You're all set. Go ahead. So, I'm um calling the September 18, 2025 meeting of the uh town services and outreach committee meeting to order. And uh we have four members of the committee
present. And uh with the fifth member will be joining us in a few minutes. She just said she's running a couple of minutes late, but will plan to be here. So, um I think that we can go ahead and start. And u this meeting is being
conducted via remote means. Members of the public um have access to the meeting by Zoom or by telephone. Um there's no person in attendance at the meeting. Uh um this is entirely a Zoom
meeting which is permitted by current open meeting law but all members of the committee um are able to uh attend the meeting in real time as noted. Um but everybody should be aware that the
meeting is being recorded both um audio and visual. So um that there's notification of that. With that, I uh want to make sure that every that all members of the committee can hear me and
that we can hear them. And so uh and chief is here with us now too. Uh Bob Hegner, can you hear? Yes, present. Uh councelor Ryan, I'm here. because the Lord
or Yes, you can you hear me? Yes, we can. And good morning, Chief. Um, so uh morning. I want to uh just see if there are any members of the public who are present.
Uh since we uh always start with uh there are no members of the public present I'll check again for uh public comment later in the meeting but we didn't uh did attend public comment at the
beginning of the meeting as uh provided and I believe we have no minutes and we uh have not been notified of any requests from the town manager. for um appointments he is for us to consider.
So um that will enable us to move uh directly to the subject of number five on the agenda which is the uh public urination and defecation bylaw.
And um so um the chief is here to respond to questions about it um as we go forward. And uh um I will try and share screen in a few minutes uh to see
if uh um we we can put it on the screen to discuss the draft that came forward. Um, I wanted to explain again um several
things about the draft and u chief can uh will help fill us in on that. Uh, when we last talked about it, you asked that we provided a draft of a bylaw for consideration for the next discussion.
and uh I said I would take responsibility for that either myself or designating someone else. landed up uh doing it um by myself and uh with the assistance of the chief and uh what we
and I also consulted the um sponsor councelor Hanniki um throughout the pro this uh process of development. Basically, when we collected bylaws
um were identified partly by the chief and partly by several members of the committee and the sponsor that were from other Massachusetts municipalities. There were two that were consistent with
what we were looking for after our last discussion and uh they were East Hampton and LOL and um they were both in the packet from the meeting when we previously discussed it. Um,
we decided to focus initially on the East Hampton one partly because it's in our area and it also basically was trying to achieve what we were looking to to do with the bylaw that was being
requested by uh the police department and uh the sponsor councelor Hani. Uh and uh at that point we did a couple of things. One was that uh Chief Ting
reached out to the East Hampton Police uh chief and uh talked with him about the bylaw and how it's was developed in East Hampton and how it's utilized.
And uh the second thing that we did was that we reached out to Tony Marulis um who's our contact at the university and he reached out to the dean of students and uh then um they uh had there was a
meeting there's a regular Monday meeting with um members of the um university staff and police about what has happened in the past week in the past weekend. Um, and they used one of those Monday
meetings um to discuss uh the bylaw and I spoke with uh Tony subsequently and heard from Chief. Were you at that meeting? Uh I I I was not uh Mr. Steinberg. and I
had representatives there but I uh consulted with them as well as Tony to uh figure out what was discussed and and basically it was introduced to the stakeholders and there were no objections from anyone. And the report that I received from uh
Tony because I had a direct conversation with him was um that the university has uh um after the meetings uh with the dean of students and that you've heard
about that they have u no objection to the um bylaw whatsoever. They appreciated that we brought the matter to their attention. They have no problem with it. And uh there they do recognize
that um what happens at those regular Monday meetings is that u if there are any violations of bylaws or interactions uh with the department that u they are
discussed at those Monday meetings and that if this bylaw is enacted and then there are any violations that that would become part of the regular reports on Monday meetings if that were
to come to play. I think that was basically what I heard from Tony. That's correct. That's absolutely correct. So they have a process and along with us the police department and the university police department where when uh there's any uh affiliated
parties with the university that that are either um ticketed or fined or uh get into some type of trouble um that's applicable to the dean of students. We report it to them and they handle it on their end administratively in terms of
either sanctions or any type of uh classes that that a student may have to take um to try and remedy the situation. So I guess the question first question for members of the committee is uh before we get into the draft itself. Um
okay let me uh pause for a second. Uh is Jennifer Tabas joined us. Jennifer can you hear? We just need to confirm that you can hear us and we can Oh I couldn't till now. Yes I can. My apologies for being late.
No that's a problem. And uh we went straight to the bylaw and um I'll fill you in later if you wish. Uh but we um chief and I described the process of development of the draft which we're
about to consider and uh um we spoke about um the meetings with the um people at the university uh dean of students and in particular and that they have
absolutely no objection um to the bylaw. Um, and so, uh, that was basically where we were. And I think where you came in, I had just asked a question to see if anybody had, uh, questions about the
process, um, that we used in that I used in developing the draft. And if not, um, then I would go on to the draft itself. So, I'll pause to see if anybody has any questions
processed so far. So, seeing none, um I think this is where we go. Um can you see is it on your screen?
Yes. Yes. Okay. I need to uh see if I can get the uh so what um we're looking at is that um
it is what what I did um at the request of uh councelor Hani was to try and put it in general in the format that all of our bylaws are when you look at the by
at the compilation of bylaws And so when you look at the top, that's what it's all about. Obviously, there's no U section number. Section numbers, as I understand it, get assigned
um as uh we um after it is after a new bylaw is adopted that that's a responsibility of the clerk. And I think that's the town clerk, not the clerk of the council, who
u maintains the bylaws and updates the bylaws. And uh so that the clerk would assign a number to it and place it into the compilation of bylaws if um adopted by the council. Athena, if I stated that
correctly. Yes. Okay. Uh Bob. Yeah. I think this is mislabeled. It says penalties for violating the open containers of alcohol bylaw. Yeah. Uh that needs to be changed.
