Good evening, Littleton. Welcome to the select board meeting for September 8th. We'll um get started with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So, we'll uh go through some mail. Um, we've got department and board updates um with a presentation from the town clerk to approve the uh town election warrant. We'll have public input and
members updates. Then we'll move on to a joint meeting with the conservation commission and uh followed by select board discussions on office hours and um use of common of the common rather and the flag pole and flag uh town administrator update minutes
and then we're out of here. 8:35. [Music] Let's get started um with the mail, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. We've got some uh vacancies uh with with within the community. We've got vacancies that are appointed by the select board. Our
agricultural commission, committee for the exploration of real estate tax relief for seniors, conservation commission, disability commission, economic development committee, Littleton community television uh advisory committee, master plan
implementation committee, permanent municipal building committee, personal advisory committee, sustainability committee, zoning board of appeals. Uh we have one appointment uh by the school committee. There is availability in the finance committee and an appointment by
Littleton electric light and water department. Also on that finance committee there is one opening. Sign up to receive public notifications for the town of Littleton. Uh scan the QR code on the screen to register or go to www.ittletonmma.orgsubscribe.
Community impacts, public safety activity, transportation issues, town meeting changes, public health concerns, town events. Stay informed. Here we uh the select board has received a letter from the First Baptist Baptist Church um
uh requesting uh letting the uh the select board know that uh the congregation is unfortunately looking to um uh relinquish ownership of the of the building and would like to uh see if
there was interest within the select board and that is going to be continued with the select board. Uh we have a decision here from the Comwalth of Massachusetts alcoholic uh uh beverage control commission tab in the square
and um the the conclusion based on the evidence commission finds a license the license e violated uh um violated 204 CMR 2.05 05 uh paren open parenthesis 2 close parenthesis
permitting an illegality on the license premise to mass general laws chapter 138 subsection 4 sale or delivery of an alcohol or beverage to a person under 21 years of age. As a result, the commission has issued a warning.
Here we've got a letter from the National Grid uh sent out uh regarding uh schedule 20 um 2024 herbicide treatments for rights of way which passed through the municipality. Uh as
part of the 2025 um uh uh yearly operational plan uh list the transmission lines that were treated in 2024 in the event that we need to they need to follow up with treatment in 2025. uh National Grid uh field reviewed the
2024 rows and found sites in Littleton that require a follow-up treatment. Therefore, National Grid needs to perform selective treatment on the on the sites this year. The following rules will be treated. The the VMP2 2024 and
2025 YOP and maps are posted at the following website. Um okay. Um there we have okay here we have a choice for life with
good neighbors after 55 homestead looking for a vibrant supportive place to call home first senior co-housing community of caring neighbors come to an info session and tour on Sunday September 14th from 4 to 6 pm over at
the library at 30 at Ruben Hall Library Starts Room 35 Shadic Street in Littleton And that's it. Curry, town clerk. I'm here this evening to ask the board to approve the election warrant for November 1st for our special
election. It is before you and um that's what I'm asking for. Does anybody have any questions? Sounds good to me. Julie B. Clerk. Move the SL board vote to approve and sign the election warrant for the
November 1st, 2025 election. Second. Moved by Mark, seconded by Matthew. All those in favor? I I. And just to let you know, we do have our new election ballot machines and they came in today. How are they? What do we think? They're awesome. Yeah.
Are are you going to do early what what are you doing for early voting and mail in for the So anybody that um signed up in um January and February, we are putting all of the postcard uh in now. Uh so if anybody did sign up earlier this year,
we are putting them in now. So they should be um getting notification and we will as soon as the um ballots come back come to us u we will be sending them out to all those people. There was about 2,000 people that actually signed up in
the spring. So, they're already all set, but anybody that has any questions, they can give us a call and we'll be happy to let them know if they are on the list. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Public input and members updates.
