u >> Andy, there's one other small change. I'm sorry and to interrupt but um under
composition uh go had made it a very small but I thought interesting recommendation to the final bullet item uh which talks about residents interests and backgrounds. Um it's a very small point. I apologize for bringing it up but I
think we should recognize that at least the suggestion by go I think it was made by the chair um inserting at the end or other relevant areas just to give it a certain um u not to limit the applicant
pool again kind of back to Bob's idea a number of things are listed here but there are things I'm sure that we're not thinking of and we'll never think of so it gives the uh uh the manager uh somelex flexibility. So he's not limited just to this c these areas but he could
also inter have some other thing. So the suggestion would be public transit pedestrian bicycle transportation. So this is under composition section the last bullet point strike or and then have parking comma and then the language
that suggested is or other relevant areas. >> I agree. >> Period. >> Yeah. didn't. She just did that. >> Yeah. >> So, I would suggest that we make that change. >> Okay. Well, >> I agree that that makes more that makes
sense. >> So, uh for the record, should we uh have two motions? One on each of these policy on the policy and one on the charge.
>> I think so. Yes. that uh we recommend as amended. I'll start by saying I move that um we recommend the committee charge as
as amended. >> I second. >> Okay. U Bob I Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. I'm >> an I and I think that uh we
>> Yeah, left. >> Oh, she's gone. Okay. I didn't know. >> She's having connectivity issues. She might be back. She's gone. >> Okay. All right. Um and again I recommend that uh we
let me restate that uh I move that uh we recommend the uh town council policy on public ways as amended. I second.
>> Bob, >> I pass Ryan. >> I mean, I So, are we done with this? And let me just go real quickly since we're running really out of time.
is um we did get the recommendation from uh the attorney that the uh public urination defecation be changed to just a one sentence
and uh that that would take care of the uh issue um in most expeditious fashion. I uh did consult with Chief Ting and Chief Ting uh immediately responded that
he is fine with that change if that's what the committee votes and u so there's not much else I can say councelor I >> so I look to you Andy you worked very hard on this um put in a lot of time and
now the attorney comes and writes one sentence Um but uh so I really look to you if you feel that this is is meets what you wanted and you're satisfied with it then I would follow your lead. I had no problem with what you'd created. Um but
um I guess the argument is that this kind of covers all bases in one sentence. So if you're good with that, I would support it. Um, if you're not, if you'd like to defend uh your baby, so to speak, that you've uh brought into the world, I'd be willing to support that as
well. So, >> oh, by the way, I I should mention that uh I also did forward this to councelor Hannah, >> right? Sponsor and she's fine if we >> He's fine with it as well. Okay. All right. So, you're both fine with it. Um
and uh would that we could have all our bylaws be only one sentence long? That's that's that's what I would wish for. But >> so uh >> so what do we need to do? We need to uh to vote on this new bylaw amended. It's not even amended language, is it? It's
like an entirely new thing. >> Well, I guess you could call it amended. >> You can amend it. >> Kind of like radical surgery. Yeah. We just Okay. But you need a vote.
I mean a motion to >> motion to adopt uh this >> bylaw bylaw recommended by town attorney. >> Okay, I second that. >> Okay, so motion made seconded. Council Ryan, >> I say I.
>> Bob, >> I >> I'm an I. So I think that takes care of it. Uh I hear my clock downstairs just bonging 12 times. So that point uh I'll take a motion to adjurnn.
>> So moved. >> I'll second and uh councelor Ryan. >> I say I >> Bob >> I have an I. Thank you and thank you Athena and Paul. It's been a
>> difficult meeting, but we've actually >> done a long way of getting two things done into the council. Uh we can get it back to go and be finished. So, thank you. >> Thanks, folks. We're journey. Good
night.