WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=dasiYmNHUZY

Part: 1

1
00:00:01.600 --> 00:00:19.119
Okay, I just started recording. >> Okay, so um this is the Transportation and Parking Commission meeting for Wednesday, July 15, 2026. And I'm calling the meeting to order u at 4 minutes after 4

2
00:00:19.119 --> 00:00:37.040
p.m. as a 4:00 meeting. And um the first thing to do is to uh make sure that all of the members of the um commission can hear me and be heard so that they can

3
00:00:37.040 --> 00:00:52.960
confirm it and then we'll go on to a quick agenda review and public comment is our next things. Following that, uh, we're going to get a report from the, uh, planning and process subcommittee

4
00:00:52.960 --> 00:01:09.840
and, uh, next, uh, and if they have any recommendations of next steps on the commission planning process. And then beyond that, we have essentially three issues that we want that we reserve time

5
00:01:09.840 --> 00:01:27.119
for. One is to return to the Mount Holio Drive crosswalk and the additional information that has been provided by Superintendent Moing and is in the packet. Um we want to um talk about um a

6
00:01:27.119 --> 00:01:44.400
parking issue problem uh near Kendrick Park and uh if we have time to a little bit of discussion about uh traffic calming in general. Um, one thing I'm going to note is is that uh after the

7
00:01:44.400 --> 00:02:00.799
last meeting, which was our first Zoom meeting, it became awkward about use of first names or not use of first names. So, I decided that for this meeting, I'm not going to use first names at all. So, um, with that said, I'm going to go

8
00:02:00.799 --> 00:02:17.120
through and ask people if they can confirm they can hear and be heard. Mr. Bag >> here. Uh, we know that Mr. Lifer said he's be late and I don't see him on the screen. Council Mloud

9
00:02:17.120 --> 00:02:33.360
>> present. >> Superintendent Morning >> here. >> Uh, I don't see Mr. Trudalt yet. Um, Chief Ting >> here >> and Mr. Trumbl >> here.

10
00:02:33.360 --> 00:02:50.480
>> Okay. If anybody would like to have me recognize them in another manner besides what I've said, um, let me know now or in the future by email. Um, but I'm going to stick with the plan. Uh,

11
00:02:50.480 --> 00:03:05.840
>> Andy, I'm not going to take it personally, but Councelor Ryan is also here. >> It's all right. >> Yep. Councelor Ryan, thank you. >> Yeah. >> I'm glad you didn't take it personally. Uh, I thought you were so engrossed in

12
00:03:05.840 --> 00:03:20.560
the game that we uh weren't going to get your attention anyway. Uh, so that said, I guess the uh going to look at the uh we have a couple members of the public uh present, I

13
00:03:20.560 --> 00:03:38.080
believe. Um, and uh we do we have three members of the public present. We do allow public comment and I'm going to allow public comment now as posted on the agenda. Public comments can be on any matters

14
00:03:38.080 --> 00:03:54.159
that are within the jurisdiction of the commission. Uh residents are welcome to express their views for for up to three minutes. Uh um I would cut it shorter if there was a lot more people present, but

15
00:03:54.159 --> 00:04:09.599
which I'm permitted to do, but I will allow three minutes today for anybody who wishes to offer public comment. Um and uh the commission will not be engaging in dialogue um or comment on the matters raised

16
00:04:09.599 --> 00:04:26.000
during public comment. So, are there any members of the public who would like to be recognized and to offer public comment? If so, please raise your hand. I think we have one person, Matthew Mattingley.

17
00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:42.000
Um, so >> you can talk now. >> You're in the room, so please uh proceed. >> Hi. Um, I'm commenting in regards to the Mount Holio crosswalk and I really just want to express my appreciation to your commission for dealing with it so

18
00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:58.000
quickly and so so thoroughly so far. I know you have a lot on your plates as George said and um I'm sorry as councelor Ryan said and uh I just I want to also say that we are you know committed to this for the long

19
00:04:58.000 --> 00:05:13.840
haul. So as things develop, we will be, you know, with you and trying to pursue this project even if it takes a long time to get funding and all that kind of thing. That's basically it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much for your comment.

20
00:05:13.840 --> 00:05:31.840
Uh is there anybody else in the public who wishes to offer public comment? Seeing no one else raising their hand, I will uh recognize the public comment is now concluded and u which means that we can

21
00:05:31.840 --> 00:05:48.400
go on and uh as we go through I think that there are documents that were in the packet. Um I assume that the packet was posted for the public. I will make sure as we

22
00:05:48.400 --> 00:06:05.919
>> but um in any event uh we will get items on the screen um and there are items that are related to the issues that are going to be raised by the planning subcommittee and process subcommittee

23
00:06:05.919 --> 00:06:24.560
and regarding Mount um Holio Drive. There were a number of things that uh were provided. Um so if they're not the public comment packet didn't get posted yet uh I apologize but and if it did um

24
00:06:24.560 --> 00:06:38.720
but we will show that on the screen. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Miss Chambble, who's the vice chair of the commission and the chair of the subcommittee,

25
00:06:38.720 --> 00:06:58.080
and um ask you to uh give the report and um Great. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um Gilford, can you pull up I don't know. Are you Do you have the packet, Gillifford? I do. Where is it on

26
00:06:58.080 --> 00:07:12.720
the packet? >> It's um after it's um >> it's at the very end pages 15. >> Oh, yeah. Thank you. >> All right. I will >> Hey, Greca.

27
00:07:12.720 --> 00:07:28.400
>> Oh, let's uh before I before we go further, uh since uh Mr. Lifer is present. Um I just want to ask if you can hear us and uh to assure that

28
00:07:28.400 --> 00:07:54.800
we can hear you. It's a pleasure. >> You're muted. I think he froze >> and he's screen sharing. Oh, >> if if I am able to

29
00:07:54.800 --> 00:08:12.479
>> I can share mine. It's right here. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Did uh Okay. >> Great. The next page, please. >> A little bigger.

30
00:08:12.479 --> 00:08:26.800
>> Yes, please. Thank you. >> Hi all. Sorry about that. I can I can hear you. Um, okay. Uh, my computer froze and I guess decided to screen share, but uh I I can hear you. And can you guys all hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay, great.

31
00:08:26.800 --> 00:08:44.000
>> Thank you. Okay, so in the last uh subcommittee meeting, one of the um um we we started out discussing um how the portal, which is now complete and

32
00:08:44.000 --> 00:08:59.120
still I think is not live for a reason. I need to investigate and um Kathy is unclear why it is not yet live. But um one of the first things we discussed which actually is not on here includes

33
00:08:59.120 --> 00:09:15.360
um where the portal should be located on the website. And clearly it should be um it should um be in at least we um came up with a list of places um a link

34
00:09:15.360 --> 00:09:30.800
obviously on the transportation and parking commission um potentially on the DPW site in the how do I um uh portion of the um submit a service

35
00:09:30.800 --> 00:09:48.399
request which is also on the town site. um potentially on the um police site um and potentially also on the parking site. Um and we're um currently in

36
00:09:48.399 --> 00:10:03.920
discussion with it about how um that will look. But those are the the subcommittee decided those are the places that um the TPC um portal should be um located.

37
00:10:03.920 --> 00:10:20.000
Um the second um point that we discussed in the subcommittee includes um uh whether so Kathy will to intake um this

38
00:10:20.000 --> 00:10:41.120
information and we'll do at least a um keep a list of the um an Excel an an Excel sheet with requests as they come in. Um she will also issue a um response

39
00:10:41.120 --> 00:10:59.200
that includes um uh uh the request, give it a number as listed here was submitted to the Ammerst Transportation Parking Commission staff on whatever date for review and we will

40
00:10:59.200 --> 00:11:14.000
be in touch with you. And I think actually we said within the next 3 to 4 weeks that's a mistake. Um and and I think that's an appropriate time frame. Um and then the next

41
00:11:14.000 --> 00:11:29.200
question really was um who reviews the requests for appropriateness? like cuz we're kind of thinking that maybe um people won't necessarily know that potholes for example don't belong

42
00:11:29.200 --> 00:11:44.959
on the on this request and um what I after discussion within the committee and then I also followed up with Kathy um what we uh thought should happen is

43
00:11:44.959 --> 00:12:00.959
that Kathy could kind of do a first pass and um update with um the committee chair to make sure at least it's an appropriate place for any particular request.

44
00:12:00.959 --> 00:12:18.240
Um and uh and so can we just go down a little bit? And so the followup will be that first email from Kathy directly and

45
00:12:18.240 --> 00:12:35.120
information on how to um uh you know that they may also email her for further updates or something like that. However, we're also um keeping accountability within the committee

46
00:12:35.120 --> 00:12:51.839
itself and someone will get in touch with the requesttor um when any dis any definitive kind of decision has been made. Um so the

47
00:12:51.839 --> 00:13:08.800
next item is and and this was um well I'll get to that in a second. Okay. And the other thing that was discussed within the committee itself is how the

48
00:13:08.800 --> 00:13:23.519
list is um shared because it turns out that the um the site which is a I forget exactly

49
00:13:23.519 --> 00:13:38.560
it's some kind of uh I forgot exactly what kind of site this is. Is it a.gov site or something? But it cannot necessarily not all it really only needs to have one

50
00:13:38.560 --> 00:13:57.680
person have access because of um any kind of inadvertent comment would be part of the public record. Does that make sense to people? Um, and so for that reason, Kathy will uh take those

51
00:13:57.680 --> 00:14:15.839
requests and put them in a Excel sheet which can then be shared with the committee. And exactly on which type of forum and whether or not we want to get an update each time a request came in.

52
00:14:15.839 --> 00:14:31.440
To me, that seems a little excessive since probably all of our inboxes are um a little full. I thought potentially um you know, getting an update once a week might be reasonable. Um that's

53
00:14:31.440 --> 00:14:50.959
certainly something we can work on and change as um time goes on. Um uh and um furthermore uh yeah and so we can't also the part of

54
00:14:50.959 --> 00:15:06.639
the problem is that um there might be issues with we can't discuss among ourselves. So it would be a sharable list but it wouldn't be a commentable list if that makes sense. So you can't comment on it. So, we're not sharing

55
00:15:06.639 --> 00:15:23.519
information on that. We're just obtaining information, each of us. Um, and potentially, so I think that's all. Could we go down a little bit, Guilford, please?

56
00:15:23.519 --> 00:15:38.639
Um, yeah, just to the next page is actually kind of good. And so, um, one of the issues on the subcommittee is how the the requests are

57
00:15:38.639 --> 00:15:57.600
partitioned and potentially um shared with relevant stakeholders such as um speeding would be um a a speeding potential issue might be something that

58
00:15:57.600 --> 00:16:13.120
would, you know, We would check with the police department or high for example high uh someone stating that there's a high crash uh incident in a particular location. again, police um or um other

59
00:16:13.120 --> 00:16:28.639
types of issues that might be more um for the um public works department um that we would kind of need this information as a committee before we intelligently discussed any particular

60
00:16:28.639 --> 00:16:46.000
request. Um so farming it out to the relevant kind of the people who had the information before we as a committee um talked about it or should we be the ones as a committee

61
00:16:46.000 --> 00:17:01.360
to decide who the request goes to and this is still an un we did not come to a consensus on that particular part of the process and I'd be interested interested in hearing

62
00:17:01.360 --> 00:17:20.319
um comments on those items that item. Does anyone want to comment on whether all items, all requests that are relevant to the commission come to the

63
00:17:20.319 --> 00:17:37.000
commission first and then we request information on them or we send it to the relevant parties first and then discuss after we get information.