Um, I'll say that if anybody has uh public input regarding the joint meeting with the Conservation Commission, um, let's take questions about that after we've had that discussion. Um, if anybody has anything else that they'd
like to um, speak on, please go ahead. Rev rounds 25 Juniper Road. I want to thank you folks for holding the joint meeting last week with regard to the Shaker Lane School project. Uh I'm really hoping that you'll all really be advocates for the project so we don't
pay twice uh for what needs to be done. The the second item that I'd like to bring to your attention because it was just I was reminded of it yesterday is that I've heard firsthand accounts now from two separate people with regard to
accidents. I apologize. I don't know the time frame, but really terrifying um one identified yesterday as a life-threatening accident directly as somebody was uh exiting out of the the road u from Shaker Lane School into
Goldsmith and t-boned somebody and you know his his wife almost died. Um, so I don't know the time frame, but that reminded me and at the time I had only known of one, but somebody in a different community information session after speaking came up to me and said,
"By the way, we got totaled." And so I've got two people that live within a very approximate area of Shaker Lane that I've just kind of come into awareness and and I've only been there a few years so it's before my time. But it really brings out to me my experience
that I'm now walking granddaughter back or granddaughters back and forth. And I can tell you that um my experience may not be indicative of others and the normal, but it's almost every other time
that I'm walking that the speeding coming right at the crosswalk that I'm crossing Goldmith. I'm literally like my four-year-old granddaughter is letting her friend know, wait till Gramps goes out into the crosswalks and stops the traffic. And I
am now basically going out there to basically stare down and just put my body there. Um, and people are having to hit the brakes hard. I mean, it's not, this isn't a rolling 25 or 30. They're hitting the brakes hard or as my wife
and I experienced, the person just blew by me and was going 4550 easy. So, it's a concern. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thank you. Thank you. We we should probably investigate if there's a better way of stacking cars than on Goldsmith Street. When you go
there, when Shaker Lane lets out, it's it becomes a one- lane road and it's very hard to get through. So, I don't know if the police highway school should look at some alternative or where to move cars so that they're not stacked
there. I can talk to the chief about it. And for the safety, there are now the RFB RFBs there. So that hopefully will help. Thank you. Anybody else?
Okay. For now, Mark, you want to start with member updates? Um, sure. Um Oh, wait. Are we doing? Yeah, we are. Okay. Um last week I walked um um the property behind the library
across Hagar to uh Castle Latrice to exploring putting a trail back there. Um it's going to require some permits from conservation and boardwalks. So um it would be very exciting to have that um access to Castle without uh basically
you could then go from the school to castle in the trees without going on any roads. So, um, that's a great thing to move forward. Um, yesterday I went to John Baroski's retirement party over at the VFW. It was very well attended. Good cake. So, thank you to the friends for
organizing it and everyone, um, and for John for his many years of service to the town. Um, uh, the Littleton Road Race is coming up on Sunday, uh, the 20 September 21st. Still time to sign up to run or
volunteer. expect to see you out there running Chase. Um, and being one of the first finishers again. Um, and also, uh, I want to remind everyone the senior lunchons tomorrow for the police and at over the fire station. So,
that starts at 11, I think, right? 11 at 11 or 12. 12. Is it? All right. Thanks. Yesterday, um, Chairwoman Morrison and I attended the swearing in of the new lieutenants at the fire department. It's
always nice to see them be be promoting from within. And on Thursday, Chairwoman Morrison and I toured the orchard with um Emily Schrader, who is a um she works for Weston, I believe, as a conservation
agent, but she's um her her side hustle. Her her her other job is to monitor uh conservation restrictions. and we are um probably going to employ her to write a report on the orchard on the APR and um
do a baseline uh survey, not a survey, but a baseline set of um the condition of the property to begin with and then annually a report on what has happened on the orchard that year to make sure that we are adhering to the maintenance plan that we have
with uh John Bransfield. Um, and John and and Emily got along great. She's really nice. Um, I have a good feeling that she's going to do do right. Is that going to include um having her come and talk to us? Yes. And so we are we are going to do a
public meeting. I don't know what what exact form it will take, but the idea is to have John there to present what he's done for the last year, to have Emily discuss the state of it, answer questions, and then we can get feedback from the public about, you know, are there concerns? Are there things that
have said here that you want to monitor for the next year? And we can add those into the report for the next year and sort of tailor the um monitoring of the orchard as we go. Great. And then I was um really sorry to hear that Marge Payne passed away. Um it was
sort of I think a terrible loss for Littleton. Um I met her when I was running for this seat um during COVID and um attended some COA Zoom meetings and she was brilliant and very thoughtful and boy
she could run a meeting. She was great at it. Um, and then I think right after when I right after I was elected, I was sort of feeling intimidated and like I didn't have any friends. Um, she was so warm and generous welcoming me to the COA meetings. Um, she had an incredibly
polite way of telling me I was wrong, which I loved. And, um, you know, I came to realize that she treated everybody that way. Um, she stood up for the things she believed in. Um, she was firm, she was polite, she always listened. And uh I know that we all know
she worked really hard to make the senior center a reality and um you know but she worked for affordable housing and building a community in Littleton and I I'm going to miss her. She was great and Littleton is you know poor
poorer without her unfortunately and I just also want to express my condolences to her family because I really liked her. That's all I got. Um, echoing a lot of sentiments already expressed. So, I was also at John
Broski's retirement open house. Um, I missed the cake unfortunately, but I had some delicious cookies. Uh, and many thanks to John. Um, and I was at the swearing in. So, uh, again, congratulations to Lieutenant um, Tyson David and Lieutenant Sean Foster. Um,
and of course, it's um, we are all at, um, a loss, I think, you know, because of Marge. It's it's um I'm so glad that she got to see the senior center become a reality. Um but any day would have been too soon to lose March.