But the the question I have to to the chief is what's the difference between a criminal enforcement and a noncriminal dis disposition? I mean, I thought I thought the point of this was to have noncriminal
way to to to, you know, impose a penalty on people, right? And so that's what the fine is. The fine would be a civil fine. Um, so I think that would have to be changed to in terms of criminal enforcement. Um, the $300 fine would be no different than uh how our other bylaws are enacted,
like an open container or whatnot. So, the only time that it would become criminal is if they don't appeal it or choose not to pay the fine. Um, it provides an additional option for our officers to be able to utilize a noncriminal uh action instead of an
arrest. Okay. Thank you. And as noted, the mistake on the top was is that we used the I used the uh open container uh bylaw as a uh and then
substitute the bottom section. Um and it I will make that change. Um councelor Ryan. So, um, just following up on the chief's comment, is there any change that needs to be made to the actual text? Um, or can it stand as it's written? So,
obviously that the header needs to be changed, but the line criminal enforcement and noncriminal disposition, is that the correct language or does it need to be changed? I I think it I think it needs to be changed because the criminal enforcement is not is not a fine. The criminal
enforcement is uh either a summon to court or an arrest. uh a criminal offense would not uh attach a fine to from the police department. That would be imposed from the courts uh from a judge uh after um it's gone through the
uh legal process there. Uh but we would not impose any type of criminal fine. So that particular language should be changed. And Andy, do you have a sense of what that would be or would we consult? I mean, I don't know. So that's why I'm
asking. Um um and so maybe we'll just have to maybe we'll have to find out what the right language would be, but I don't know. I'm sure Mandy would know, but I don't know. Um
we could um ask uh when this uh if this is approved by the committee today it then will go immediately to go and to um KP law town attorney.
So we would ask town attorney. I guess the question that I have for you as a committee is uh since this is the language that is in the open container of alcohol bylaw
and it has been presumably reviewed and approved. Should we leave it in and just ask if it's appropriate for this bylaw or how do we want to state the question? Uh, councelor Lord. Um, I have a question for Chief Ting. I
think Wait, it it it's probably out of your control in terms of the criminalized enforcement. Um, thinking about our more vulnerable populations like the unhoused, is there anything? Can you hear me? Yep, I sure can.
Okay. Is is that something that's beyond because that's like judges and different jurisdiction. Is there anything we can do around that in terms of finding ways to help? So, you know, in terms of if this bylaw
was enacted, you know, certainly um you know, that's not the focus of of this particular I consider it a tool. You know, this gives officers an additional tool to utilize in certain situations where uh arrest criminal charge might not necessarily be appropriate and a
warning might not necessarily be appropriate. So, this is something in between. Um certainly our officers have a ton of discretion in terms of being sympathetic and empathetic to our unhoused populations and certainly um we are not looking to target any particular
group of people. Um, but this town is pretty unique being a college town. Um, and when I spoke with the chief in East Hampton, um, you know, they rarely use that particular uh uh fine for for any of their community because they don't
really have that type of problem. But we do have a problem and certainly we receive uh a ton of complaints especially surrounding uh the college community especially when there's house parties off campus and there's students that are roaming around. So really it's
it's to combat a quality of life issue and really the focus is not on our unhoused population and certainly our unhoused population. we understand um as a law enforcement and agency that they're they are probably not going to
be able to pay a $300 fine. And usually when it goes to court, the courts will recognize that and they will probably eliminate that fine. So, it's kind of pointless for us to issue a $300 fine for anyone that's unhoused. Anyways, um
our officers recognize that and certainly uh that's not our focus. So again, there's a lot of discretion here and you know, our our department is very sympathetic and empathetic to um that segment of our community. I hope that answers your question.
Yeah, it does. Thank you. Thank you. And of course uh on the noncriminal disposition if it um u something is issued a ticket is issued u
it would carry a $300 fine and therefore the uh department would have to exercise some discretion on whether to issue any kind of citation at all. Is that correct? That is correct. You know, every
circumstance is a little bit different. Um, you know, just uh the past couple of weekends, there were a handful of arrests for this exact issue. Um, where the particular people involved became uncooperative and a warning did not seem
to suffice uh for the officers. So, the uh the the people involved ended up getting arrested. Uh, and that would have been a good situation for um a potentially a $300 fine uh versus an arrest.
And the rest of course would uh be the criminal enforcement side. Jennifer, yeah, there's more clarification. So we can keep the three for our bylaw the $300
fine for noncriminal disposition that is within our local jurisdiction to determine but the criminal enforcement is that where we wouldn't put it in mount because that's up to the court or am I misunderstanding that?
I would say yes. So usually when we enforce uh criminally there's no fine attached, right? Um, so therefore, the co the courts may impose a $300 fine or they may knock it down or eliminate it. So that's really out of our hands.
So then Andy, when we um when you present this to go and KP Law, should there be no amount by the criminal enforcement? um my inclination and I'm gonna what I was going to do is uh just highlight it
at this point so that we know that we need to talk about it needs to be discussed with KP law but um sort of strikes me that uh they should be aware that this comes
from another bylaw. law and that uh Mhm. for consistency sake, right? This ought to be examined as an issue that we've identified through this discussion because if it's wrong to do it for this,
then why is it right to do it for the open container law? Yeah, exactly. Um because it doesn't just pertain to this the chief it it pertains to even the open container. We wouldn't set that fee, right? And that's not the bylaw that's
before us. So, is there anything else we're going to talk about of penalty? And otherwise, the next section is uh the uh section A on prohibitions and exceptions. And that
is the section that is from East Hampton. And um I guess the one thing that is different from what our prior discussion was is that um it adds to the um
defecation in addition to urination to the bylaw. And of course um that is not something that we've discussed. Um though obviously the sponsor is aware that um it was added because it's in
both the LOL and East Hampton bylaws. Um and you know I'm going to give my general observation then ask the chief what his thoughts are about this. Uh I think that there have been problems
from what I understand from prior discussions of those of um issues um related that um there have been people who have you have defecated in places like the lower level of the
parking garage and um that it is a uh public health issue. in addition to um the other reasons for having this bylaw
and uh that that's why um I think that the other communities have uh continued have listed it um and uh so I I left it in based upon the two
bylaws I was looking at. Um, Chief, did you have any thoughts on that topic? Um, yeah, I mean that's been an issue. Uh, certainly we've also had a similar issue in Sweetster Park um, uh, all summer long and that's actually subsided
thankfully. Uh but there were um you know our our DPW workers were encountering uh human feces and um there were reports of people that were uh using the bushes in and around that area uh on a consistent basis. Um, see our
um, it's difficult because I understand that in the center of town there are no real public restrooms and I'm hoping that that that Portland loo when that comes in um that's supposed to uh be placed at Kendrick Park. I think that
will really help in that effort. Uh however, with that being said, um the issue down in the parking garage was was a major issue where there was uh there's consistency uh on a daily basis where there's uh urination and feces uh that
were discovered in there uh to the point where the DPW was was getting really fed up. Um, and we have had multiple meetings with all of our stakeholders, the the fire department, the health department, the crash department to try and find ways to mitigate that. And it's
uh it hasn't been fruitful. Um, and again, I'm not saying that a $300 fine would be something that we would necessarily use in that circumstance. Um, but it's just an additional tool for us. Uh, in the event that it's appropriate, we would have that there.