64
00:17:37.919 --> 00:17:54.160
I would suggest sending it to the commission first. >> And why is that? >> Uh because it's a central location where all items there may be uncertainty as to the nature of the um request. Uh in

65
00:17:54.160 --> 00:18:10.880
other words, it sounds like there may be quite a lot of different types of incoming and it's uncertain the magnitude of them. may delay. I I it just from a system systemic point, it seems that way to me

66
00:18:10.880 --> 00:18:27.360
that they come to a central location for then determination. That's you asked, so I'm >> Yes. No, thank you. No, that is exactly it. Um, councelor Ryan. >> Yeah, I spoke to this at the subcommittee. I I felt like Sam that um

67
00:18:27.360 --> 00:18:45.679
it should start with us. I I was uncomfortable with sending things out without any sort of context or just farming them out to the to DPW or police or whoever and they get it and they're like, "What are they supposed to do with it?" Um, we should be I think we go to

68
00:18:45.679 --> 00:19:01.039
them and say, "Okay, we got this request. We've had a preliminary discussion and we'd like information in this, this, and this area." Um, so again, I agree with Sam on this. Gisha uh my thought is maybe something about a hybrid approach is that if there

69
00:19:01.039 --> 00:19:15.760
there's going to be certain requests that we get where I think it'll slow down our discussion if we don't have some basic amount of information. Um, if there are certain types of requests where we already know, okay, in order to, you know, sort of have an informed

70
00:19:15.760 --> 00:19:32.000
discussion about this, either we need crash data or we need photos of the location or we need something that's not going to be sort of, you know, easily obtainable uh over the course of the meeting, you know, by going to to Google Street View or something like that. Um, then I think that's something that maybe by the time

71
00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:47.679
that we discuss it, that information should be included. Um and then you know for requests that are sort of outside that just basic list of uh whatever you know whatever list we come we put together of of types of requests and the information that we need then we discuss

72
00:19:47.679 --> 00:20:02.559
them first discuss what information we need. Um and that's something that might become clear as we field more and more requests and realize okay we really need this type of information. I don't think that's necessarily something we have to decide now. Um, but I think in the future that might help expedite the

73
00:20:02.559 --> 00:20:19.039
process because I don't think we want to be having discussions, you know, to say, okay, we're going to discuss your issue and then say, well, we actually don't know anything about this. Here's the information we want to put together. Um, and then sort of I I just feel like that stretches the process out.

74
00:20:19.039 --> 00:20:33.760
>> Yep. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. Um I am a little bit hesitant to rush to a discussion within

75
00:20:33.760 --> 00:20:50.799
the commission. Um for uh and to one is that uh we could lose control over our agenda and our time and spending so much time at the beginning. But we really

76
00:20:50.799 --> 00:21:07.520
don't know because we don't have experience yet of how frequently we're going to get requests and the complexity of requests. But we need to make sure that we retain the flexibility

77
00:21:07.520 --> 00:21:25.679
that uh we don't lose control of the process by making an initial review of the uh process which would be for the most part an uninformed review because we don't have the fa the facts yet. uh

78
00:21:25.679 --> 00:21:42.480
take over the time that we have available for the meeting and as we try and manage and use our time. And I think what we really want to make sure is is that we identify um priority projects

79
00:21:42.480 --> 00:21:58.159
um and uh then move them forward and get them get the information that is needed in order to make um some progress on whether how to address the issues that

80
00:21:58.159 --> 00:22:17.679
are brought to us as a request. Um and I so I'm a little bit hesitant to establish a specific rule. Uh I think that making the uh requests available to

81
00:22:17.679 --> 00:22:33.520
not just the commission but to the public um in in an efficient and prompt manner is important. But the discussion of it, I think we need to hold that until we see how this process moves

82
00:22:33.520 --> 00:22:51.360
forward and what the demand is. >> Yep. Yeah. To me that that does make sense. And um so okay, councelor Ryan, >> so I just for clarification's sake, if a

83
00:22:51.360 --> 00:23:08.240
request comes in, say somebody wants traffic calming, maybe speed bumps on their street or somebody, you know, makes a request there's a speeding problem on on West Palmy Lane or somebody says, you know, there's a parking issue at Kendrick Park and I think we need to look at it. Um I just

84
00:23:08.240 --> 00:23:25.039
want to understand what happens then. Does that are you imagining a scenario where without us talking about it or anything it immediately gets sent to DPW or it gets sent to the police or we're going to at least have some conversation or some discussion about

85
00:23:25.039 --> 00:23:41.039
you know yeah just help walk me through that give me an example and what what what happens when a resident says I want a speed bump on my street. So to me what the first thing is a discussion of speed bumps and the pros

86
00:23:41.039 --> 00:23:54.320
and cons of speed bumps because there are a lot of limitations about speed bumps that as a lay person before I had this full discussion a a full discussion I had no

87
00:23:54.320 --> 00:24:10.400
idea about. So I think um so so I think toward toward um um Mr. Ryan's Mr. Steinberg's um uh

88
00:24:10.400 --> 00:24:26.080
suggestion of maybe you know first deciding kind of trying to do this case by case is potentially to me a useful

89
00:24:26.080 --> 00:24:41.760
exercise because then all of us will begin to understand how complex some of these requests end being and then there of course there's also the prioritization piece of it.

90
00:24:41.760 --> 00:24:58.080
>> Well, I guess my question is just a very factual one. It doesn't just get sent somewhere else right away. It's something that for in this case we would have on the agenda at some point talking about that issue or about speed bumps um or is it just immediately gets sent to

91
00:24:58.080 --> 00:25:14.159
Guilford and then Guilford says what am I supposed to do with this? Um, I think we have to have some role in this from the start. >> Um, and it sounds like that's what we're going to do, but a case by case is fine, but um, if I hear about a request for a

92
00:25:14.159 --> 00:25:32.320
speed bump and I, you know, it immediately goes to Guilford and he says, "Well, what am I supposed to do with this?" >> Why don't we ask Guilford? >> Exactly. Guilford, what would you do with it if suddenly this came to you? Um, so, so if you asked if it came in and you sent it was a speed bump

93
00:25:32.320 --> 00:25:48.880
request, the one the one thing I can do or two things I can do is one, we can pull up the speeds in the neighborhood. We we do have that program which gives us the speeds on a certain street. So, we can give you the speed data pretty quickly. The second thing is is we can

94
00:25:48.880 --> 00:26:05.279
look quickly and say is it even feasible or feasible to do it and give you those two things. So you get speeds and you get feasibility and then I'm not sure if the police could give us if there's accident or been complaints on the

95
00:26:05.279 --> 00:26:22.000
streets go with that. But but those might be the three quick things you could possibly get if you sent it to the staff first. So you'd have that during the discussion. >> Okay. And those would all go towards prior, you know, prioritization too, I

96
00:26:22.000 --> 00:26:38.080
think. Yeah. But I I think just having a discussion about everything that comes in >> is a little over it's because there are one thing I've learned being on the commission the TAC for over 10 years is

97
00:26:38.080 --> 00:26:54.000
that all of these issues are much more complex than I ever imagined many. So Kim, you're imagining the the chair and this I'm yeah I think this makes sense but without having any discussion

98
00:26:54.000 --> 00:27:10.000
you get a speed bump request you send it to Guilford and when we finally do discuss it whenever it gets on an agenda we already have some of the information we need in order to have a fruitful discussion. Um but it's the chair's call. I just want to figure out who makes the call. Um it's not going to be

99
00:27:10.000 --> 00:27:26.559
the commission because we're not going to talk about it. That's fine. But the chair would look at these requests and some of them he just immediately forward on or someone would forward on to the relevant department. So say a speeding issue and so the chief uh you know or Kathy herself gets this request about a

100
00:27:26.559 --> 00:27:43.279
speeding question on a certain street in Amoris um then I assume they immediately or over the next week or so they're going to generate some data about that. Um and then when we have the discussion we have some data to talk about it. So, I just want to know who makes the call

101
00:27:43.279 --> 00:28:00.240
>> and it sounds like it's the chair. >> Yep. >> Fine. >> That's what I would suggest. Um, councelor McClaid. >> Mloud. >> Mloud. Sorry. Sorry. >> Thank you, Kim. Uh, and I don't mind being called Sam. Uh, Mr. Mloud or Sam

102
00:28:00.240 --> 00:28:16.159
is fine. Whatever the individual who's speaking to me wishes to refer to me as, uh, is fine. Uh, Sam, Counselor Mloud, whatever is good. Um it see my thoughts are that you know comes to the commission and when I say to the

103
00:28:16.159 --> 00:28:33.679
commission it goes to the chair uh it's on the list and there's apt to be information needed for certain requests uh and an inquiry could simply be sent saying we'd like information on this. So

104
00:28:33.679 --> 00:28:51.520
the next step is requested but it still resides you know it comes initially to uh the when I say the commission you know whoever the representative is of the commission that receives it. Uh but I it seems to me it should uh and a

105
00:28:51.520 --> 00:29:07.120
standard protocol could be set up as we proceed. Uh it may be for speed bumps or for whatever we're going to ask for these informations. Uh it I'm not I don't need know why it needs to be one or the other. Um I think

106
00:29:07.120 --> 00:29:24.399
the chair of the commission should retain uh control over any incoming in terms of the process whether they want to be discussed or not. That's up to you know the chair sets the agenda. Uh hopefully according to priorities uh but

107
00:29:24.399 --> 00:29:41.919
a simple email this is a speeding issue. We'd like this information. Maybe it's just semantics that we're talking about here. I'm not sure. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Steinberg. >> Yeah, I there's a lot of information

108
00:29:41.919 --> 00:29:59.840
that is behind all of these. I think that uh Mr. Trembllay has uh emphasized that already which she talked about what she learned at TAC what I've learned over the years of my service in various capacities from

109
00:29:59.840 --> 00:30:15.919
select board to council to GSO and now to this body. Um there's a lot of complexity to most of the issues we deal with and uh the amount of information

110
00:30:15.919 --> 00:30:34.000
that people have um at this point is um varied by our work experience and our volunteer experience and I'll give you a couple of examples. I think as we proceed we will have a better

111
00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:50.559
understanding all of us about the complexity of those issues and u so that's one of the things that I've been continuously thinking about uh an example is speed limits u I think

112
00:30:50.559 --> 00:31:05.840
there's two different questions with speed limits uh at least two I think that chief ting is probably going to give me a lot longer But uh one is how the state uh law and

113
00:31:05.840 --> 00:31:24.000
the uh DOT regulations allow for municipalities to establish speed limits and there are and it's a complex issue u and there's uh you know really have to

114
00:31:24.000 --> 00:31:39.519
understand that the second thing is and uh I was uh reminded this in a discussion with uh Superintendent Moing um last week and that is uh when we're

115
00:31:39.519 --> 00:31:58.399
permitted to put signs up um is not only regulated but um is apparently um in the being reviewed right now by do u I think most of uh some of us know a

116
00:31:58.399 --> 00:32:14.080
lot about the subject of the manual of uniform traffic control devices and some of us may never have heard that term whatsoever. uh but I u hope that within a fairly

117
00:32:14.080 --> 00:32:30.799
short period of time that everybody's going to be uh familiar with the concept of the the um both the state adaptation of the manual and the manual which is from the Federal Highway

118
00:32:30.799 --> 00:32:46.240
Administration that sets out um a number of things about how you post and mark roads so that there's uniformity for and clarity for um users of the the

119
00:32:46.240 --> 00:33:04.320
roadways and uh but you know we have to be in the end very conscious of that and uh so we are going to I think that over time we're going to end up adopting different processes but we do need to