Agreed. Um I attended the um MAPC magic meeting um last week. Cooper was there as well. Um it was fine.
Uh I met with Steve Moore regarding um capital projects for um one of our goals uh regard was um to try to get a better grip on our involvement with capital projects, major capital um buildings. Um and so I talked to him a
little bit about PMBC and their process to to get kick that off. Uh more to come on that. Uh the sustainability committee um I attended that meeting. um towards the tail end they um approved a climate emergency
declaration that they'll be bringing um to um us and uh to town meeting um and on to the warrant. They are hoping uh we'll be meeting with them in a couple weeks to discuss it. Great. Um they also voted to endorse the um Shaker Lane building project which was
great to see. So thank you to them for that. Um recorded a podcast with Jonathan Bransfield. Um very informative. Um, I think Jim and I both learned more in, you know, 20, 30 minutes, uh, than we would have over two lifetimes at least. Um, so I would
encourage anybody with an interest in the orchard and to to, uh, who wants to know, um, what's happening with the orchard now to, uh, to check out the, uh, podcast. You can find it by searching for 01460 wherever you search for podcasts or on the LCTV website. Um
we also uh recorded um podcasts with Michelle Kaine and Henry Laf Fontaine, Mary Lee Mercy from Studio G um and Jim uh regarding uh Shaker Lane. Those are two separate um episodes regarding uh the first is regarding why the current
building is inadequate. The second is regarding why the new building will meet our needs. Um and so I would encourage anybody with an interest in either of those um topics to check it out. Um, and that's all I had. Is the conservation commission ready?
Uh, we can be a member. We're 10 minutes early. For seven. We have our meeting posted just in case we have a form. We don't actually need a form. We don't propose to take any. So if if you'd like to wait, we can wait or we can take it up now. Any thoughts?
It's not a public hearing. I mean, why don't we just start now? Let's go ahead and get started. Uh, Chase Kervig, chair of the Conservation Commission. Mike Livingston, also in the Conservation Commission, and Tim Pearson, conservation agent. Um, we're here to talk to you tonight about essentially
starting a process to figure out what we're going to do with some conservation land that is shown here. So, let me describe a little bit of the nature of the the challenge that we're working with. Um, this piece of conservation land is
between the road and the lake. And currently there are something like four docks or five docks. There are a number of kayaks that are stored there. Um it generally it's maintained to some degree
in some areas um presumably by the people that live across the street. Um but what has come to our attention, we've received some complaints. Some folks are concerned that this is townland and the docks and the use of it
essentially suggests that it's private property. And the complaints have ranged from people being told to get off docks to people being told to um not trespass on that land and also some concerns about the sort of aggregation of
additional kayaks and boats and and so on. And so what the conservation commission is proposing to do is essentially undertake a process to figure out what's the right and fair way to sort of manage this
because it's been like this for a long time, right? And and I I wouldn't suggest that anyone has done anything on tour, right? Um but the reality is that I think our perception is that there is a certain amount of inequity in terms of how it's handled. who who gets to put a
dock there, who gets to use that land, how is that land used for access to the lake, how is it maintained to ensure the protection of our resources and recreation and so on. And so we wanted to come to you tonight to lay out sort of the challenge that we see in front of
us. Also to read you into it because um if we'll go to the the next slide here, you can see this is the the lake as a whole and this matches the figures you all have in front of you. Um I want you to pay particular attention to the yellow pieces of property. Those are the
pieces of property that are controlled by the select board. And interestingly enough, the select board controls sort of to the south of the beach along Queen Road or at the end of Queen Road. Um the select board presumably also controls
there are a couple of paper streets that terminate um at the lake. the the one in particular along Lake Road terminates and frankly you have a similar problem there and in that there are private property owners I think unless you guys have authorized it who have put a a gate
across it to prohibit people from accessing the lake. So essentially what we're getting to is a point where we need to come up with what the right approach is to manage this. And I I I would argue that doing nothing is an option. I wouldn't say it's a great
option, but it it's certainly an option. Um, but what we would propose to do, and we want to make sure you're read into this, is undertake a series of public hearings to gather input from the community, to gather input from community associations, and to weigh what the right choices are
here. I would expect we would also engage with parks and wreck. There's a substantial recreation component of this and we'd like to engage with you in that process as well to essentially answer the fundamental question of what is the the fair and best use of that property.
um if we were to decide and to be clear the the range of options is everything from do nothing to um to to frankly asking people telling people or or just doing it because it's technically it's on the
town's land removing the docks and um entirely and I think anything within that continuum is on the table and what we need to do is figure out what does the community need and want what are the uh what are sort of the legal implications of those things. What is
the appropriate thing to do from the conservation of the resource and in general how do how do we manage this fairly well? So if you take a look at the the next slide, we're not actually talking about um conservation. This is a table shows the amount of shoreline.