Um, so that's that's kind of my focus on on why I support this particular bylaw. And I gather that uh it's not one that you frequently or if ever have caught people in the
act. You find the evidence of uh the the behavior, but you don't see it for the most part. Um in certain groups we see it uh c certainly with the college community um we we catch them in the act
all the time and certainly it makes sense because they are they're traveling and they're drinking alcohol and and they're um you know not able to find a restroom in time. Um so we frequently see it within that particular segment of
our community. Um, you know, certainly with uh other segments of the community, you know, we we may we may see it on surveillance uh cameras, but in general, you are correct, Mr. Steinberg, that it is not something that we catch in the act.
But you would uh do you do you recommend leaving it as uh we found in East Hampton and L where it's both urination and defecation? I would I I agree with that simply because you know again those situations
are are far and few uh but they do happen. So in the event that there's like I said if it's appropriate um whether it's an encounter with with an officer or it's an investigation again it's a tool that just can be utilized. I
would rather have it there than not. Councelor Ryan, I think this is a good example of why it's valuable to have people like Chief Cheng and other members of town staff come and speak to us uh on issues uh in
this particular case, this particular bylaw. Um I really wasn't aware u I'd heard vaguely in the background uh the issue related to the parking garage and I certainly wasn't aware of the issue related to Switzer Park. Um, and it, you know, this is just just an observation.
I I think this isn't really about the bylaw, but it's it function, it comes from what we've been talking about. Um, that the that the problem that the chief's describing is something that, um, I think it's important that we as counselors be aware of. Um, I don't
think a bylaw is going to address it. I don't think the chief thinks that's the answer either, at least with the the defecation issue in in the garage. But it might uh be something for us to think about as counselors as a policy decision and a broader issue of the fact that
there are not uh at the current time any public restrooms that are accessible. Um and hence that's probably one of the major reasons this is happening. So um that's just an observation and u that's that's it.
Okay. So, um, well, thank you for those comments. Um, let's go on. Is there anything else that people want to talk about in section A?
If not, then I'm going to go into section B. And uh basically um what we found what I found I'll take responsibility for it was is that u
I liked um lol's uh definition better than a public place definition than eastampton u though both of them were not perfect but the thing that was
of greatest concern was uh the the whole subject of front yards, backyards, and driveways is actually not in the East Hampton bylaw. And uh a lot of the
complaints that we get are from parties um where people leave the party um and you use the neighbors uh u property. And we want to make sure that we're covering
what is a major problem which is the the property that are near to um the location of the the party that is uh bringing people together and um causing
uh the problems to an extent. So I ended up taking the lol and I eliminated some pieces from it if you compare the two because there are some things that you know just exist in the infrastructure of
the city of lol. Um that are not really applicable for um us. Uh I think that there was alleyways, vioaducts, things like that that we just don't have. And
so I shortened it and then rearranged the order um a little bit to make it um hold together a little bit better. Um but that's where I ended up and that's
the section that has been um reviewed now a little bit by others but um obviously today it's the critical point because I think the committee needs to be comfortable with it. So is there any suggestions or questions
about public place definition? Seeing no questions from the committee, um I guess the uh next thing that we just need to do is uh where where we are is that we would we want to change the
mistake in the title which it'll be I can do easily and uh we've highlighted the criminal enforcement which we want to bring to the attention of KP P law and uh
the uh I think that the motion would be along the lines of uh uh to recommend adoption of a uh
of a of a uh def urination and defecation bylaw as provided. um because we'll have that one the change in the very top where the penalties
um with the request that um the town attorney u review the inclusion of the criminal enforcement and find in the proposed bylaw and other bylaws of
the uh town of Ammerst. I would make that the motion. Anyone seconding? I'll second. So, it been seconded by Bob Hegner. Um,
is there further discussion on the proposed bylaw? Andy, did I hear correctly that you're asking for town attorney review of all the town bylaws? Uh, that was my question. Or did I misunderstand your motion?
That's what I heard. That's what I heard. It is actually what I think that we came up with was because we got into this question of uh making sure that our bylaws are consistent. So it became bigger than this. if it's
inappropriate for this bylaw that at least we uh well Andy I think that's a discussion that may come out of the review but I think in the motion that seems a bit broad uh we really don't we're not I don't think we want to ask KP law to review all of our bylaws I think what
you you you are correct we want them to um help we want them to we want to understand why uh the other bylaw is different from this um but I think this motion should be focused just on this bylaw and uh and that we should leave it
at that. Um and if I can jump in again that the charter does provide for a periodic review of all the bylaws. Um and G's review of this proposed bylaw would include clarity, consistency, and
actionability. So consistency with the other bylaws as part of the go review. Should we be including the request that they look at the criminal enforcement? Yes. As a part of the bylaw that we're proposing and leave it at that.
That would be my suggestion and you could include that in your report and the memo to go. So we'll uh if it's okay with you, let's amend the bylaw or amend excuse me the motion that
uh motion is to uh that we recommend adopting the uring defecation bylaw as drafted. um and request that the town attorney
when reviewing it um may um give attention to whether it should include the criminal enforcement and the fine connected with it. I think that's fine. We will if we're not referred to any
other bylaws. So that that is now the motion Jennifer. Yeah. you know, at the end of the council meeting, Anna, you know, asked, you know, us to let her know if there were any parts of the any of the bylaws
since they're going through the bylaw review that we would like go to look at. So, I mean, we'll flag this, but that's part of what they're asking for and they probably wouldn't notice that if we don't flag it. So, I think it's
good that we are. Uh, Jennifer, go is looking at rules, not bylaws right now. rules. Yeah. Oh, never mind. Never mind. And we will actually be talking about rules later a little bit in connection
with the transportation advisory committee, but uh I think that that's uh that's a different topic. Um so we have motion on the table. Um, let's v phone on it and then um I may
have one other question of uh chief on a different subject and um then we should let him go because I think he's in another meeting he needs to get back to. Um so I'm going to call for a vote if there's
no further discussion requested. See no one raising their hand. Um let's go. I'll just go in the order of my screen. Bob Hegner. Uh, yes. Council Ryan,
hi. Uh, Jennifer Tab, yes. Council Lord, hi. And I'm a yes. So, it's 50. It's unanimous vote. And uh we are now recommending that it be reviewed by the
U town attorney and go for clarity, consistency, and actionability. And I think that we are on course um that this uh could be adopted before the end of this council term. Um so I wanted
to thank uh the chief for bringing this to our attention. The other question I wanted to ask you, Chief, go quickly, um, is that a little bit later we may have a little bit of discussion about, um, the Heatherstone Road roundabouts.