120
00:33:04.320 --> 00:33:21.919
move forward as quickly as possible to talk about things such such as those that I've >> so I'll just leave it at that. >> Mr. Bag, >> thank you. Um,

121
00:33:21.919 --> 00:33:37.600
I think I'm okay with this approach at least kind of for this initial period of time while we understand how how many requests we might get and how it looks for us to like learn about projects that kind of got submitted but are just in

122
00:33:37.600 --> 00:33:53.360
quue or in process of data gathering that kind of thing. So, I'm okay with this but you I do want to think about it from the homeowner perspective. I want to make sure that if they are sent immediately to staff people that staff's going to be providing information and not asking them for information cuz I

123
00:33:53.360 --> 00:34:10.399
think so, you know, if I'm a resident and I want to ask about a speed limit change on my street, I I don't think it's fair for them to be burdened with figuring it all out and go gather information and come back to us. As long as they're being assisted to to find information, I think that's helpful. Um,

124
00:34:10.399 --> 00:34:26.720
I'm just worried about the resident who kind of gets a know and doesn't get enough information and they might they might want to come to the commission to to learn more or understand that they have this other avenue to have discussions. So, I I'm open to this idea. I just want to see

125
00:34:26.720 --> 00:34:43.679
how it plays out in the long run. I I don't want residents to feel like they get completely moved away from the commission and never to be seen again. Um, and I I trust that Guilford's office can provide the data and information, but you know, feasibility is kind of a

126
00:34:43.679 --> 00:34:59.119
broad term, like if it's just determined it's just not feasible, like are we as a commission going to know why it wasn't feasible? What were the factors that gave someone just a no? Like, it's not even going to come to the commission. Just the the feedback loop

127
00:34:59.119 --> 00:35:16.880
of information is kind of what I'm trying to follow as we as we get a little bit more into this. So, so one thing we did discuss in the subcommittee and I encourage um people to check out is um the Northampton um they're they

128
00:35:16.880 --> 00:35:33.040
have you know a process for um dealing with issues like this and they actually have I I found this really helpful like um tabs you can click on about all of the

129
00:35:33.040 --> 00:35:46.880
reasons why or why not one could have for example a stop sign installed you know so getting to your like the you know it already pre-explained a lot of like more

130
00:35:46.880 --> 00:36:03.119
common kind of requests which I thought I found really helpful because because it goes towards you know someone might say it's not feasible but you can actually look on why you might not be able to install

131
00:36:03.119 --> 00:36:18.880
a particular thing or a speed limit change or whatever. I think that would be something really ideal for our committee to actually end up establishing, you know, as we go through different types of requests because I think that's super important.

132
00:36:18.880 --> 00:36:36.000
>> Yeah. And I think that could be built understanding how many requests came in and went went to went to questions and if there was a if there was a resolution like not feasible. Like I think it would be helpful for us to measure this a little bit over time. Like if we're getting a lot of stop sign requests and

133
00:36:36.000 --> 00:36:52.800
they got submitted and then determined that they weren't feasible. I think as a group we just don't want to lose track of our group understanding that all those inquiries are coming in and kind of getting um shot down or or whatever because I think we want to be able to learn from that too. So that the feedback loop is where I'm I guess I'm

134
00:36:52.800 --> 00:37:07.760
focused but so that's helpful >> for explaining that. >> Yeah, they really did a great job on this if you ever want to kind of explore how they do it. And um councelor mloud >> uh thank you Kim the uh your suggestion

135
00:37:07.760 --> 00:37:25.119
uh Kim or uh I >> tremble me if please correct me if I misleabel anyone. I'm not intending to >> uh it I think it's a great suggestion. Any FAQs that we can generate would certainly be extremely helpful uh for

136
00:37:25.119 --> 00:37:39.520
applicants. I also agree with Jeff's comment regarding uh concern for feedback. Uh it seems to me that if inquiries come into the form that goes to the commission, the communication

137
00:37:39.520 --> 00:37:57.680
back to the uh individuals who have applied should run through the commission as well via whatever method that might be. Um otherwise we may have five different types of communications going out to the

138
00:37:57.680 --> 00:38:14.079
uh or multiple communications going to the applicants. >> Yeah, >> it just seems to have to make a lot more sense to have a central response whatever that may be. Information is going to need to be solicited uh or known from other you know whether it's

139
00:38:14.079 --> 00:38:30.960
the police department, DPW, planning, whoever. Uh but the response I think it should be central to the um applicants apply on a for you know if this were not the town they apply on a website uh hey

140
00:38:30.960 --> 00:38:48.000
what's going on with this the response should come from that website in this case it would be the commission that's how I would envision any uh back and forth going >> and so so one other thing just because I hadn't I'm not sure if I got to this as

141
00:38:48.000 --> 00:39:06.880
well is that we we would have a list of a public facing list of the requests that would um have and again this is mirrored after um what Northampton has done is um where they are in the process

142
00:39:06.880 --> 00:39:24.720
and um where each request is in a process and um if a resolution has been made what the that resolution is just um and that is something we um we definitely can do and will will do

143
00:39:24.720 --> 00:39:39.760
something like that. Risha. >> So I I want to just sort of I think repeat what we've all been saying and just confirm that I'm understanding this correctly that uh essentially uh you know these requests are coming in the

144
00:39:39.760 --> 00:39:56.800
chair is seeing them and uh in in certain cases might be reaching out to uh other departments to source information but that's essentially the extent of the work that any other department would be doing uh before the commission discusses anything. Um and in

145
00:39:56.800 --> 00:40:13.920
fact, no department would ever be directly reaching out to the residents. All of that communication would come directly through uh our our commission. And so once we discuss, we might reach out to those departments more for a more detailed plan. But uh at no point would

146
00:40:13.920 --> 00:40:29.200
anyone other than the committee or or its representatives be reaching out to the residents uh or making a decision uh that sort of public facing or or even not even public facing just a decision at all about you know where this is

147
00:40:29.200 --> 00:40:47.920
priority wise you know will obviously be informed by what the people say but or what the departments say but is is that sort of everyone else's understanding as well? >> Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, um if there's no Thank you for

148
00:40:47.920 --> 00:41:03.680
that discussion. Um I feel like that clarified um and Greca just kind of restated the um discussion. I appreciate that. Um can we go? And so the final Oh, sorry. Sam, did you have

149
00:41:03.680 --> 00:41:21.280
>> Was there a conclusion to the points that were raised? I don't know that I heard one. >> Oh, I'm sorry. So I think the conclusion is that the chair well and actually he didn't ask the the chair what he thought about um being the keeper of you know

150
00:41:21.280 --> 00:41:41.359
kind of soliciting other departments for request like how you felt about filtering the requests before they come up for an agenda on a agenda item. I

151
00:41:41.359 --> 00:41:57.280
think that it makes sense uh that I work with key staff and the future chairs since I don't intend to be chair for life. As a matter of fact, I only intend to be chair for one year. uh

152
00:41:57.280 --> 00:42:15.359
that uh we have make sure that there is a chair designated to have that role and I think um as we get to proceed in in a pattern it will work well. Uh

153
00:42:15.359 --> 00:42:31.280
some of it is going to vary depending upon decisions that are made about future chairs. And I only say that because uh the uh director of department of public works is the chair of that

154
00:42:31.280 --> 00:42:46.880
committee in uh commission in Northampton and therefore um it has a very different role because uh and I think that that might happen here too depending upon who we have at various points in time as

155
00:42:46.880 --> 00:43:02.720
chair. >> Yep. That's >> but at least getting starting start as as a first step. This is comfortable for you. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great.

156
00:43:02.720 --> 00:43:19.040
Um and and um yeah, so you can discuss with Kathy, I guess, how how exactly um you know, you want to hear do you want to hear every every time a core request comes in or every week or something? But you can work that

157
00:43:19.040 --> 00:43:36.400
out with that. Um, okay. Can we go on to the final uh item? The other item that I have actually. Can I share instead? Am I able to share? >> You should be able to share.

158
00:43:36.400 --> 00:43:56.880
>> Okay, great. Because I actually have >> Oh, you want to get back to the chart? >> No, no, no. It's a little more complicated. So this is the chart that we have >> right >> I I have been unable to um share the

159
00:43:56.880 --> 00:44:12.960
whole Excel sheet because it's it's very extensive. Um so this is the prioritization list. Um and um we kind of decided that at least for now something like this would work really

160
00:44:12.960 --> 00:44:29.599
well. So, um it's scored, but it doesn't it doesn't necessarily have to be. And each one of these kind of subsections comes with a um a whole a sublist of

161
00:44:29.599 --> 00:44:47.280
how many points or how high to um score any particular issue. much more specific um uh list and I at the moment I'm not able to share it with you because it's such a

162
00:44:47.280 --> 00:45:02.480
a large item. So we'll have to figure out a way to share the whole thing. Um, but the total criteria include um, and I'm just going to go over those because I think it's important that everyone hears because uh, uh, what kind of

163
00:45:02.480 --> 00:45:19.760
thought went into this. And I must also state that this was created um, by the TAC many years ago as uh, a way of scoring multimodal projects. So projects that involve street and um sidewalks and

164
00:45:19.760 --> 00:45:34.720
bike paths and things like that. But I really like the way this is organized and this was um mainly by um produced by Eve Vogal um and um she shared all the work that they did with me and that's

165
00:45:34.720 --> 00:45:53.520
where this this is located in her her Google doc. Um so the first um important thing here is um network connectivity. So how well does the proposed project um uh you know

166
00:45:53.520 --> 00:46:12.079
link neighborhoods to the downtown? Does it um improve gaps in current um transportation networks? Um, does it increase, you know, walkability within um the the public and within the

167
00:46:12.079 --> 00:46:27.200
network? That's what network um um connectivity means. Um how well does it increase the um improve improve the transportation network in town? Um and

168
00:46:27.200 --> 00:46:41.520
does if it improves it a lot, then it gets more points than if it doesn't. And again, the degree of improvement um it there's a very extensive um list here um

169
00:46:41.520 --> 00:46:58.880
of how um what improvement kind of means more specifically um does it prioritize um does that transportation prioritize land use, economic development or other

170
00:46:58.880 --> 00:47:15.920
types of Ammerst um planning goals? Um and there's a whole list of those right here which is also you know there are a lot of documents um on uh that the town has created on envisioning the future of

171
00:47:15.920 --> 00:47:33.839
Ammerst in all these um specific ways. Um does it obviously safety is super important. Um does it improve safe and accessible pedestrian bike transit um driving you know in town? Um is it does

172
00:47:33.839 --> 00:47:48.640
it in um you know so here for example um intersection crossing or midblock crossing which might be the kind of thing that you're uh that were that's on the agenda item today like a crosswalk um through u between neighborhoods for

173
00:47:48.640 --> 00:48:07.119
example. And finally, um, fairness and support in Ammerst. So things like, has it been in the queue for a long time? Has this particular project been in the queue? Um, have neighborhoods rallied behind it? And um, is there strong

174
00:48:07.119 --> 00:48:23.520
support from residents or businesses in the neighbor neighborhood? Um, and does it not have an impact? does it negative um not have a negative impact on um vulnerable populations? Um and then of

175
00:48:23.520 --> 00:48:41.280
course final is timeliness, feasibility, cost effectiveness. So um it could be um that a street is currently getting improved and at the time it makes sense to also put in a sidewalk for example.