What I wanted to point out to you here is you we're looking at this particular parcel is 2700 ft long. um you control about 500 feet in addition to that 2700 feet. And what I would suggest to you is it would make a lot of sense for us to to do this together in in concert with
one another. Um despite the number of docks that you see along the lake, there actually only six parcels of land that are privately owned outside of Prrowy. Um only six parcels of land that actually have direct lake access. And one of those is on the inlet
side and it's all marsh. So functionally it's five. Um, and so we need to figure out sort of how to manage the public side. But I will tell you it's not our intention outside of chapter 91 licensing, which is a state program to get a license to put a dock on a great
pond. Um, it's not our intention to sort of make this policy specific to the private properties. We're trying to figure out what the equitable use is of the the town pieces of property. So the the point of coming in tonight is to make sure it's on your radar, to make sure it's on the community's radar, and
then we're going to begin a process to sort of try and sort this out. One of the pieces of information or one of the things I'm looking for from you all is your thoughts on what you would like to see in that process. Um we certainly have thoughts in terms of public hearings and so on, but if if you have
particular thoughts either now or later, um we do think this is it it's going to be challenging for folks and particularly the folks who have docs there who think they have docs there. Um
this is going to frustrate them and I think but it's also frustrating other members of the community who feel like they don't have access to that. So, we need to find a path forward. Thank you. Um Tom Harrington, thanks for being on. Thanks for being here. Appreciate that very much. Tom
Harrington, our council is also on the line joining us for this discussion as well. Um I would agree that um it's best for us to work together on this. um whatever whatever that solution is uh that we get
to um I think it's best if it's applicable to all the public lands along the lake. That would be my my first thought. Um I think public input is going to be crucial. I agree with you on that too for sure. Um so those are my
very initial impressions. I have some questions. Is there a conservation restriction along the 2700 ft or is it only under your control because it is in under the wetland protections act? I don't believe there's a conservation restrict it. It's simply under our care
custody and control. Okay. So it's effectively treated the same as as if there was a CR close to it. Yeah, we treat it the same way. It certainly gives us a little more flexibility. So, I talked about the range of options, but I think in between are some options where we say we do want
maybe we'll work with parks and wreck and say we do want a couple of docks there for people to fish off of and that's a little bit easier to do without the CR on it. That's fine. But we're functionally treating it the same way. How long have these docks been illegal? I mean,
years and years. Years, right? And that that that's one of the things that I wanted to make clear. I don't think anyone has done anything on tour. it's just come to a point where the inequities of it are uh coming to the surface and we need to solve them.
Um is the concern primarily the sort of issues with e equity or is it that there's actually damage being done to the shore or the lake or you know the environment. I I think it's primarily answering questions like if if that's
town the equity side of it primarily I'll touch on the other side in a second but it's very very hard to tell someone that they can't put a dock in when there's already a dock there. They say well it's town land. I want to put a dock in too regardless of
where they live. That that I think rightly to people rings very hollow rings unfairly. Um, I do think there are some concerns about it if we have a place where too many people are getting in the water
consistently and we start to sort of degrade the shoreline, we can have problems around that. Um, I would say those are more minor in comparison and relatively easy to restore if it is a problem. And then my last one is I wasn't I I just didn't quite understand the private
property versus town owned. So are you saying that whatever we do will not cover the private pro the five parcels that are private? That's our intention right now. Those parcels can get docks. We we are working through a process. Most of the docks in Littleton are not appropriately licensed
with the state. Tim and Lauren are working through a process uh with dock owners on private pieces of property to get those licensed. It is not a super time critical thing. So we're working through them bit by bit. That would be the only thing that you know
inappropriately permitted but this policy wouldn't cover those privatelyowned parcels that have but there's a state statute that covers those right and there's a conservation commission input on those that's separate from this. Got it. Okay. Thank you. That those are all my questions.