And uh the reason that they were recommended initially was that there was um a concern that uh repaving the road and removing that um center um section in the northern
part closest to Pelum Road might encourage speeding and that if there wasn't something that was done um that there was a risk of speeding. um from your experience now, do you do you
still do you think that that's a concern that um we should carry forward or um because I think that there's a we're we have recommended removing the roundabouts and in putting in other
structures for traffic calming. Is AR is traffic coming an issue? Um, I think it's always an issue no matter what to be honest with you. And you know, it's not just um that particular area. It's really all over town. Uh, there's speeding issues all
over the place. And um, unfortunately, we can't put traffic calming in in every neighborhood. And I understand the complaints of uh the roundabout structures and if they were removed um there would probably be a little bit of
an increase of speeding, but I think that there's other measures that that might be appropriate to put in there. Um so I think that's worth visiting. Um I don't think it would be uh I think you know from from the complaints that I've heard from the residents, I think they
would they want it removed. Um, and really it's it's their voices that that should really be heard in terms of um if they should stay or not. And I think overwhelmingly from what I've heard is that they don't like it. Um, so I would
certainly take that into consideration. Okay. Thank you, uh, Council Riot. So, Chief, again, it's great to have you here. Um, because we can ask you questions. And one of the things that
that I hear when you talk about this and when I hear others talk about speeding in town is that one of the key tools, perhaps the key tool is enforcement. And my understanding, and listening to you, um, has been that, um, you're severely,
um, uh, limited in your ability to do that. um that you simply need you need more bodies. Um that given the current staffing levels um traffic enforcement is something that of course you do and you do it as best as you can but um it
you are hampered in that regard. Is is that a fair statement or or no? I think that's very fair. That's very fair. You know unfortunately we don't have the staffing to uh have any consistency um to have enforcement. So for for example in that particular area we may
have an officer there here and there uh in between calls but again there's no consistency and so therefore um I think the the residents of people that travel through there uh I think they recognize that and so even if we do have enforcement there here and there um it's
it's truly not that effective. Thank you. Okay, Jennifer. Thank you. I really appreciate um the chief's you know comments and you know analysis of of the situation on
Heatherstone. I completely agree and again this is not in the police department it's in DPW but I would just put in a plug in terms of traffic calming since we have had um speed bumps on my street. the speed bumps really do
slow down traffic. And I know that Heatherstone is in a queue and they're not near the top. And that one counselor made the comment the last time we discussed this in a council meeting that the speed bumps are hard for the snow plows, but that hasn't been the
experience on on my street. And the speed bumps again have you have to slow down and they're not so far apart that you can pick up speed between the speed bumps. So, um, as much I guess this is get a little off subject, but the
council can provide funding and prioritize speed bumps for the busy through streets like Lincoln or like Heatherstone that they are effective. Um, but again, this is more a a budgetary
um issue with and not a matter of, you know, enforcement in that in that respect. But I just I'm just hesitant when I you know I sometimes hear you know comments made even in the
council that because the mini roundabouts aren't working that you know there are no trafficcoming measures that can work but we do have some but I I agree with with what Chief Ting said has totally been my perception in terms of the residents that live on the street
and drive there and walk there day in and day out really feel the situation is less safe than it was before the many roundabouts. So, we should, I think, heed their comments and advice,
which of course now it's in the council's hands. It's really not the committee's hands further unless it comes back, it's referred back to us. Um, so that said, um, I don't think that
there's anything else. I We should let Chief get back to his other meeting. And thank you so much for being here this morning. And thank you. I appreciate I appreciate being u uh invited into participating in this and I thank you for your time
everyone. Okay. Well, enjoy the rest of your day and thank you and we will to uh our next uh issue of the day which is the transportation parking commission.
So um as we go down um what happened um at the go meeting and I should I I've sent to you um and is in the packet for the public
u the comments that were received and suggestions that were received from um AP Law and Um those are now being discussed by go at the go meeting on
this Tuesday. They have uh successive meetings this uh this week and next week. During this week's meeting they talked about the committee charge and at next week's meeting they are going to talk about the u council policy and
public ways. Um so um it was divided into two pieces. Um what the agenda says for today's meeting is um that um report from the government organization
and legislation committee meetings. So that's what I'm going to do. But I can only report on what they talked about. So it's only about the u the committee charge and um it is you it
is available for you to look at there if anybody is interested in um watching that section of the meeting. I can tell you this when it is. It takes a um it's it's it's about an hour or a little
less. Uh if you get to that section of the meeting so you're welcome to look at the meeting itself and you can contact either Athena or me and they'll forward because I think both of us have the
link. um the issues that came up for discussion. Um I came down to four and I um um the uh chair of the committee um
who's honored Devon Cathier knows that I'm bringing these four matters to your attention from their discussion and the first had to do with the composition listing two counselors
and um there was some very strong feeling on the committee that um when is a matter of consistency with
other bylaws and other actions of the uh of the council that designating two counselors, one to be the vice president of the council and the
otherred to be the chair of the finance committee or designate, which is the way that we listed it, that they're concerned about whether that is um actually consistent
and u they uh talked about u the normal procedure of letting the of the and I think that the other issue that they brought got forward was that uh
the town manager is making appointments and uh so we u we when they're councilor members of committees we make recommendations as a council
to the uh to the uh town manager but the town manager makes it then makes the appointment for with confirmation ultimately by the council which just
happened with councelor Ryan being uh appointed to the Jones library building committee. I think that was the most recent example. Um, so that was their concern and um I
think that they would u probably um prefer to have it be just listed as two counselors. Um and uh I um so I there'sn't much else that that I can
say. I don't know. Um Athena was at the meeting so she might have something else to add if uh but I think that that was what the discussion was. So uh counselor Ryan uh first just a small point of order.
Could we stop the screen sharing? Um oh thank you. That's that's all right. I I just keep looking at urinating and defecating and it's just Yeah. Uh good point. uh see if I can I mean the if we could put the alcohol I maybe I should look at the alcohol line but
um the other comment briefly is that I I agree 100% this should be stricken it just should say two two time counselors um is is my two cents Jennifer so is the assumption still that the
council will recommend or that town manager will select if I were the town manager I wouldn't want to have to select. I think I think that it's a matter of consistency and u that they would recommend that it be consistent with all other similar
situations where the town manager is appointing a counselor that it be up to the council to recommend two counselors to be appointed to the um commission and uh then it goes to the town manager. I
don't think that the town manager has ever uh not right appointed. So you're saying here is instead of designating like vice president and some that the council select recommend two counselors.