176
00:48:41.280 --> 00:48:55.920
The street is already being improved. it's the right time to install a sidewalk. That would be um timeliness. Um is it uh will that particular improvement

177
00:48:55.920 --> 00:49:12.880
last for a long time? Um for example, so those are the types of priorities that we um prioritization list that we could really get down in the nitty-gritty with. Um and the whole committee seemed to agree that this was a pretty

178
00:49:12.880 --> 00:49:28.800
comprehensive type of list. Um so we decided that this is the kind of list prioritization list that we would be interested in using. And I know it's really complicated and I

179
00:49:28.800 --> 00:49:46.960
know I encapsulated I like said a lot um in a short amount of time but there also has been a lot like I said each one of these um each one of these items you know are divided into um smaller bits that could

180
00:49:46.960 --> 00:50:03.920
be you know we could give a value to each one for example. Yes Mr. Bag >> thank you. Yeah, no, I agree. This list is great. Um, I think it's a it's I it's I didn't know this existed and I think it's really helpful. Can you clarify

181
00:50:03.920 --> 00:50:19.119
sorry if this is a basic question, but can you clarify whether whether the discussion was that when when a when a when a project gets proposed to us, we use this as a kind of scoring sheet or like even like a resident project or a town project. I I

182
00:50:19.119 --> 00:50:33.920
might have missed how >> No. Yeah. >> How you presented how we would use it. The idea is using this. Okay, we have all these projects that we're interested in. How do we decide which one to ch to, you know, there's a there's a set amount

183
00:50:33.920 --> 00:50:49.760
of money and time. >> Okay. >> Right. So, this is more about for for some projects that are kind of already identified or advanced more so than a resident who asked about a speed bump kind of thing. Okay. Yeah. I mean, >> although at some level, I'm sorry to cut

184
00:50:49.760 --> 00:51:05.599
you off. >> That's okay. at some level I think we could also use it for that as well. >> Yeah. I mean I also quick question was whether you felt like the committee needed to go through a process to update this or whether this

185
00:51:05.599 --> 00:51:20.960
could at least stand on its own currently as a resource for us. And and the last part would be like some potential of posting this available on the on the website might be helpful for guidance for anybody to kind of look at how

186
00:51:20.960 --> 00:51:36.720
how we would look at projects. So I like this a lot. I think it's great. I didn't know it existed. >> Yeah. No one a lot of people didn't know what our committee actually did. That's kind of sad. Um but anyway, yes. Uh I I

187
00:51:36.720 --> 00:51:51.359
don't know which of you were first. >> George George. >> So, um I envision this as something that we could use for just about anything, even our discussion today. Um resident

188
00:51:51.359 --> 00:52:07.200
requests. Um we'll see how it plays out. But the other thought I had was I wouldn't put too much focus on the point system. I don't know if we want to take them away, but I think what what I like about this is it identifies a series of

189
00:52:07.200 --> 00:52:22.640
broad categories within it a series of sub questions. Some will be relevant to particular projects, some won't. >> Yes. >> But it gives us a way to sort of shape our discussion, but I I don't imagine I would be sitting down with a pencil writing numbers down. Um I would be

190
00:52:22.640 --> 00:52:38.000
looking at, you know, the kinds of questions and then overall, you know, where things come out. Um, but that's that's just me. Yeah, I think this, like I said, this I tried to preface this was meant for kind of really large projects

191
00:52:38.000 --> 00:52:54.559
and how to prioritize multimodal projects involving streets and sidewalks and bike lanes and you know, >> but Kim, don't you think don't you think with a project like things we're looking at today um and maybe it's just me, but I would think that some of the questions

192
00:52:54.559 --> 00:53:11.440
that are, you know, criteria that are here would apply to something as specific as a crosswalk or but maybe That's yes >> maybe maybe not maybe not >> I do I do agree like for example you know does a cross you could think you know how many people is this particular

193
00:53:11.440 --> 00:53:27.520
project going to serve >> yeah and how much support does it get and how long has it been in the queue some of these are questions we'd be asking even but you're also right and I think um Jeff is right that this is also something could be very useful when you're trying to deal with some much larger projects um that are much more complicated and then maybe a point

194
00:53:27.520 --> 00:53:43.119
system might make more sense I don't know >> right I agree Okay. >> Right. >> Go ahead, Sam. >> Uh, thank you. Uh, we I chaired CPA for three years. We had forms like this um

195
00:53:43.119 --> 00:53:59.440
for uh proposed and uh provided to the members of the committee for uh and we had fewer projects that would come before us. there might be 10 or 15

196
00:53:59.440 --> 00:54:17.599
12 in a given CPA cycle with a fixed time frame for adjudication. Um, and what our committee did at that time was to uh recognize that it could be a lot of

197
00:54:17.599 --> 00:54:36.160
detail for individuals to go through to necessarily add points to each in determining if there is a conflict between projects, which ones they wanted to support more. Um so I see this as a great listing of

198
00:54:36.160 --> 00:54:55.599
the nature of uh decision-m or things to consider for individuals. Um uh personally uh I always preferred and would want for the individual to arrive at their own conclusion if there's an So

199
00:54:55.599 --> 00:55:10.960
I guess I'm wondering what's the how is it you what is the point total utilized for? I see this as a phenomenal listing for the purpose of issues that are going to come before us. Um, but is it, you know, are we going to be

200
00:55:10.960 --> 00:55:27.440
faced with one project versus another? Uh, or is it just the nature of things to consider? Um, that's that's my take on it. I I have one other question, which is um the cost, which it seems to

201
00:55:27.440 --> 00:55:43.440
me would be >> I think the cost is down here. Yeah, I I would envision the cost being a potential um you know is it a limiting factor on the front end that is to say of greater

202
00:55:43.440 --> 00:55:59.440
magnitude than might be referenced here uh in this listing. um if things you know is is funding available or not and separate from that what is the available pool of funding that might you know are

203
00:55:59.440 --> 00:56:13.920
we adjudicating between projects is what I'm getting at and if that's the case what's the total pie that gets sliced up. So those are my comments when I w or thoughts as I as I looked at the

204
00:56:13.920 --> 00:56:30.160
listing. I found it to be really uh uh informative in terms of uh have you considered this, have you considered that? But I struggle with point allocation as

205
00:56:30.160 --> 00:56:47.520
opposed to general here's what I here's my outcome for lack term. So to me what our you know so again the these were for a larger this particular was for larger projects where we did have to prioritize because there isn't

206
00:56:47.520 --> 00:57:05.200
you know in the next um you know road improvement season you know there's only a certain amount of money and so how do we help our public works director decide which projects get done and like to me

207
00:57:05.200 --> 00:57:21.599
This list is very you know giving things points which I agree is not appropriate for every project helps you to be more fair you know if you really these are you

208
00:57:21.599 --> 00:57:38.799
know so to me that's a lot of these ideas may um apply to particular situations but the really big the big projects. I think all of you know taking into account all of these

209
00:57:38.799 --> 00:57:54.240
factors is really important. But yes, I agree for smaller things. I I don't know. But I like the idea of trying to be fair. >> Yeah. Well, we had lots of projects of varying size, not massive roads, of

210
00:57:54.240 --> 00:58:09.200
course. I mean, there was a a budget maybe of a million dollars or so between all the varying, you know, plus debt. We'd go higher. uh and we'd take uh a number of the committee members would use forms such as these to organize their thoughts, identify their

211
00:58:09.200 --> 00:58:26.559
priorities, and then ultimately we went landed on a scale of we used a one to five. Uh here's here's everything we factor in, we give it a one through five for the purposes of a discussion. Uh in other words, the the forum didn't mandate the outcome.

212
00:58:26.559 --> 00:58:43.520
um the the thought processes and the discussions were the final but it was phenomenally helpful. >> That's those are my thoughts. >> And sometimes you know pots of money come up from the state that um if you

213
00:58:43.520 --> 00:59:00.960
have a list like this especially for major projects already kind of decided then you can go to the project that fits the pot of money that's available you know which may not be ours. you know, the towns, it may be something that we can apply for through the state. Um, if

214
00:59:00.960 --> 00:59:16.799
we have projects already in mind and they're on in the queue and we can identify them as being important, >> might there be a single fixed point in time where decisions are made such that there can be consideration of two or

215
00:59:16.799 --> 00:59:31.839
three different projects? you know, other committees, there'd be a a one-mon time frame where all and that's something I think for the chair and I guess the committee as a whole because my understanding is that we'll be receiving ongoing

216
00:59:31.839 --> 00:59:48.319
uh requests and uh some are smaller, some are larger and it's just a thought process. Do we, you know, how do we determine at what point in times decisions are made to allocate if we're seeking to compare one versus the other? >> It's a good point. Yeah. And I don't

217
00:59:48.319 --> 01:00:04.960
have an answer. >> I'm brainstorming. >> Yeah. Um, are there other comments? Because we have some other important items. This again, I feel like this list is is helpful. Um, and but doesn't necessarily

218
01:00:04.960 --> 01:00:20.240
have to and certainly the point thing can be come or go. I think for larger projects, the idea of a point system is probably more applicable, but um I like having a set kind of these set goals

219
01:00:20.240 --> 01:00:39.760
that are listed here for looking at for projects. So, and I'm done unless there's other um any other questions. >> Okay. Well, thank you. I

220
01:00:39.760 --> 01:00:56.079
appreciate the work of Minister and the entire subcommittee. It has really helped us tremendously. I need to call on Mr. Moing to help with the next item on the agenda, which is

221
01:00:56.079 --> 01:01:14.400
where we um need to continue with the discussion about the sidewalk um on West Street at Mount Holio Drive, which was uh last meeting's discussion and uh uh Superintendent Moing has done

222
01:01:14.400 --> 01:01:30.319
some additional work, quite a bit of additional work, and uh so I of his presentation and uh for the criteria that we were talking about. This is a uh a safety

223
01:01:30.319 --> 01:01:48.880
issue and a multimodal issue um very much because there is a sidewalk only on one side of uh West Street and uh we want to make sure that people that sidewalk safely and use it. that was

224
01:01:48.880 --> 01:02:17.920
thing if we could feasibly do that u and recommend that um so uh m superintend I'll share my screen here so everyone can see this little drawing we came up with

225
01:02:17.920 --> 01:02:34.319
So this is just a quick concept of what can be done and um so I will use my pointer a bit. So this is the existing sidewalk on the far left of the drawing.

226
01:02:34.319 --> 01:02:50.640
Um, so we would have to take out some of the existing sidewalk, put in a concrete pad, put in the ADA tactile pavers, and then we can come across, put in another tactile pad, and then then we need to decide as a committee, this is something

227
01:02:50.640 --> 01:03:06.720
we're going to run into a lot, is what do you do with the person when you get them across the street? Technically, you're supposed to drop them off in another accessible area. But there's not sidewalks everywhere

228
01:03:06.720 --> 01:03:22.160
else. So, do you just kind of make the drop off into the road and acknowledge that's the best we can do for now or do you try to do something else? >> Um, here we actually ran the sidewalk all the way down to a driveway, dropped

229
01:03:22.160 --> 01:03:39.599
them in a driveway. Um that that kind of added to the cost and the work because we have to catch there's a storm drain we have to install in this person's behind the sidewalk here and run it into the storm drain. >> But um >> this is the concept we can put together

230
01:03:39.599 --> 01:03:57.559
concepts like this pretty quick. It took about oh it didn't take very long. We had a we had a little gap in work. So um Paul Death here was able to put this together quickly. Um, so there's also a cost. You ready for the cost?

231
01:03:59.599 --> 01:04:15.839
>> Yeah. >> It's about $95,000. >> And that's because we chose to run it to the we chose to run it to the driveway. You could probably cut this in half if you run it to >> just drop the person off in the road after you get them across the street.