So how do you see this process going forward? I mean, are you planning to run this through the consom meetings because it seems like this could derail your normal set of business or do you want to create like a subcommittee between us park and recre and you to kind of drive
this until we're ready to bring it back to the regular meetings or our proposal right now is to run these hearings at least let's say the initial stages of them as hearings through the conservation commission meaning what we are really only talking about right now
is especially conservation is just that spit of land between the road and the lake. Um I I do think there's value in understanding particularly where you all want to go with the portions of the land that you control. Um I think park and
Rex's input is important. I'm not sure how that all fits together. But right now we're proposing conservation first and that seems seems like we should have a holistic solution and come up with something to get. I mean the land that we control versus that you control is more
semantics than anything. I would agree. I don't think the community cares about the distinction between those two things and most people don't even know which one's which probably. So um so having having them have different policies is not a a good thing. Um, but
I I'm I was just worried that your meetings could be um overwhelmed by this potentially if you have other business if you wanted to take it more is an offline. Right now, what I would propose is that we have a hearing and see how it turns
out. Um, I I do I I don't think it's an urgent thing, but I do think it will require diligent action. I mean, when I walked this area yesterday, there are docks on private land with signs that
say private property keep out. Like, we we really have to on public land. Sorry. Yes, there are docks on public land that say private property keep out. And if and if we I mean I I what is the
process if we want if we're more or less delegating them to the conservation commission to come up with a plan and that we're following do we have to delegate it or do we just say at the end chime in ours too or
do you know that Tom? Well, yeah. So, I think if we're looking at it's it's two different parcels with one being under the control of the select board and one being under the control of the concom. So, so you would each have to make
whatever um uh regulations uh or rules for that parcel by vote of your board. So if the conscom comes up with a policy for their land that you approve of, you
could adopt it for your land. Is there a is there a path forward where you know these docks are allowed under certain circumstances? It's not we don't have to remove them. We you're not saying we have to remove them all the docks. I I'm not saying we have to do anything right now. Okay.
I think we want to understand what our options are. I think removing all the docs is absolutely one of the options on the table, but leaving them in place I I think also an option. Leaving them in place with only private access, I think you would find a lot of opposition to,
but leaving them in place with public access maybe. But you also, we're going to have to answer this question as well. There are motorboats on at least two of these docks that are on public land and
at least one other maybe two other boats that are tied up to these docks. So if we are to leave docks in place, we're going to have to answer a question of who's allowed to use that, when are they allowed to use that, how this now becomes a scarce resource. How do we allocate that scarce resource? really
boring bureaucratic questions, but I think the ones that are important for doing this fairly. Um, so you know, I I be the email thread that we were on and some of the letters we got from residents and I went back
and watched the August 19th cons, it felt like at that meeting the the the sense was we're everything's illegal. They have to be removed immediately within the next two weeks. Town council has told us that. So now I'm hearing something very different from you. So
what where are like can you help me figure out where that divide is? Like Yeah, I I think what you heard on the 19th was somewhat reactionary, right? Like to be honest, I'm not sure everyone was aware of the fact that that is
conservation commission land. And I will tell you in general our approach to incursions on conservation land is fairly aggressive. Right? So I think what you heard on the 19th was our typical reaction to no, you can't build that on conservation land.
You back off though and you understand and think about the history of this and the understanding that this has gone on for someone asked I don't know how long decades right um that may not be the wisest approach. Okay.
And so going through a deliberate process to understand what the right answer is. I think you that's what you also heard in the 19th. I think what you heard from the conservation commission is an appetite to take them out and that may well be the outcome of this process.
Um but I'm I'm pulling that back a little bit and saying it's it's not the presumptive outcome. Thank you. Um sorry. In addition to the docks, there's a lot of there's trees and other invasives and whatnot there. Um, and the
solution needs to be holistic to come up with who's going to who's going to manage that property, what they're allowed to do, you know, and that too. So, it's beyond just the docks, I believe. Right. I I think that's absolutely right that some of these
areas are landscaped areas that are maintained um that are regularly mowed. Um some of them are more overgrown. I think if we were solely managing this for the let's say the ecological outcome would let the whole thing rewired. But I
would tell you that the conservation commission has two mandates, right? Like one is conservation but one is access to open space and recreation. And so you see you talked about boardwalks, right? That therein is the tension. I think we have the same tension here in that we
there's a lot of ecological value in trees hanging over the water, but also there's a lot of community value in being able to see your lake and access your lake. So we need to figure out the right path forward. Part of that is maintaining it, but I think it's um
it is something that is solvable. There's not actually a ton of property here. And one of the things that we would like to do is engage with um with the Long Lake Neighborhood Association to understand where they're at in general and try and find a path forward.