I think um their discussion was to just to remove the part that says who is recommended u the vice president of council and the the chair of the finance committee or designate remove that and just have it
listed as two counselors. uh and that is what their preference was. Um what they recognize is that if uh this committee is not in agreement
with that change that it would then ultimately be a matter that they would bring to the council as a whole that there's an inconsistency of view. Uh and so we do we could go ahead and
take the issue to the council. Um or we could just decide that we agree to the recommendation of go. Um Athena, do you think I've stated this fairly? I think that captures the discussion accurately. I think there were a few
issues that go thought the council should take up um because they were substantive rather than pertaining to clarity, consistency, and actionability. And that was one of them. That was one of them.
So, and I'm trying to stick with one at a time as opposed to going through the four issues, uh, listing them and not discussing. So is there a feel u do you think that uh
we should just uh have a some kind of motion that would allow us to take a vote that we are in agreement uh with approving the designation of the counselors and just have it be listed as
two counselors. Bob, you had your hand up briefly. Yeah, I was just going to say I don't have a problem with just eliminating just reducing it to to two town counselors and not specifying who they are. I think you know
the council can decide who they want. Okay. Um, councelor Ryan. So, I'm prepared to move that we strike chair of finance committee or designate comma council VP. I move that we strike
that language um from the document. Second. Okay, this motion made and seconded. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, I'll just go in the same order as I went to before. Uh, Bob Hegner. I
council Ryan I Jennifer Ta yes council Lord I and I'm an I. So it's unanimous and uh I will uh report that along to go.
The next issue I'm just going to read what I wrote in my note which is uh the word request came in into the um
document and the question is what was meant by request? was recognized that requests from and I wrote back and said to um the chair of the go was recognized that
requests can arise from many sources including town uh staff, school staff, counselors, residents, businesses. Um and uh the um if there is a need for
revision of language for clarity purposes which is what their discussion was about um that they should be aware of that and uh I don't know that any action is needed
because if they came in with clarity with using something like that with clarity to and felt there was needed for clarity that um that was not problematic. Uh but I wanted to bring
that to your attention and see if you have because I really was speaking as an individual as not as a member not on behalf of the committee. Councor Ryan.
I mean, the language reads, "Approve requests related to public ways delegated to the TPC by the town council." So, I I don't really see a problem here. I don't know. I think that they would
like to have more clarity to what the definition is, what what is meant by request. Well, unless they have language they want to propose, I certainly don't have any. I find it perfectly clear. So, I I guess I would need to have them tell me what's so unclear about it. Do you have
any sense of what they thought? I mean, clearly if they didn't have any suggestions, so um we're left in the dark as to what it was that they are in the dark about. seems clear to me. Am I the only one who doesn't have a problem with this?
Trying to see if I can get to Yeah. Anyway, I just, you know, usually go makes recommendations. If they have problem with clarity, they they they offer alternate language. If they don't have any alternate language, um, then it would be helpful if someone could explain to us what they find so unclear
about this, unless someone else on the committee here sees right away what the the problem is. Um, I don't. Well, the comment that was public ways request, what they did was that they recorded
what their discussion was and it was u and what was recorded was that u make sure we clarify who can raise requests in the public way policy
and that that is the extent of what was said there which is why my comment to her was really what we had talked about before and I gave her the listing of where we
thought that requests could come from isn't isn't it clarified in the document I mean in other words as you go through the document it it clarifies um you know what requests are appropriate because they're requests that are related to
public ways that are delegated to TPC by the town council and that's going to be specified um in the uh policy which is the other document. So it's true you're going to have to go to the policy to get the answer but the answer's there. Um
we're certainly not going to put the policy um in in Yeah. So it the way it was clarified was um go see the policy Right. Anyway, I I have no I don't have any
language to propose. I don't understand what the problem is. And um you know, so I'd say we just go on. And if they change if they propose a change in language then but they didn't. So well they didn't yet. U
well they just reviewed this document, right? They didn't they didn't they reviewed the document. They did deliberately did not vote. Oh, they didn't vote. Okay. All right. So, they have no um they would have to come up with um
alternative language and if they want to be a little bit more specific, then that's their right to do so because they need if they're concerned that there's a clarity problem, then they should uh um act
accordingly. Um, I said I was going to report on their discussion today. It doesn't mean we have to act on their discussion. Um, and we did on the first. We chose to do that on the first. We can just leave
it and say um and not respond further and I can let the committee know. I think that the more difficult discussion is going to be next week when we get into policy because there's so many different pieces to it.
Um the next issue is related and again going back to and it had to do with uh whether the intent was to replace CLI
fix or create a separate system for issues that are more than maintenant. Uh what what what was uh let me see if I can find this actual section again of
the policy. Um it was question of com complaints and requests related. Um so the comment was the committee discussed this sounding as if the TSO
would be de uh was suggesting that TPC would be developing something to replace um any existing systems for example Cclick fix and uh
you know I think that our intention was that we are one suggesting that that be something that TPC can do
if it wants to improve Cclick fix or use some other system that that would be a decision of of the commission. it would not be something that we would that we're recommending in any detail
and that's why we left it very general. I think that's where it is. And I'm not suggesting that we do anything. I just said that I would I was trying to point out that that was an issue that was
brought forward. Yeah, I don't see this as a as big an issue as evidently some people did. I mean, DPW can bring um issues of road repair to the TPC. There's nothing, you
know, to stop DPW from, you know, C, you know, Cclick fix is mainly for potholes and things like that. Um, you know, and if if something else comes up that that
requires, you know, like speeding or something like that, they can be referred to the TPC by DPW, right? I mean, or the TPC can can create their own system if they want. I mean, I agree
that it's up to the TPC to decide what they want to do, how they want to gather information from the public on on the on the on the streets. And I think that's the way that I handled it. As I said, I responded to um
the committee TSO committee chair and I fair for you to know what I what I said to her in u an email and I was speaking again for myself. I
made it very clear that I was speaking for myself and not um on behalf of the committee since we hadn't met. I said the complaint procedure could replace cclick fix or create a separate system for issues that are more than about
maintenance of current roads. This will be a decision of TPC. Cclick fixes complaints about roads as currently configured and regulated. It does not address issues such as the current request to eliminate a parking
place on Amity Street to provide better visibility, requests to change speed limits, requests for traffic calming measures, etc. And I pointed out that Northampton has a system with a special form that
being can be completed through the city's website. Um, and that's that's all that I said. I did I didn't make any recommendation. Um, so it was purely to try and flesh
out things to the conversation that took place at the TSO meeting. So if there's nothing more to be said, u we can go on to the last topic.