232
01:04:15.839 --> 01:04:32.240
>> Start that way. Um, >> so it's it's just kind of this is these this is the things that will come up as we do these. And then as a committee, you have to realize if we vote for either one of these, >> we're not truly >> meeting the ADA requirements. We're

233
01:04:32.240 --> 01:04:48.240
improving, >> but someone someone in the neighborhood could file file a complaint and say, "Well, you need to make it accessible some way." >> There's always a line you have to draw where you're stopping. And >> you have to understand you're going to make some people mad

234
01:04:48.240 --> 01:05:03.440
>> but you're going to make some people happy >> and I did it just you know I >> so this is kind this is kind of the rough thing we can do pretty quickly. Um >> I can say I I would say within a couple weeks and we get a request we can put something like this together and then

235
01:05:03.440 --> 01:05:19.920
come up with like this one. This one's easy. I mean, >> um, we can't we can't do it on the this is the south side to the bottom of the drawing. We can't do it on the south side because there's a large street tree. We would have to take the street tree out. We don't want to take the

236
01:05:19.920 --> 01:05:40.720
street tree out. >> Um, this is the best spot. So, this one's pretty easy to fit in. >> Any questions? And excuse me. You should ask Sam to mute. >> Oh, maybe I can do that.

237
01:05:40.720 --> 01:05:57.280
>> Can you mute Sam? >> I was hoping someone could mute him. >> I can do it. I did it. >> Thank you. >> I got the power. >> Um, on the left side of the map, is there a sidewalk on the left side of

238
01:05:57.280 --> 01:06:13.280
>> street? This is the multi-use path that runs along this side of the road. You can't see it very well in this drawing. >> Um, let's see. There's some pictures here. >> Sorry. And I wasn't present at the last meeting, so I apologize. Um, >> this, >> right? Okay. So, that's all on the that's all on the

239
01:06:13.280 --> 01:06:28.799
>> that's the existing sidewalk. >> West side. The west side. Okay. >> Um, and Guilford, can you go back to the sketch, which I think is great. I think if that's something that your team can produce relatively easy to kind of like bet some of these that's great. So are you saying

240
01:06:28.799 --> 01:06:46.079
that the is the minimum requirement to land on the yellow the yellow proposed landing on the on the um east side? Is that the minimum standard? >> No. If if we if we do if we do say this

241
01:06:46.079 --> 01:07:02.559
is as far as we're going to go, we would have to put another curb ramp down to the street and pretend like we're crossing another crosswalk, >> right? >> Um so there'd be a little more, but we could get rid of all this work here. That would be the minimum. >> Okay. Um that's helpful for me to understand.

242
01:07:02.559 --> 01:07:17.359
I mean, I think that it's not it's unfortunate, but it's not uncommon to see that minimum standard hit on the on the east side. And that's happening in East Hampton and and other places as well. But I in general, I don't know what the discussion was from

243
01:07:17.359 --> 01:07:34.079
the last. I do see some potential merit of trying to get people from Mount Holio Drive to that multi-use path. I think it the harder question is how far down Mount Holio are you chasing this? So, um I appreciate the discussion so far. I I'll stop because I I wasn't at the last

244
01:07:34.079 --> 01:07:56.880
meeting. um life. >> Uh so I think uh maybe this would be a good time to uh I know we have a few members uh from the uh from Mount Holio here um to hear what uh some of the the

245
01:07:56.880 --> 01:08:11.680
perspective on this is because I know there's not there's not sidewalk for most of Mount Holio Drive. Um and I think that's not necessarily the biggest safety concern because it's a relatively narrow street. you know, it's very residential. The people who are turning into it sort of, you know, know that the

246
01:08:11.680 --> 01:08:29.359
uh it's a residential neighborhood. Um the the crossing on West Street really is a big concern because of the visibility and because of the speed. Um so, uh you know, if we're talking about how far down Mount Holio Drive we want to go, it may turn out that uh that's

247
01:08:29.359 --> 01:08:48.560
not even necessarily a priority for the people who have already requested it. Tumbl. >> Yeah. So, my concern is how does I mean installing just a crosswalk really make

248
01:08:48.560 --> 01:09:08.239
this a safer, >> you know, make it safer to cross >> because I think the concern was children and crossing the street. So just putting in a sidewalk doesn't re I mean I mean a crosswalk doesn't slow traffic down. I

249
01:09:08.239 --> 01:09:32.880
mean it should but it doesn't. You know that's my concern. >> Are we still waiting on >> Mark? Do you have a comment on that? >> Um yes I do. So, the neighborhood brought up that the children in this neighborhood need to cross the street

250
01:09:32.880 --> 01:09:48.000
and go to Crocker Farm. And that's not actually true. Uh, if they if they stay in their neighborhood, there's actually a c a sidewalk that goes from the neighborhood to Crocker Farm. So, children would only I don't see it wouldn't be a daily occurrence for

251
01:09:48.000 --> 01:10:09.679
children to have to cross this crosswalk to go to school is just all I wanted to say. Chief Tink, >> sorry, just unmuting. Uh, yeah, in regards to the crosswalk, I just wanted to respond to what Miss Trembley was saying in terms of uh uh I mean, I would

252
01:10:09.679 --> 01:10:28.320
certainly recommend some signage. Um, to make that crosswalk a little bit more visible. So, that would certainly slow down some traffic, I believe. Thank you, >> Pastor Ryan. >> Yeah, I think I'm echoing the concern of

253
01:10:28.320 --> 01:10:44.719
of Kim and it sounds like the chief as well, but I'm always worried that when you put in a crosswork walk, it can potentially create a sense of false security. People just assume now there's a crosswalk and they can just go right out there and traffic is going to stop.

254
01:10:44.719 --> 01:11:00.000
But on a street like that um without signage, without some kind of you know rapid flashing beacon or something um it it so that's the only worry I ever have with crosswalks is this creating uh even a worse scenario because now people just

255
01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:15.840
assume well of course the crosswalk I can just I can march right across um and especially in certain locations. So that's a concern. I'm not saying we should go ahead. The other issue is how far we should extend this. And I really I'm I don't know what to say about that, but maybe we should focus on this one at

256
01:11:15.840 --> 01:11:37.280
the moment. Uh the issue of a crosswalk. Um and what is that going to make things safer or less? >> So I'm sorry I I keep forgetting that we have shorthand we talk about in the office and other people don't have our same shortorthhand. So, when we put a

257
01:11:37.280 --> 01:11:53.199
crosswalk in, at the minimum, what you're getting is this box here on the left of the drawing. You get the ADA ramps on both sides. You get crosswalk signs, and you get the painted crosswalk. So, that's everything we put in. If you want to do an enhanced crosswalk, that's when you would get

258
01:11:53.199 --> 01:12:16.960
into adding lights and adding a rapid rectangular flashing beacon. Rapid rectangular rapid flashing beacon. Yeah, just so >> yeah. Uh, Mr. Peg,

259
01:12:16.960 --> 01:12:33.280
>> and I don't know if Kisha had her had the hand up before me. I I'm sorry if I lost track of that. I guess uh again, apologize because I wasn't at the last meeting. I don't know if we're trying to render a decision tonight, but I would argue this like this like forest for the trees conversation, which is

260
01:12:33.280 --> 01:12:50.800
there's an opportunity to get people across from Mount Hoyo to the multi-use path, which could get them pretty far into the community. And I think with signs and striping, I think it's a minimum that we could achieve that would help help achieve pedestrian crossings.

261
01:12:50.800 --> 01:13:06.080
I think it's not perfect, but are we going to say that there's no crosswalk that's worth pursuing if we can't give it the gold standard all the time? So, I'm inclined to entertain this discussion. I don't know if there's a trade-off that we that maybe didn't get

262
01:13:06.080 --> 01:13:23.600
discussed, which is trading the sidewalk extension up Mount M Holo in exchange for rapid flashing beacons. I don't know what the cost of that is. I don't know if we want to set that standard. That needs to be achieved just to get a crosswalk anywhere. But I do think with signage, and I'm assuming it's just

263
01:13:23.600 --> 01:13:40.400
basic yellow, you know, pedestrian crossing signage, um, I think there's some value here to to entertain this discussion to safely get people across. I think the goal is to allow PE pedestrians to cross the street more so than slowing traffic. I

264
01:13:40.400 --> 01:13:54.960
think I think those are two different kind of things that we would be achieving like different goals. um one is to achieve the opportunity for pedestrians to safely cross the street and a separate one I think is entirely separate which is to try to slow

265
01:13:54.960 --> 01:14:12.239
traffic. So forgive me if I'm off base with where we were trying to go tonight. We're just trying to get the uh information that has been developed by DP DPW and get it to the commission uh

266
01:14:12.239 --> 01:14:29.280
so that we can identify further information that we may want to have um ultimately we do need to have some sort of announced public hearing um in order to um

267
01:14:29.280 --> 01:14:44.960
allow for public comment before we uh vote on a recommendation. But um I think we're not there yet. This is not something that I would expect to happen in a single meeting based upon my own

268
01:14:44.960 --> 01:15:02.880
experience where we dealt with uh I mean TAC and TSO and uh what was then known as the DAAC the disability access advisory committee could take a fair period of time. Um I'm

269
01:15:02.880 --> 01:15:19.440
going to recognize Chief Ting and uh I would appreciate uh Chief's thoughts about uh what is required for safety in this sort of situation where we have residents from a that do a lot of

270
01:15:19.440 --> 01:15:33.120
walking in the street and are trying to get to the other side to the multi-use baths bath and you know what what the experience is from your your perspective

271
01:15:33.120 --> 01:15:51.760
in the department about um what kind of concerns might be for signage and what and level of compliance with the signage. >> Yeah, thank you. Thank you uh coun um Andy. I appreciate that. So, couple

272
01:15:51.760 --> 01:16:07.280
concerns. You know, first and foremost, you know, I would want it obviously there's a public demand uh for this crosswalk to be there. that's, you know, if the public wants it, you know, it's worth exploring because they're the ones that are utilizing uh the crosswalk and

273
01:16:07.280 --> 01:16:22.560
or the need for a crosswalk in that roadway to get to a particular area. Uh especially children because you have Crocker Farm right there. So certainly one of my biggest concerns when I talked about signage, I was truly talking about flashing beacons, not just your ordinary

274
01:16:22.560 --> 01:16:38.560
signage. Uh, I would want something a little bit more enhanced. Um, simply because this this particular roadway is a pretty fastmoving roadway. Um, it's not like driving through the center of town where you have an expectation of a lot of pedestrians. This is a a pretty

275
01:16:38.560 --> 01:16:55.040
quick straightaway and people might not necessarily expect pedestrians to be coming out. Um, and on top of that, as uh, Kilford mentioned, you know, or somebody else had mentioned, when pedestrians are crossing, you know, a lot of times they don't pay attention.