So I think um one of the threshold questions for us is are we do we want to be there every step of the way um as they're working their way through this? Do we want to check in every now and then or do we want to um in fully just
say conservation go ahead and look into this and and come back to us you know let us know when you figured out what you want to do. I don't see the last option as being very efficient or helpful. Personally,
I would be inclined to um have Conscom run their public input sessions and maybe we can consult with them um after that when when they have an idea of what they want to do. You're consuming
[Laughter] I knew that I mean I enjoy your company too. So I would be happy I would be very happy to like check up to to talk with Chase every time they they have a meeting and and coordinate with you all. Yeah. And then maybe you can report back during updates and let us know how
if we have you know guidance that we want to give then then we can figure out a good method of doing that whether it's at a cons meeting or an ad hoc committee or whatever. I to be honest I I think we'll learn a lot in the first sort of public hearing around this in terms of where people are
at. And I say the first because I don't anticipate it will be the only. All right. I I do think that when when a decision is made, it needs to be another joint meeting so that we're all on board with so that all the property is the same. But
yeah, I just I I um I think it's it's makes sense for them to be um running the hearings. I just want to avoid the situation where um they put in all the work and all the hours and they come up with something that works for
them and they come to us and you say, "Yeah, no." Yeah. That's that's not so great for us. What about you know? So I just want to make sure that we've got We agree which is why we're here now. Like I want to get it on your radar. We owe the community a comprehens
agree that parcel A is going to be handled this way and parcel B is going to be handled that way. Right. Yeah. So, all right. Um while while the process is playing out, do we need to do something with the private property signs, the gates, the things like that? Should we be doing
something immediately on the things that we know are an issue? Tom. Um, yeah, thank you. Uh, I it it would make me much more comfortable if we removed those signs. And I say that because there's a concept in law called
adverse possession. And adverse possession is when a party um takes over someone else's party by acting openly, notoriously, and continuously for 20 20 years. Now, typically it's um illegal to
adversely possess municipal land. So, we have some really good protections in place. Nonetheless, I don't like someone kind of putting a sign up that says this is mine, not yours on our land as being both open and notorious. So, I'd like to nip that one
in the bud. Okay. So, um, does that letter come? So, we need to figure out who to send those letters to or post something in a short in short order. Yeah. I mean, there's there's no title, right? Search for this. So,
I'm fairly confident that we can sort that out. Okay. Okay. I mean, we meaning you or we we meaning Tim and Lauren, but we meaning conservation. We don't need to bother you guys with it. I my my
expectation is that I'll walk out of this meeting and I will have an agreement to have that removed probably before the night's end. Okay. Okay. So, I it would be a a standard like you would handle it like a regular enforcement if you have to. I don't even want to handle it like an
enforcement. I would rather just understand that this is part of the next step in the evolution of how we manage this and do it with handshakes. And if it goes away without a letter, that would be ideal. And um
Tom, that works for you. Or does it really kind of need to be a letter? Okay. Yep. No, it's it does. Yeah, I'm I'm fine with Chase's approach. I think it's um you know, it's very civic oriented and I love that. Um and as long as it gets done, I don't care how it gets done.
I I would also point out that we don't need anyone's permission to remove it. That's correct. Right. because that's our Atlantic. Right. Right. Okay. Um there were a couple other issues that I had asked Tom to potentially be
prepared to answer and I think I if it's okay with you, I'd like to run through them. Tim Tom hit on the adverse possession, but I think there are also aspects of this. Tom, I I'd ask you to think about the the sort of end of the paper road. My presumption looking at
the TV. Tom, hi. Um, my presumption is that the select board controls that, but I think a little guidance from you there could be helpful to make sure we're going down the right path. Right. So, so that would require a little title work, but likely um
it is not controlled by the select board. If it's a paper street, unless the land under the paper street was given to um the town for the select board's control, it's still held in private ownership, but I believe that
the public likely has um a right of access to it. Okay. So, I would say with that answer, Tom, one of the things that we would ask uh the select board, madam chair, is if you could give us a leave to work with town council to try and run some of those things to ground.
Oh, yeah. Yep. Please do. Um Tom, the other question was how Long Lake is a great pond factors into this. Is is there are there any uh angles on this that are unique to it being a great pond that we need to pay
attention to outside of the chapter 91 licensing of docs? Well, so I I think ultimately not really, but let me just touch on what it what what it means to be a great pond. So a great pond means that the lake in its natural state is over 10 acres. And
I believe Long Lake certainly meets that standard. If it's a great pond, it means that the water and the land under the water are technically owned by the state and they're owned by the state for the purpose of providing the public with access to swimming and fishing and
boating and um kind of all the other fun things you can do on the water. So when someone builds a dock in the water above the low water mark, it's it's it's not really on our land. It's on the state's land. And the state allows that to
happen with a chapter 91 license. So I I in early on in your um uh in the discussion, you talked about working with some land owners to get them the chapter 91 licenses that they need. And that that's that's exactly the right
thing to do. the state is, you know, the state will absolutely work with people. These things happen all the time, but we want to get it right. Um, and so I think that's good. And but I think additionally, if we decide to do
docks off of the public land, then we want we're going to want to get our own chap chapter 91 license. So, we'll want to be thinking about that going forward. and and there parks and wreck has a chapter 91 license for their dock grid.
So a process that we're familiar with. So that that would be an agreement between the municipality and the state. Correct. Okay. Interesting. Tom, there's one other small angle on what you mentioned that I think also bears mentioning to the select board and that is that there's at least one like
play structure anchored out in the water. another sort of bone of contention here and that um my understanding is there been complaints about kids playing on it who don't own it and being yelled at and being told
not to access it. I think we would want to lump into this discussion the ability to more things recreational things on the lake bottom um as sort of part of this general process. Makes sense, Tom. But that is technically state land
that it's mored on. Is that right? Yeah. If it's if it's the the water and the land under the water are state land, so it's theirs to control. We control it in in some respects through the conservation commission because it would require wetlands permitting to do that.