Then the last thing um was regarding the cons there was a concern about access to town staff and uh there that uh there's always a feeling that giving any
committee um access to town staff when there's an an issue that um Paulo is always concerned about about u placing demands
on the time of staff is something of concern and uh so I should uh we need to recognize that um Paul had
proposed that the police chief or designate superintendent of public works or designate and planning director or designate be members and that they are listed as members of the committee as he recommended.
Um and uh I suggested that um the question was really not about those department where the bulk of the questions will come up. I think the other one was uh
probably quite frankly finance because uh the ability to pay for something is always an issue. Uh but that uh they they need to u when they come up with um
what they believe to be appropriate that they could say that they do need to recognize that three departments are al already heavily involved and that this really needs to be focused on other
departments within town government. So that was those were the those were the issues that they discussed. Councilor Ryan. So Andy um looking at the document um and there's a large body of text in at
least in my version in green um that seems to be language that's been added to the charge by KP Law and uh is that that is correct. correct that that language and um are we just accepting that as
just that's they're the legal experts and they get to put the language in and that's that or do we need to look at it and make sure a we understand it and b we're okay with it because it's it's two paragraphs of detailed language um that
um I'm just beginning to look at. Do we have any say on it? Is it just we just uh it gets put in there because KP law says it should go in there? Um the second paragraph for instance says from time to time the town council may
elect to itself make a final decision on an application or request. The word application is a new word. I don't I don't know where that came from. We've never used it. Um, but nevertheless, delegate to TPC responsibility for
conducting a related public hearing. I don't know what that I don't know what that means. I mean, you're in the which are you in the I'm looking at that the the only, you know, there's only tiny changes
actually. There's the only real change that's to the document on page two. I am looking at the right document. Correct. This is the charge draft committee charge document. It's the second page under charge. Um there are uh two full
paragraphs of language that have been introduced and I thought we should at least uh people should read them. Um and if we have any questions or concerns because this is new language um and it
comes from KP law. So, is it C five? Are you down to five? No, we're looking at the charge document. We're looking at the charge only, right? Only the charge. They haven't gotten to the public ways policy document yet. So, that we don't Wait a minute.
Yeah. You want to look at the charge? I If we can get it up on the screen. We get it up on the screen. Would be nice. I'm looking at it on my computer, but uh So, it's the one in the file that says KP comments. I'm seeing if I have it available and it easily to
bring up. I believe I do. [Music] Let's see. So yeah, in both paragraphs there's language of application or request and I don't know what application mean. I see maybe. Yeah. Yeah, I was looking at the charge
document. Yeah. No, I guess I wasn't. Never mind. So you're on page two. Okay. On page two. Yeah, it's a it's a four-page document. Right. Right. I'm looking at with green, pink, and purple.
Yep. That's that's it. Okay. And the language that KP Law is introducing is in green. Depends on who's your computer actually, right? Is that true? I don't know.
Yeah. But you're talking about um under the section that's labeled charge, right? On page two. On page two. And that the second and third paragraph as list as shown which are underlined
and in color. Right? So maybe this is legalized language, maybe it doesn't mean anything but um this whole approach has been about requests for changes to the public way. And so
people make requests. They say, "Could you do this? Could you do that?" Town staff says, "Could you do this?" They're not making applications. They're not applying for anything. Um yeah, applications, that's another universe, I think. I mean, so um that's my first question.
What what does application mean here? Um probably the rest of it's fine. Just But basically, let's just take application out of for a moment. It just says that TPC shall make individual findings of fact based upon the pending request. I'm
going to take out application documentation as well as any information, evidence or testimony provided by town employees or other person. The TPC shall seek input from appropriate town staff prior to making
final action on any application or request. So, it's repeated repeatedly and I would like to take it out. Um, if it I'm sorry. Go ahead. I think some of these questions some of these questions pertain to clarity,
consistency, and actionability and they're going to be taken up by G. I think this process is getting a little bit confused if TSO is looking at the legal review that go considering. All right. So, okay. So, since they haven't voted on it, they haven't making any decisions. Um, they haven't finished their review.
Okay. Um it's it's one thing if there's substantive changes that TSO wants to weigh in on um and then send that feedback to go for their um for their review, but some of these clarity, consistency, and actionability questions
are are within GO's perview and they're going to look at those legal opinions and additions. So, I think we're just getting into a little bit of like which committee is doing what, muddling things up. So, I'm going to strongly recommend that you let go kind of tackle those
questions. I mean, we could point out the the word application, we don't understand, but um the only thing that in that paragraph that you're looking at, but go talked
about was changing the word staff to employees so that it would read um seek input from appropriate town employees, which is a minor thing. Um, and I think for there are they actually
were talking about u two other some other things in the next paragraph. They would change it instead of from time to time. It said the town council may reserve the right to make a final decision on an
application or request, but nevertheless delegate to the TPC responsibility for conducting a related public hearing. And then they put a time within 20 days of the public hearing.
TPC shall provide to the town council detailed individual findings back then when they would complete that paragraph. So that's the kind of discussion that they had at the um
at the go meeting. But uh Athena's point is to just let them make uh the that they're dealing with uh the actual language uh for clarity, consistency, and actionability to make
sure that it u can flow and be an actionable process and uh that they should just do their work. kind of slow and I'm going to say that I'm also on G oil so I can make sure to bring up the
the the confusion around the word application if that helps. It would help uh just because we don't know what it what it references since there is no thing that we know of that's
an application. Uh, councelor Riot. So, just a process question then. This is not coming back to us. Um, this will be voted by go and then it goes to the council and these kinds of discussions whatever they may be will take place at
the council. Is that correct? Yes. Good. So, we can move on to something else then because you've I guess you had a couple of questions that Joel had for us and that's what you were trying to address before I sidetracked us. Um so
good we now know. Okay. So if we have nothing further on this topic uh we'll uh and and the the more difficult one will be uh the discussion of the
policy itself because they u I think what I found is that uh AP law really was getting into sections of looking at the policy as a whole not just the amendments.
So that they were going looking at the entire policy as if they which they may never have looked at. I don't know. It's been that long that I can't recall.