276
01:16:55.040 --> 01:17:12.560
Um, so you put those two together and my fear is that you're creating without proper signage and without um some kind of flashing beacon, you're kind of creating the situation similar to 116 out in Sunderland where you have a high

277
01:17:12.560 --> 01:17:29.920
prevalence of uh car versus pedestrian crashes and that's something I don't want to see here. Um, so if we if we are going to do something or if the town decides to put a crosswalk in, I would want um some some serious type of uh

278
01:17:29.920 --> 01:17:45.360
safeguards there in terms of notification to let cars know that this is coming up. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. I might want to note on that that um in my younger years when I was a member

279
01:17:45.360 --> 01:18:01.280
of the select board and we actually had a select board, one of the things that came up was uh what to do about crossings in the n in the area of uh the Kushman Common and uh the decision was

280
01:18:01.280 --> 01:18:18.159
made u to install RFBS um at a crosswalk that's at that curve in Pine Street to Bridge Street uh that goes across uh from the sidewalk that

281
01:18:18.159 --> 01:18:34.080
runs along Pine Street to Kushman Common. And uh I don't know if this is a uh voting for or against the sign, but in my time uh those signs have been taken out twice by

282
01:18:34.080 --> 01:18:51.360
vehicles in some sort of accident situation where they've literally wiped out the signs themselves. Uh I guess uh Mr. Leafler

283
01:18:51.360 --> 01:19:07.199
>> Leafer uh so I I want to clarify something that was said earlier. The biggest concern is actually not so much Crocker Farm School because as uh Guilford mentioned there is a a path uh in the back. It's more that uh uh if you go uh so in order to get there's that

284
01:19:07.199 --> 01:19:22.640
little sort of town like where the Rotary is. There's a um the the gas station, there's a few restaurants, there's a hair salon, there's a sort of little commercial center. Uh and the only way to get to that is to cross the street. There's no sidewalk between this

285
01:19:22.640 --> 01:19:37.840
area and the uh and that area. Um, and a few residents had mentioned that, you know, they want to give their kids more independence, you know, to be able to to go to those places, you know, make their own purchases, but they have to send their kids across the street. Uh, also directly across the street from here is

286
01:19:37.840 --> 01:19:54.880
the bus stop heading south. Uh, so that's directly across the street, right on the other end of this crosswalk. Uh, the uh to go to the other direction, so sort of where Crocker Farm uh is. Uh that's uh so there's no sidewalk on the

287
01:19:54.880 --> 01:20:10.400
side of the road uh next to Mount Holio Drive. Uh so if you want to get from there uh to either to that bus stop uh which is I think the sort of the other big thing that's there. Uh again, you know, you can walk on the side of the road. Some people are comfortable doing

288
01:20:10.400 --> 01:20:26.960
that, some people are not. Uh personally, uh I I live in this neighborhood. I I'll do it in the in the summertime. I won't do it in the winter when it's dark. you know, the the shoulder is narrowed. Uh, and for so the the path to Crocker Farm is pretty deep

289
01:20:26.960 --> 01:20:43.440
into the neighborhood. Uh, so if you're trying to get to Crocker Farm, it makes a lot of sense. If you're trying, for example, to get to the bus stop, you know, it's uh essentially 3minut walk from the uh this intersection here to that bus stop. If you have to go deep

290
01:20:43.440 --> 01:21:00.640
into the neighborhood and uh then sort of cut through Crocker Farm, go back down, it could be as much as as 10 minutes. Um and also I believe that uh I I I I don't know for sure that this is true. I believe we are not supposed to

291
01:21:00.640 --> 01:21:18.560
be using that path during school hours. Um the the other thing I know I'll note is that uh uh what even just trying to sort of get into the traffic either to cross the street or even to ride out on your bike uh the the cars do not stop.

292
01:21:18.560 --> 01:21:35.360
They don't have any sort of um there there's nothing signaling to them that this is a place where they should even think about stopping. um uh you know even there there's other places without crosswalks where sort of the the the person attempting to cross is a little

293
01:21:35.360 --> 01:21:52.400
bit more visible. Um there's there's really no indication. Um so it often takes you know over a minute to even get out into the road. So I do think uh some sort of you know indication that this is a place where people are attempting to cross will make uh a big difference in

294
01:21:52.400 --> 01:22:08.639
sort of the behavior of the cars or at least that's my hope. Um uh and I believe that's all uh all of my thought. I do think this could be a good place for a rapid flashing beacon. Um and it would be my personal vote to uh

295
01:22:08.639 --> 01:22:24.639
sacrifice the length of this sidewalk uh to do that. But again, that's something that we can hear more input on and and discuss later on. >> Council Mloud. >> Um thank you. Uh

296
01:22:24.639 --> 01:22:42.400
I share uh some of Gish's comments regarding the path. I'm uncertain if that's a town path or just an informal path that folks use. Uh friends of my son years ago when they went to Cracker Farm would go over there. Uh but it is

297
01:22:42.400 --> 01:22:58.719
school property. Um, when my kids were growing up, uh, you know, I I would always have them hold my hands, uh, when they're in a parking lot and I wouldn't have them walking on the

298
01:22:58.719 --> 01:23:16.159
side of this street just out of maybe over concern. But if I were a parent or you know even elderly or even others um it seems to me there's not a simple exit from this series of you know streets and

299
01:23:16.159 --> 01:23:32.960
houses to the sidewalk. Uh all things being equal um it seems to me to be a very good thing. uh the primary, you know, the two factors that come into play and really the one that's most significance for me

300
01:23:32.960 --> 01:23:50.560
is what Chief Ting was discussing, which is the safety of the issue. Are we creating are we um ensuring that it's in fact going to be a safer and not a a hazard? That to me is primary. uh and

301
01:23:50.560 --> 01:24:06.480
I'm ignorant at present in terms of all the safety issues regarding um crosswalks and traffic. I defer to those with much more experience than myself, but to me safety is primary uh and I

302
01:24:06.480 --> 01:24:21.760
understand the motivation for it uh for the neighborhood. Uh it seems to make sense if it could be done safely. underscore uh and the the money aspect is a separate uh discussion uh for me.

303
01:24:21.760 --> 01:24:36.560
Thank you >> councelor Ryan. >> I'm agreeing I think with two other with agrica and also with Jeff in the thought that um you know maybe a compromise would work here. I think a rapid

304
01:24:36.560 --> 01:24:54.239
flashing beacon. Some kind of of of sign that makes it very clear that this is a place where pedestrians cross more than just just the usual pedestrian crossing sign is absolutely essential and we I would never recommend a crosswalk here hearing and listening to what I'm hearing today without saying that would

305
01:24:54.239 --> 01:25:11.280
be a necessity and I would say a trade-off then just not doing the extension but making sure that you had the beacon um would be my preference at least at the moment. if we recommend this at all. >> Superintendent Mor.

306
01:25:11.280 --> 01:25:26.080
>> So, so I would just want to say that, you know, as the committee, our goal is to say, do we think this is uh good project, which I hear everyone saying yes, we do. And then I also hear everyone saying that you would want this

307
01:25:26.080 --> 01:25:43.360
to be a enhanced, what we call an enhanced crosswalk, which would have the rapid flash and beacons. So that's really what I hear him by saying. And then if we have like three or four more requests like this, then we'd have to like put them in order. There is no

308
01:25:43.360 --> 01:26:02.639
funding available right now to install this. So it would have to be it would have to come up next construction season. Mr. B, >> just a quick followup. I think this goes to Guilford, but

309
01:26:02.639 --> 01:26:19.360
would it generally be feasible to talk about rapid flashing beacons in this location? I think that was something I I couldn't get clarity on from you, but I think understanding if it was generally feasible or potentially feasible that might allow us to kind of nudge it forward and then talk about what you

310
01:26:19.360 --> 01:26:36.400
talked about, which is like position this potentially in next construction season or something like that where there's funding. >> Oh, sorry. We we always try to go the minimalist approach first and then as people say, "Well, we need to address this or this or this." Then we look at

311
01:26:36.400 --> 01:26:52.560
what could be addressing those things. So you Yes, you can put rapid flashing beacons here. Um if everyone likes to talk cost, so I'll just throw it out there. It's 24 to $25,000 for beacons right now. Next year they may go up, but um

312
01:26:52.560 --> 01:27:14.320
>> is that each is that each for or is that for a set? >> That's a set. You only buy you only use them in a set. So it's 24,000 for 25 to 25 for a set. >> Okay. Thanks. That's helpful to clarify. >> Uh Council Mlan and then I was looking

313
01:27:14.320 --> 01:27:29.360
at the clock and there's two things we have to do yet. >> Thank you. Uh I I appreciate what uh Guilford referenced in terms of uh if there are other requests for crosswalks

314
01:27:29.360 --> 01:27:43.440
uh you know they might need to be prioritized. I'm aware of two emails related to crosswalks or uh requests that have come. So I could envision that being an issue down the road. Um but

315
01:27:43.440 --> 01:28:00.000
again uh underscoring uh to me uh the safety of the outcome that is to say whatever the if if something occurs uh if not maximizing

316
01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:19.360
at least ensuring safety is uh I consider it to be crucial. Thank you. >> Okay. So I think that we need to conclude the discussion for today and I'm not cutting off comments but I want to make sure that people have any last

317
01:28:19.360 --> 01:28:37.440
thoughts. Um I would uh like to make sure that we somehow uh come to grips with the cost question and I think that there's a strong feeling um that's been expressed today

318
01:28:37.440 --> 01:28:52.560
about needing to make it enhanced crosswalk. Second thing that was mentioned by the superintendent earlier was that the cost could be reduced by reducing the length of the sidewalk on

319
01:28:52.560 --> 01:29:11.199
the other side. At some point, uh people would have to move into the street and walk in the street. And the question is, how far down should we have a sidewalk on uh the Mount Holio Drive side? um if

320
01:29:11.199 --> 01:29:29.280
we were to do this uh before people would have to move into the street and uh you know I think that there's uh cost information if you look at what has already been provided but uh by the DPW

321
01:29:29.280 --> 01:29:47.120
as far as uh what we might u be able to save by reducing the amount the length of the sidewalk before people come into the street. Uh so uh we need to get that information

322
01:29:47.120 --> 01:30:04.400
together and at the next uh and I guess the other question is at what point um are we ready to decide whether or not um to go to the next step which I think and I'm going to call in councelor Ryan

323
01:30:04.400 --> 01:30:20.159
to help me with this but I think that we are required on this one to u make sure that there's a public hearing in the process process and if so u we need to make the decision to do that. Council Ryan

324
01:30:20.159 --> 01:30:37.199
>> exactly my thought Andy um the next next step at some point soon I think would be to have some kind of public meeting because I would very much like to hear from the residents. We know that we got a large number of signatures so there's clearly a lot of interest and it' be interesting to hear what their thoughts

325
01:30:37.199 --> 01:30:53.760
are on an sidewalk extension. I think most of them are very used to walking uh that stretch and they're in the street and it's a residential area, but that's just my supposition. I could be totally wrong. So, I'd very much like to hear their thoughts on that. Um and on the

326
01:30:53.760 --> 01:31:09.520
other the idea of a you know the crosswalk in general. So, I think that would be a next step. I don't know about the timing, maybe the next month or so. But, um the other question is more general one and maybe we'll leave it for another meeting. But I wonder to what degree we should I mean we want to know what the costs are but I'm not sure that

327
01:31:09.520 --> 01:31:25.120
we want to spend very much time arguing that. I mean, we we basically look at a a project and decide whether we think it's worthy from a whole series of criteria and then it goes with our recommendation uh subject to funding and that's an issue for Guilford and for

328
01:31:25.120 --> 01:31:42.159
Paul um and potentially for the council maybe in its broad financial uh planning, but it's not really I think an issue for us. And maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'm not sure. I mean, ways to shrink the cost, that's perfectly reasonable. Um, but you know,

329
01:31:42.159 --> 01:32:00.040
you know, overall discussing, well, gee, this is going to cost x amount of dollars. Should we recommend it? Um, I don't know that maybe that's for another discussion, but I wonder if that's really something we really want to spend a lot of time on. Um, because we really don't make that call.