Um but again, they're they're going to want to talk to the state about that. And again, the state doesn't do a lot of enforcement, but they do do some enforcement. And and to Tom's point, as we've worked with people who frankly have had docs for a long time, helping them get up to
speed with chapter 91 licenses, the state has been very um very professional in recognizing that, yep, this has been here for a while. We're not going to take enforcement action for what was here. We're just going to get it up to speed and move forward. So,
so Tom, just for clarity, if someone puts like a a a mooring ball out there, that's completely licensed different than a dock. Not necessarily. No, it would still be a chapter 91 license. So, chapter 91
licenses aren't just for docks. It's for a It's for anything that is affixed to the bottom of a great pond. But do we does the town have different uh controls then or because because that
would just be on state property then not on town property. Right. So it's not so we don't have an ownership interest. So we can't exercise any ownership rights over it. But we do have the conservation commission does need to permit anything that happens in
a wetland resource. and the great and uh it's a uh long lake is a wetlands resource. So there's also that component of it that you need your your conservation commission partner. Okay. N thanks very much.
Appreciate it. If anybody wanted to um if anybody saved their public input for now they can go ahead. State your name and your address please at the mic. My name is Tim Hearn and I live on the three Lake View Drive. I'd just like to
put forward that there aren't any real villains in this story but the people who abut the land are largely um acting sort of as unofficial stewards. In the case of the Long Lake
Neighborhood Association, they have annual cleanups of the lake and they're making the access, you know, presentable and usable in front of their properties. Then there I think it's rather complicated, too, because at the end of
the long streets coming off the hill, there's a a different component where I think the neighborhood, you know, might share a dock there. It looks that way. it to me. I don't know the the actual story behind it, but so there seems to be multiple uses of the
lake on that uh parcel of land we're under under discussion. And I would just like to put forward the idea that is there a possibility you could somehow deputize these people as stewards of the property in front of their the land in
front of their properties because that's basically what they're doing. Um, I think to shut them all out would result in wilding as I heard, which might mean beer cans and all the crap
that we pull out of the lake every year. And with all these people who are invested in the quality of the lake, they might go, "Well, we were shut out, you know, so who cleans up who cleans up the property near the beach?" It's the
Long Lake Neighborhood Association that goes out there annually and does that and that's just uh being good neighbors, you know. So, I just want to put that forward that I think there's a way that you know this idea of private property is sounds uh inappropriate for that land
because it isn't private. So just a coming together of the people involved and you know mapping out something that you know we're all winners because we all want the lake to look the best and everybody's contributing to that now in
their own little way but I think you know issues have been raised here like some people feel that they're not getting the access they would like and whatever I think these things can be worked out somehow. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Jim Gerity. I live at
43 Lakeshore Drive on the the property that was referenced on the earlier map. Uh I would just like to first thank the select board and the conservation commission for the discussion that's been held this evening. Like Matthew, I read the minutes of the August meeting and I did. They struck me also as
reflecting a precipitous set of decisions that were calling for immediate dramatic action without much town participation. And Chase, just what you outlined, I was very pleased to hear. I thought it was exactly what we should have which is a broad consultation of as Tim said people own
the lake and others and try to find a way that reflects the best interest of all both the lake itself which I think no one cherishes the lake more than we do and all the people who use it in different ways. I read I also had a some exchanges with Tim Pearson and I just
yesterday learned about the permitting policy that the commission had implemented last year which struck me as a very appropriate policy. Uh as I said in one of my emails what I read there again this was all briefly but I think I got it right was that the policy
exempted docs that had been in place for more than one year. Our doc I think I can safely say has been in place for more than 20 years but we would happily go through the permitting process and there was a there was a comment about waving the fees. I would happily pay the fees and I think we should encourage
fees along with the permitting process as a way to generate revenue to provide the kinds of things that Tim was talking about town lake cleanup and participation in ways that can actually make the lake better. I'll add one last comment that I don't want to I don't want to make this overly melodramatic,
but in the many years, the 20 years that we've been on that lake and on that dock, we have on more than one occasion, two occasions, helped rescue capsized boats that were at the far end of the lake that I I'm pretty confident would not have made it back to the town beach if they hadn't come to our dock. So,
there are many uses for those docks and I think we can find many creative solutions and and I don't think I don't think there are that many people or that you know, we live near the end of the lake. there only a few more houses. There's only a few streets. So, I don't think it's a massive problem. I think with some common sense thinking about shared use, public docks, I'm I'm
hopeful we can find a way that will work for all the residents and for the lake itself. So, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Hi there. Dustin Neil, 17 Lakeshore Drive, one of the doc owners. Um, I'd like to fill in a couple of gaps. I'll save the myriad positive ways that the
docks serve the community and serve the health of the lake um for the future public hearings. Um but to answer some of the questions, I know for certain many nearly all of the docks have been there for 20 years or more. The one at my place was present when I moved in in
2004. Of course, it's been maintained and kept up over that time. Um, I've welcomed every neighbor who's ever asked to use that dock, recognizing that it's public land that have been very clear about that. So, I think there might be some legitimate uh concerns about private property signs or things like
that, but those are easily addressed. Um, and I would like to ask a point of clarification if we could from town council, which is on the issue of potentially having moorings. If the Conservation Commission had to permit a mooring, would they be allowed to deny a
permit just because they don't like the idea of moorings, or would they essentially have to permit it as long as the rules were followed as if as the rest of the permitting processes go? Tom, could you tell me what you mean when you say more ringing?