Um, I know that uh Evan Ross was involved in drafting that original policy, but uh was in the first year of the council. And Andy, if I may, then the same same
uh response or same answer applies um when go finally is done with it uh and has made their determination. uh unless they have specific questions to you as chair about uh items that you can bring back to us. That document does
not come back to us. It goes to the council in whatever form they finally put it in and the discussion about that takes place at the council, not here. That's right. Unless the council refers it back to TSO. Thank you.
So going on then to next agenda items which are recommendations on council rules of procedure and ch uh changes to our committee charge the TS
committee charge. If the um committee is uh transportation advisory commission is adopted by the council just said commission not committee u Andy are you skipping seven or do we or
discuss really have anything to discuss at this point and so I was going to u just suggest that what we do is um put those into our
planning for the remainder of this council term as to whether we want to take any action. And the only thing that I would uh put forward is if there are any members of any of you who are members of our committee who would like
to work on either of those two issues uh reviewing the rules of procedure or reviewing our committee charge and would like to uh take responsibility for u leading the discussion at a future uh
TSO meeting to please let me know. Um I don't have a specific language recommendation. And I think that we just felt that it was important that um matters not get referred back to TSO
after the TPC has made a recommendation and that we want to make sure that the U council rules of procedure are amended accordingly to um so that we don't have
a a duplication of the process and um so that brings us to what is really the last item and because uh for discussion today which is what I actually felt we didn't have a problem with two hours
there were some issues that we've already that we've been assigned to as additional issues and we need to recognize them and get them into our planning. One is uh and Jennifer's the one who brought this to the council, the
Amity Street request that we heard um and was referred on Monday. Um we just need to put that on an agenda for one meeting and I think that it can be taken care of at a single meeting.
Um, and I would tend to do that fairly fairly soon just to get get it done. Um, and uh, Jennifer, um, yeah, thank you for putting that on a, you know, soon future agenda.
Would we um, invite Chief Ting and a representative from DPW? It doesn't have to be the chief. Just in terms of the traffic incidents, one of the questions asked was if it was a high rate of of traffic accidents, uh would we look to
the police department? That's where the traffic report came from or to DPW. So, I'm just wondering if the staff from both those departments weighs in on on this decision. Um I think I we can talk to DPW about that
first because they collect they get the data from the police department. they are in communication on this to and I think that that's why Paul wanted to have both departments represented on
the TPC so that it could just happen in a in a more routine and open fashion than it um currently exists but I think that happens already. And the question of that I raised at the
council meeting is a DPW question which is is there is there any issues that have to do with uh marking no parking for that particular space? Uh and uh I think the
feeling of the council was that it's not likely to be a problem. those who spoke but we didn't talk about it in in a sense of a decision. I think we just need to get confirmation from DPW on
that issue. Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else that we would need? Did you get the sense, Jennifer, that there was, and then I'm gonna get to Bob is his hand is up. Did you get the sense that there was actually an accident
coming out of that driveway or that they were just concerned because there had been other accidents in that stretch of Amity Street? Um, I don't I would have to look. I don't know that there has been one coming out
of that driveway. I know that I go to the dental office across the street and there has been at least one serious collision and I guess because I pull out of that driveway and make a so it's the other
side of the street. So it's well either way making left or right but it's it's pretty it's it's pretty scary because you do have to go out into traffic in order to see cars coming. Um, and I recall one serious accident, maybe more
out of the dental office. And again, you have people exiting that driveway who don't live on the street who may not realize how fast cars are coming. Um, but I just sort of empirically I
could ask the resident of 151 Amnity who um, you know, wrote to us on behalf of the homeowners association to try and get some clarity as to whether there's been accidents from cars leaving that driveway in
particular. Yeah. And I only raised it for the question of making sure that we're accurate in anything that we were considering a report. But the major point that they were making and that you just made by reference to the dental
office is that Amity Street is very difficult place to make left turns into because of visibility. Uh once you've uh you have to sneak into
the street far enough to be able to see and then you're already into the street part way. Yeah. It's really that they just go so fast. The cars are not observing the speed limit. just despite the installation of the
flashing sign on speed. Bob, that the flashing sign is further down than 151. So, right. Um, but my question is what other I mean, how many driveways,
you know, Jennifer, you just talked about another one, a second driveway that has the same problem. So, how many driveways have the same problem on Amity Street? And if if we fix one, shouldn't we fix all of them? Yeah. And part of it is the two um 151
in the dental office, you know, it's not just a single family home. I mean, particularly the dental office, you have a lot of cars coming and going, but that's part of it. It's Yeah. You know, but but the problem I mean I it's same thing I talked about at Cumberland
Farms. You know, people have to because Belchuretown Road curves around to the right. People have to nose out into traffic and some of them are cutting across to the the other side of the Belchuretown Road that that goes on the other side of the the bank there and and
it's a it's it's an accident waiting to happen. Um it's really dangerous. Um, but anyway, it just seems to me that if we're going to address one, you know, there's two now that that we know that are a problem. Maybe there's
others. Maybe we should have DPW or somebody give us a sense of how widespread this problem is, right? Because that Amity is a street where you have a lot of residences on a busy major thoroughfare.
I think that the other problem that we have to consider is the parking. Um does those aren't those spaces uh per for permit parking and they're used by a lot by town employees and other
employees in downtown. You don't need a permit to park there. I mean, you could park there. There may be per there's probably uh people with permits that park there, but you don't have it's not a permit only.
Wouldn't matter though. I mean, what we really concerned about is not what the designation of the parking is. That's a different issue. It's the uh fact that parking is allowed at all and uh
the loss of spaces is still going to be a loss of spaces. Council Ryan, we're straying. We're starting to have the discussion. So, we should just go back. Yeah, we're getting to the discussion. Yeah, we need to just make sure. So the
other one that was referred to us is even I think more difficult which was a pro u a process um for making decisions on uh burying utilities
that came out of the AMD University Drive roundabout discussion. And uh I think I would have to go back to the council minutes when we get them on exactly what the unless Athena knows
the answer. But there was a a referral to our committee on developing a uh some sort of policy or process. Cena, do you recall
or anything? Andy, are you saying there was a vote that the council had on this? I don't recall a vote. I recall voting on it. No, there wasn't a vote to refer anything to TSO. Um, Guilford Moy made a suggestion that a
group be formed, but that's not a we're bringing to the council at this point. Thank you. Right. So I don't think this is my notes are inaccurate and we get that straightened. Um so other ones that we need to talk about
um I think uh it is we develop our agendas for the rest of the term and then I want to see if you have any additional but I'm going to put two on. One is uh uh getting back to the
southeast street discussion in the new school and uh Kathy Shane raised the issue not at the last meeting but the meeting before and uh she had a very specific suggestion but
that while we don't seem to be in a position of making a recommendation on a major change um either in uh traffic lights or
u any any reconfiguration of road that we're we're going to end up with the school being open. Uh Kathy's suggestion was that uh at least there be consideration of the need for a traffic
light where the school buses will be coming out. Um, I think that it's probably a discussion we ought to have and I would put it back on the agenda and ask uh that Guilford be here for that
discussion. The other one is I'd like to have one last discussion on and report on waist hauler think and uh so I think that those are um
issues that I would like to get on agenda sir. Now I'm going to open it up for you to list anything you'd like to add. Councelor Ryan. So Andy, I had some internet issues
there for a second or two, but what I heard was Amity Street request that that councelor Tob is bringing and you want to bring Fort River back for discussion with Guilford present. There was nothing that those were the two items. Taller was the other one.