330
01:32:00.719 --> 01:32:16.239
No, ultimately we are going to be making a report and uh I think we're required to make a recommendation if we to go with our report, >> right? >> Um and we we're required to have a

331
01:32:16.239 --> 01:32:34.400
public meeting first. Um it then does have to go. It's always subject to funding and funding is always a decision of the town manager because funds are appropriated for roads but uh the decision on how the funds are to be used

332
01:32:34.400 --> 01:32:52.000
are delegated to the town manager. Um and it probably would require uh council action because it crosswalk probably constitutes road redesign as specified

333
01:32:52.000 --> 01:33:08.239
in the policy. U Chief Tang >> uh yeah I I don't want to belabor the point. I just want to reiterate um in support of what uh councelor Ryan was saying. I totally agree. Um because all

334
01:33:08.239 --> 01:33:24.639
of these projects that come in, they're all going to cost money and they're all going to be expensive, you know. So, I don't think that it's it should be our purview in terms of the cost. It should be our purview in terms of the safety and if there's a necessity for it. And again, just reiterating that point that,

335
01:33:24.639 --> 01:33:44.320
you know, that's up to uh the town manager and the town council to to decide the funding. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. um trying to decide whether we would need to have a vote to organize a public hearing. I'm not saying it would happen

336
01:33:44.320 --> 01:34:01.760
at the next meeting, but u council Ryan, do you have any thoughts as uh >> I don't think we need to vote on that. I think I mean I don't know what the others think, but um it would I would consider to be standard procedure. Uh one of the purposes of this body is to give people a a chance to to speak their

337
01:34:01.760 --> 01:34:17.600
minds and to be heard. And if we just go ahead and u make a decision and while we have heard from a number of people and we've got a a a long list of names, I think that in these kinds of cases um we really do want to hear from the

338
01:34:17.600 --> 01:34:34.159
residents. Um so I don't think we need a vote. I think it would be standard operating procedure, but that's just me. >> Yeah, actually it's a question of what the policy requires too. And there is a fairly broad

339
01:34:34.159 --> 01:34:49.600
uh requirement about for a lot of projects requiring public hearing which is going to come up in the next one because I know we would need uh we need it for major parking changes. Um

340
01:34:49.600 --> 01:35:04.080
but uh this tremble. >> Yeah. So, um, so then that means that all of the requests, all of the items

341
01:35:04.080 --> 01:35:21.120
that you chose to bring to us all get a public hearing. Do all requests get a I mean, this is seems to be where all of this is going, but it seems like it's at at our level. We can't do that for every

342
01:35:21.120 --> 01:35:35.679
request, can we? I mean, that's a lot of time. Um, I would say the answer to that is no. Um, and uh, we won't I don't want to spend a lot of time on it today, but if you look the town council policy

343
01:35:35.679 --> 01:35:53.920
on uh, public ways, um, it does have a requirement in certain areas where we have to have a public hearing. And I think in each circumstance, we have to look back at the policy, see what the

344
01:35:53.920 --> 01:36:12.159
policy uh specifies in that particular situation. Certainly, when we get to some of the traffic calming things that are talked about like uh speed humps, it's not required. Um but if it's

345
01:36:12.159 --> 01:36:30.239
question of major road redesigns or uh major parking changes I believe but I would even I even then I would have to go back every time and look at the policy to be sure. Uh, Superintendent my

346
01:36:30.239 --> 01:36:52.960
>> uh just quickly may maybe how we wrap up today is is we formally say yes we agree with this needs to move on and that's all we say today and then we move it on to the next step. >> Okay. Uh customer cloud

347
01:36:52.960 --> 01:37:07.679
I believe uh there was another hand up before mine. Oh, it's down now. Okay. Um the only question that I have regarding you know next steps is we have internally been discussing possibilities

348
01:37:07.679 --> 01:37:24.880
of different uh approaches and it seemed to me that a higher safety level with the signage and other act items are being considered although they're not currently in you know what we have before us. Uh I'm

349
01:37:24.880 --> 01:37:42.880
thinking that might make sense as a next step and if it could be combined with uh you know hearing or whatever that's fine uh from my perspective but I think we as a committee don't yet have those uh

350
01:37:42.880 --> 01:37:59.360
details on what safety measures might be additional to what we have here. Um, and longer term, uh, aside from this one in front of us, uh, I believe, uh, Kim was alluding to

351
01:37:59.360 --> 01:38:15.199
the need to consider multiple projects as we go forward against each other as we go forward. But anyway, uh, that's all I'm in favor of going forward. And the question is about, um, additional information for safety that

352
01:38:15.199 --> 01:38:34.159
we talked about. Thank you. Councelor Riot, >> I think Andy, you were remembering it and I just took a look at the policy as it's written and a what's phrased as a public meeting is required for any major

353
01:38:34.159 --> 01:38:50.639
roadway or sidewalk redesign. But under the first item of permanent changes, which would include what we're talking about tonight, it doesn't have that specification. So, in theory, we could answer Kim's concern, which is a very real concern. So, we'd be having

354
01:38:50.639 --> 01:39:08.520
public meetings all the time. Um, the actual policy, as I understand it, and I'm looking at it right now, does not require a public uh hearing or meeting, excuse me, for this particular item, but it would require it for what are called major roadway or sidewalk redesigns.

355
01:39:10.239 --> 01:39:26.560
So, it's it seems discretionary. We could decide we want to do it. we could decide we don't want to do it. We could make it standard operating procedure, but if we did, Kim's concern is real, which is we've been having these meetings or hearings a lot. Um, so take Kendrick Park for instance. Um, take,

356
01:39:26.560 --> 01:39:43.480
uh, right, we have a whole bunch that are coming along. Do we have a public hearing for all of them, public meeting, or do we just put it on an agenda and make sure the public is notified in advance and people can come and and we can have a back and forth, but we're not going to have a special meeting for it.

357
01:39:45.040 --> 01:40:04.000
Yes, it's Mr. Meg. >> I think I think Kisha's hand was up first. >> Well, I I just have a a essentially a question is what counts as a public meeting. Is this not a public meeting? Um because I would so I I think on in

358
01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:21.199
this case at the very least I think we need to have one more opportunity for residents to uh state sort to give feedback on any proposed plan but uh it does that not count as a public meeting >> that is public meeting. Um it would have

359
01:40:21.199 --> 01:40:39.440
to be noticed that we are just having a discussion um and providing in seeking input and uh but it just gets posted as a public as a public meeting to enable members of the

360
01:40:39.440 --> 01:40:57.199
public to um express their opinion about what is being considered prior to making taking a vote. Mr. Peg. >> Yeah. So, I'm a big process person, so this is interesting. I know we're belaboring it at this point, but I agree

361
01:40:57.199 --> 01:41:14.960
with Kisha that I think we hopefully I mean, I think we should have the meeting in August have this as a specific agenda item. My question is like whether the residents of Mount Hoyo Drive knew we were going to be discussing this tonight and we're invited since there's no one here. I do think as as our process

362
01:41:14.960 --> 01:41:30.400
unfolds, I do think we did a little vetting. We are not hearing from them at all as to what they think of our discussion. So, I do think it's kind of important to have a public meeting where there's the

363
01:41:30.400 --> 01:41:46.719
opportunity. I do want to draw some kind of bright line between th this and a and a public hearing. You know, public hearing has a specific connotation. I don't know exactly what the rules would be, but that would be noticed in the gazette. That would be legal advertisement. I I need to I think we need to know where there's a public

364
01:41:46.719 --> 01:42:03.760
hearing threshold cuz, you know, our committee, I would say, is not quite set up to hold a bunch of public hearings if they're formally if they have formal requirements attached to them. And the last thing is I would argue that this is not a major roadway redesign in my

365
01:42:03.760 --> 01:42:19.520
opinion, but I don't know if we have that fleshed out somewhere else. But yeah, that's all. We're not going to be able to resolve it today. Um, and but uh to answer one of your questions that I think is very important one since you're in the

366
01:42:19.520 --> 01:42:35.840
planning department and you have lots of public hearings with boards and committees that are connected to the work of planning department. Um there is a real distinction and I think you very much have have hit upon it

367
01:42:35.840 --> 01:42:50.639
because some of it is a matter of legal requirement. Um the reason that um we were advised by town council um town attorney to uh um have the

368
01:42:50.639 --> 01:43:06.000
council changes policy to use the word uh public meeting was because we didn't want to incur some of the legal obligations that go with um using the

369
01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:23.920
word public hearing. ing and that's really a lot of that is notice kinds of things. Um the purpose was is that we would be able to have hear from the public engage the public in uh being

370
01:43:23.920 --> 01:43:40.719
able to provide their perspective but in a somewhat less formal setting than you experience in some of your work in planning. I hope that makes sense. Um,

371
01:43:40.719 --> 01:43:57.600
so councelor Ryan, let's uh >> so yeah, that was why public meeting is the word used in the official policy. So we're not talking about public hearings at all in a sense that Jeff has in mind and the language in the policy is a public meeting and that could, as Grecia pointed out, that could very well be uh

372
01:43:57.600 --> 01:44:13.440
our next August meeting where we hopefully reach out to the residents and say this is going to be on the agenda and we very much like to hear from you. That's a public meeting and we hope we'll hear from them. It's not a public hearing. So the there is a public hearing is mentioned in the the formal

373
01:44:13.440 --> 01:44:28.400
policy, but it's a very technical thing and it only says that if if we're ever required by state law to hold a public hearing in the sense that Jeff has in mind, then we have to do blah blah blah blah. But for all the stuff that we're talking about, it's a public meeting. That's it.

374
01:44:28.400 --> 01:44:43.280
>> Okay. Um I want to move on to the last the last two items. One is minutes of that we have which will hopefully be fairly quick and the other one I can make um brief with uh

375
01:44:43.280 --> 01:45:01.520
MH superintendent Moring's help and that is that um we received a public request um having to do with the parking issue and the parking issue has to do with u

376
01:45:01.520 --> 01:45:17.760
the spaces that have been created um near the Kendrick Park playground on North Pleasant Street. And there was supposed to be some sharing between uh

377
01:45:17.760 --> 01:45:33.760
people who want to use parking for that purpose and uh people who um are residents and can use resident stickers. And uh the observation that was being

378
01:45:33.760 --> 01:45:50.159
made was um that uh a lot of students who are the prime users of permits for that area will leave their cars there all day long with the which is allowed because it's

379
01:45:50.159 --> 01:46:07.040
permitted. They have parking permits and then there no spaces available even though there is a parking box to um pay for parking um as there are in other areas where there multiple places. Plus

380
01:46:07.040 --> 01:46:23.679
uh there's the park mobile um application that people can use from their cell phones the app. Um so that is the observation that was made by one

381
01:46:23.679 --> 01:46:40.159
resident and the suggestion that some spaces and I think that was actually the original intention um when this was talked about initially that there be some spaces that are not

382
01:46:40.159 --> 01:46:58.400
um for use of uh people with uh parking permits but they are only they are only to be used for hourly parking purposes uh for people who want to use it for whatever reason presumably

383
01:46:58.400 --> 01:47:14.400
um use of the park. Uh Mr. Moring, do you have um you you and I talked about that and you said you'd also shared the observation about this that we heard from the

384
01:47:14.400 --> 01:47:31.679
president. Uh yeah, so we've heard the same thing that all the parking spaces during the school year are filled with um residents parking there. Um I think the Kendrick Place building and the one East Pleasant Street building, they all get they are eligible for parking

385
01:47:31.679 --> 01:47:48.080
permits in the downtown. I think most of these spaces are filled with people from those two apartments or two buildings. Um, so if I think it's actually a valid concern and then we might want to make an adjustment to say that you need to uh

386
01:47:48.080 --> 01:48:04.639
well, we might want to choose to say that the parking spaces in front by the park, there's about eight or nine of them here, that they're just um that during the day you have to have pay for parking instead. Uh, Mr. Tremble,

387
01:48:04.639 --> 01:48:22.960
>> I Yeah, as someone who literally bikes by here twice a day, I I count that off. It really it it's very obvious that there are student residents who are parking there and there literally are no

388
01:48:22.960 --> 01:48:40.719
spots for anyone else. That is and and you can just see right now it's empty like you know when school is not in session. This is absolutely true. >> Yes. And

389
01:48:40.719 --> 01:48:57.040
I hear you've uh >> uh so I just going to ask we also saw a proposal to uh redesign this park which would as I recall remove two parking spaces. Is that correct?