I saw there is probably u just a further report from Paul as to when we're going to likely see a consultant available
to work on the issue so that we can uh know how if there's anything that we'll be able to do during this term or whether it's just being left in the carryover memo. But one way or another, we need clarification on that.
I missed that. Thank you. So, yeah. Uh, so I was asking if there are other further, right? Council Lord. Um, yes. And it's a great segue because you just mentioned the carryover menu memo. Is that something we create
together? Does that need to be on an agenda or is that something the chair and co-chair will just tie up and send? So, I would suggest we put that on there if it's something we need to discuss as a a committee. We do need to discuss it as a committee. Yes.
Um my recollection in Senate from all of the prior times that there's usually discussion that then leads to chair providing a
drafted carryover memo and it comes forward. And there's one major issue from the last council that was in a carryover memo to us that we've never really addressed and I have discussed with the sponsors on several occasions and that
is the street light policy and um the uh lighting policy was uh proposed by uh out of Delin Graph here and councelor
Hani and uh at the last council and it was discussed substantially in the TSO of the last council. And then at the end u it was agreed that uh
Paul and Guilford should uh make a recommendation of a policy and bring it back and they have not done so. So, it's a rather weird situation, but it is a leftover issue from the prior council.
Um, councelor Ryan. So, Andy, you mentioned um the rules of procedure and the committee charge items, eight, and nine on the agenda. Um, I think you're right that that when TPC is finally done, and it looks like
it will finally get done, revisions would be needed. So that should be um I'm not saying next agenda, but that will be on I assume an agenda at some point to have the committee uh review um any proposed changes to the rules of
procedure or to the committee chart. Um and then I mean today we had an interesting example of something that just came up in the course of discussion uh with the chief. Um and that's the the challenge of I mean the lack of of
restrooms downtown. And while that hopefully will be settled at the Kendrick Park site fairly soon, though at the moment it's completely up in the air, um on the other part of town uh where the parking garage is and uh where
Sweets or Park is um there is nothing and I don't you know is that something that this committee would like to uh I don't know that's that's an issue of uh you know affects the community on many levels and I I don't know where that
falls. Um, I've also mentioned my desire to have the committee uh read and discuss the age and dementia study. Um, and talk about senior services. Um, we just have a new senior services director, so perhaps that's premature.
Um, she's going to need some time to get her feet under her. Um, but um, it's the perennial question for this committee. uh what can we take up on our own or are we always bound by um council referrals?
So, um, two things that I think of, one came up today. Um, you know, downtown restrooms, um, and of course, I've mentioned senior services before. When you bring up the issue, what can we take up on our own, is that really
something that um we should be suggesting be reviewed with committee charges, including our committee charge. Well, I think the committee charge allows us to do that.
My reading of it is is that we certainly are free to to as a committee to take up topics and discuss them. We don't need the council to tell us what we can or cannot do. Um but yeah, I think it's fair
question. I think that and Jennifer can fill us in on this if I'm wrong on what I'm saying gonna say is that CRC really took up so um the battery aspect of solar on its
own with Yeah. When did we vote on that? We also the well the two councils ago that's how the rental registration update that's what this way for that one CRC took it up and then we were told we
needed a referral so most of us on CRC were the sponsors and sent it to our went to the council and then back to CRC but I well if I can I agree with George on both the downtown public restroom and
senior services. And maybe can we put it on the referral, although we may be able to to for the next TSO to invite the new senior services director to come in and have a conversation about what they need or
maybe that could she started yes this week, right? So maybe she could still come in. We could meet with her in before the end of the year, right? We're not going to be able to do any action left.
I was just counting up this morning. Um, this committee really has only four meetings left and the council has only five meetings left. And the reason that I was doing
that counting is that um it was uh certainly the uh bylaw that we voted this morning needs two readings from the council and if we want to see that get done by
the council term, we needed to get it to go as quickly as possible. And so I will uh get that to the attention of both the chair and the council president
uh that we would like to see that happen so that it can be done with two readings um and adopted by the end of this year. The other one is that um
at the other at the go meeting uh Lynn said I believe that um the dis the committee charge could be voted in one meeting but that is a matter of policy even though it's not a
bylaw that she thinks that there ought to be um two meetings scheduled essentially. a first reading and the second for action for the changes to the policy to the council policy on the public ways
and uh so that there's um she was trying to put some pressure I think on uh go to make sure that it moved this its process along so that it could happen this year. But uh it ends up being December 15th
and there isn't much time um after for uh the action on the two items that we're talking about that follow. So I think we just need to just go ahead and say if you do it then this is what we
recommend and not uh not wait. So that's the way I thinking of approaching it. So is there anything else I should be aware of? Because what I would then do is uh work with uh the
vice chair, councelor Ryan, and we would come up with uh agendas for the next um for the remaining five meetings that are scheduled and uh get that back to you um
for review. And if that's uh agreeable, I don't think I think that would uh take care of today's agenda. Um just want to go back and look at the participants list and make sure that we
we still have nobody in the audience. So um there's no public comment today. Is there anything else we need to do? And if not, I'll take a motion. Move to turn. Second.
Second. Has been moved and seconded. And we'll vote. Bob Hegner. Yes. Uh Jennifer, yes. Council Ryan, I. Council Lord. Hi.
And I'm an I. So we are adjourned. And I thank you. And this has been very very productive because we got that bylaw on. Yeah. And I will send out with her little revision and it's make sure that gets done
and it comes along. Thank you. Thank you, Eddie. Thank you. Bye. Bye. See you at the block party. Yep. Yep.