390
01:48:57.040 --> 01:49:14.239
>> Yes, that's at this end down here. >> Okay. So, that would not affect actually what these parking spots that we're discussing now. >> Or I mean rather it would only increase demand basically is what we're saying. >> Well, when we we do the work at the south end of the park, we'll actually

391
01:49:14.239 --> 01:49:31.600
add two spaces, but all you're adding is two spaces. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Ryan. So, I agree uh with what I'm hearing. I agree with the resident concern. I think the only question I have is um you know,

392
01:49:31.600 --> 01:49:48.960
going forward, maybe not deciding tonight, but fairly soon hopefully, what would be an reasonable number? Would you just say the whole area needs to be you can't use a resident sticker uh Monday through during the day hours? Would you suggest 10 spaces, nine spaces? um what

393
01:49:48.960 --> 01:50:07.040
would be a reasonable uh proposal to address um what seems like a real issue that residents wanting to use this for their kids or whatever just can't use it because it's taken up by people who have stickers. So, how many

394
01:50:07.040 --> 01:50:23.440
>> Yeah, I know. I uh that is the part of the discussion that we'd have to have next. But I in matter of time in recognizing what the clock is, I wanted to just at least introduce this topic so that all of you

395
01:50:23.440 --> 01:50:40.000
would understand what it is that uh was being brought to us. Uh councelor Mloud. >> Uh thank you. Uh yeah, I see the issue here as described uh uh and would have similar thoughts to the resident. Uh a

396
01:50:40.000 --> 01:50:57.760
question arises for me. Uh how many parking spaces are there downtown that are permitted for parking all day as opposed to hourly metered? Is this are there many

397
01:50:57.760 --> 01:51:14.400
other spots such as these downtown? >> Uh, no. There's only two areas in town where we have a hybrid system where you can either have a permit or pay for parking. Um, the rest of the town is is definitely delineated. It's pay parking

398
01:51:14.400 --> 01:51:32.639
or it is permit parking. >> Uh, okay. And the majority, it seems to me, are paid parking from what I've seen. Uh maybe >> I I would >> maybe I'm unaware.

399
01:51:32.639 --> 01:51:49.840
>> It's pretty close to 5050. >> It is there any delineation of that? I'm just thinking in terms of the impact on the folks who are parking there where they might go. Uh, I'm not saying it overrides the concern because, you know, this is a new sidewalk

400
01:51:49.840 --> 01:52:07.440
adjacent to a downtown primary park that we're seeking to uh encourage access to. But, uh, does that information does anyone know where that information might exist other than walking? So, actually, um, K, you know, we were

401
01:52:07.440 --> 01:52:24.800
just talking about how we decide when to send something to the to the staff and have them come back with information. This sounds like a good one to us to say we need more information, maybe a draft uh parking change and to send it to the staff and we can come up with that information and give it presented either

402
01:52:24.800 --> 01:52:42.880
August or September meeting. >> Yeah, >> I think thank you. that would be helpful. Uh I don't know if the chief has heard anything from the within the department complaints along this

403
01:52:42.880 --> 01:53:00.800
line, but if so, you can let us know. Um the uh Mr. Bag. Yeah, just quick um I think this is a fine discussion. I think it's important to kind of flush out this specific

404
01:53:00.800 --> 01:53:16.719
question. I just want to be mindful for the committee that this is likely to raise a lot of different questions, but I think if we we need to kind of keep it neat and tidy so that we can address this specific concern, while we might hear others, I think we just if we're

405
01:53:16.719 --> 01:53:32.239
keeping it neat and tidy on this focused area. I think that's ideal. Um I think it's not going to be too long until we're talking about the entire municipal parking district and all these different things. I think we just got to be mindful of how there are other potential questions and issues, but we're going to

406
01:53:32.239 --> 01:53:48.159
focus on this side of the street for this purpose. And I think I think that's going to keep us focused. Um, but I think we're going to hear probably a lot of other questions and concerns that arise once we get into this. >> And that's what you're going to hear at the public meeting.

407
01:53:48.159 --> 01:54:02.639
Uh, Mr. >> Yes. And just to follow up on that, um exact sentiment, um um Mlen Street, which is where where you can access this

408
01:54:02.639 --> 01:54:17.840
from the neighborhoods, um there is a significant parking problem on that street. And um which is all permanent parking. And so, you know, taking away these spots means that that neighborhood

409
01:54:17.840 --> 01:54:36.159
will become even more inundated with cars, which has a significant impact on the neighborhood because it does shrink a large portion of that road from a two-way street down to a one-way street

410
01:54:36.159 --> 01:54:55.440
and it becomes very complicated. So you know all actions have a reaction just to remember this. >> So I think that we need to come back to this discussion. U

411
01:54:55.440 --> 01:55:12.800
Mr. Morgan suggested that uh the staff uh give some thought to the question of the number of spaces that might be appropriate and then uh report u a subsequent meeting at which point um I

412
01:55:12.800 --> 01:55:27.920
think that we actually would be required to organize public meeting on this. It's a major parking change. It's fairly well defined within the town council policy uh that a public meeting would be

413
01:55:27.920 --> 01:55:45.679
required that uh and u we would be required if we are going to suggest a change to have a public meeting to report on the public meeting and our recommendation to the council and then

414
01:55:45.679 --> 01:56:02.159
it's up to the council to make the decision um ultimately as to whether to make that change. Anything else on the topic today? Um if not, um there were minutes that were posted for the April meeting. They

415
01:56:02.159 --> 01:56:18.719
were included in the packet. Um are there any suggested changes to the minutes as they were submitted? I know that they've been reviewed by me and they've been reviewed by town manager.

416
01:56:18.719 --> 01:56:34.560
I move to approve the minutes. I second. >> There's been a motion made by Mr. Mloud and seconded by uh Councelor Ryan um to approve um why don't we just go through with that and then take a motion to

417
01:56:34.560 --> 01:56:49.920
adjourn because uh I think we're going to have to uh skip the other uh topic which is discussion about traffic calming options because we just don't have time. So the motion on the floor is

418
01:56:49.920 --> 01:57:06.960
approval of the minutes and they'll just go in alphabetical order. Mr. Bag, >> yes. >> Mr. Leer, >> yes. >> Uh, Council Mloud, >> hi. >> Superintendent Moing. >> Yes.

419
01:57:06.960 --> 01:57:21.840
>> Uh, for the record, Mr. Redwalt is absent. Councelor Ryan, >> hi. >> Um, I'm an I. Uh, Chief Ting, >> yes. >> And M. Trumblé. >> Yes.

420
01:57:21.840 --> 01:57:39.840
>> Okay. So, the unanimous one member absent. Um, is there anything else that people feel that they need to raise about um the future meetings or do we just leave it that uh we ask

421
01:57:39.840 --> 01:57:56.159
um that uh Katherine uh send out a poll as soon as possible so that we can find a date. I think that August is going to be difficult because it is a heavy vacation month. Professor

422
01:57:56.159 --> 01:58:11.440
Ryan, >> not so much about the date um but just about what you think a future meeting in August will have on its agenda. For instance, the portal is something that we are hoping have been hoping for some time would be up, but I think more

423
01:58:11.440 --> 01:58:31.360
importantly or as importantly what you see as possible future agenda items would be I'd like to hear if that's something you can say anything about. Um, if we can, I think it would be we might

424
01:58:31.360 --> 01:58:48.080
we would want to try and do the public hearing. Public meeting. I have to keep using the right word. Public meeting for u regarding the crosswalk if the additional information can be made available and um to see if there's a

425
01:58:48.080 --> 01:59:03.360
further report on the issue that's just presented to us. uh the uh question of traffic calming. I think that we really as a group need to have some conversation

426
01:59:03.360 --> 01:59:19.360
about the general subject of traffic calming and um see if there are criteria that can be made available for for issues that um people identify as frequent requests.

427
01:59:19.360 --> 01:59:37.040
You know, we had earlier in the day comment about speed humps and uh to be able to start as a group begin to discuss what are the costs, what are the benefits, um what are the disadvantages,

428
01:59:37.040 --> 01:59:56.080
what is the utility for traffic calming of speed humps. um so that we can understand that there might I I'm sure that there are other issues that come up um when you be comments from residents

429
01:59:56.080 --> 02:00:14.639
uh it's usually about um safety of streets and uh speed and is a major issue in all respects and I'm sure that the police department

430
02:00:14.639 --> 02:00:33.679
uh hears that on a regular basis and uh so we I think we need to understand that and which gets back into then the qu some of the other questions that I talked about earlier. So we've been moving on that that direction and whether we try and identify at least one

431
02:00:33.679 --> 02:00:50.400
more request that we can start discussing but uh I think that there are other things that uh >> do you think Kendrick Park will be coming back in August? I think public Kendrick card can come back and I would like to actually move that as quickly as

432
02:00:50.400 --> 02:01:06.159
possible so that we can uh hear from members of the public both users of the spaces for uh regular parking with permits but also the uh from people who

433
02:01:06.159 --> 02:01:23.840
uh if if we can notice out u are users of the playground and I feel that the loss the lack of the spaces is an issue that needs to be addressed. Uh council mloud.

434
02:01:23.840 --> 02:01:39.040
>> Uh thank you. uh future topics. At some point, it seems to me that the inquiries from the Flat Hills Road and the Station Road crews regarding uh line lining striping and things is a

435
02:01:39.040 --> 02:01:55.440
topic for discussion. Uh regardless of what the outcome might be, uh my understanding is that portions of the roads are or at least station is going to be um repaved at some point. So, I don't know if there's a timeliness issue

436
02:01:55.440 --> 02:02:11.760
there or not, but at some point those two items in the queue of uh areas, there was significant uh resident uh emails that came at least uh to me uh

437
02:02:11.760 --> 02:02:30.000
when it came through the council and u so that's all. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Ryan. And just one last uh I'm from what I'm hearing tonight, I just want to confirm there is no work at least now for the

438
02:02:30.000 --> 02:02:45.440
process subcommittee. People are want to see how this is going to play out. Um Kim has made a presentation sort of given us the lay of the land and so for the moment there's no need for that subcommittee to continue meeting and we're going to test this process out and

439
02:02:45.440 --> 02:03:01.520
see how how it goes. That that it's my understanding. Is that everybody else's understanding? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Good. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you.

440
02:03:01.520 --> 02:03:18.080
Uh is there a motion to adjurnn? >> Move to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Okay. It's been I guess it was council mloud and uh made motion seconded. Y and uh so motion

441
02:03:18.080 --> 02:03:34.320
has been on the floor. We're going to go through the same order. This is a non-debatable motion. Mr. Bag, >> yes. >> Mr. Lever, >> yes. >> Council Mloud, >> I. >> Superintendent Boring, >> yes.

442
02:03:34.320 --> 02:03:50.480
>> Councelor Ryan, >> I. >> I'm an I. Chief Tang. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Trump. >> Yep. >> Okay. unanimous, one member absent. And uh thank you. It's this has I think been

443
02:03:50.480 --> 02:04:00.360
a very good meeting and I hope that all the rest of you agree and good night. Good night. >> Thank you all. Good night.