Uh, say a heavy anchor 50 feet offshore that someone keeps a boat on. So, so it's like a cinder block with a bottle on top that they use to connect their boat to. I would say heavier and prettier than that for sure.
Okay. Um, so so there's two components there, right? So there's the wetlands component where you know the with the wetlands protection act where um you're you're placing something on a wetlands resource. So they would need to permit
that component of it. although they could also wave it if it's if they consider it diminous. And then there is the component um that it's again it's the it's state land so you need the states permission to put that on their
land. Um in the case of a mooring they might be willing to um delegate that authority to the town but I don't think they've done that yet. Thanks. I'm just trying to get if it's a hurdle that's achievable or if it's a
hurdle that if the board or if if the commission or the board decided like just to not allow moorings if they could if it's a you know technically allowed but not achievable that would be a concern but I think there's better I think there's better solutions than that no matter what I
you're probably right but but I would say they can't they can't deny it because they would need a wetlands reason to deny it because they don't own the And so they'd only be acting under their um their role as uh um enforcers
of the Wetlands Protection Act. Understood. Thank you. Lastly, just sort of a point of context that Jim sort of referred to and goes along with Tim's idea, which is most of these docs, to my understanding, and it's really been word of mouth through the years, is that at
one point in the '9s or perhaps very early 2000s, that the town literally told the the land owners across the street, if you steward the land, then we will tolerate or allow you to have a dock. It was always, of course, not technically permitted by the permitting
process. Um, and I think most of us there have lived up to that in various forms. So, if there is a way to steward the land, a little guidance about what the best way to do that is because we definitely have some land that's sort of heavily landscaped, some that's not at
all. And if it was rewed, we see parts of the lake where that, you know, comes all the way back to the street and people can't access it because it's poison ivy knee high, right? in other parts where, you know, I'd put Lakeshore Drive up against anywhere in town for the number of walkers every day and they're there because they enjoy being
able to walk along the shoreline of the lake and enjoy the view across the way because we have a beautiful unimpeachable resource across the way. It's really fortunate that we have a lake with no houses and all conservation land on the other side and being able to access that um from various parts of the
neighborhood is not just convenient, but it gives people more time to put into conservation and relaxation, not just having a dock for the sake of a dock. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Rob Browns 25 Juniper Road. I didn't think we were going to be talking
tonight, so I didn't come prepared. Uh I'm very heartened by what I heard tonight. Uh like you, Matthew, uh I listened in on that August meeting. I listened to three meetings. Tonight is nothing like those three
meetings. Nothing even close. It was enough for me to challenge you, the select board, with regard to if you listen to those meetings, will you come away as I am. Unfortunately, I appreciate the
volunteers on cons. I think they do a great job, but the rhetoric around this issue has been really alarming. There's I'll paraphrase. Why don't we get the public hearing and just put it in one of our regular time
slots? so we can contain it within 15 minutes. That's not the spirit that I hear tonight. That's not the spirit that I hope this goes forward. But I will say that some members spoken on record
are are quite outrageous with regard to um the inconsistency with what I hear is the reasonleness expressed tonight. And I I just felt that I had to get that out because it wasn't one meeting, wasn't
two meetings, it was three meetings. So, thank you. Thank you, Andrea Kern, Middle Sex Drive. I'm in the Lake neighborhood, but not as much as some of these guys. Um, I guess as far as the docks, I mean, you talked
about the shoreline being degraded. I think it would be less degraded if there were docks. I mean, there's somebody who's parking some big pontoon boat there and I and I see it breaking down the the reeds there and stuff like that. So, I think the docks would be
preferable to that. And um like Dustin said, it's it's it's really it's the only lake in town that everybody can go to, you know? I mean, you can't walk around Speck Pond. You can't walk around Manowani. You can't I mean, Long Lake is
I mean, it's got all that great conservation land and um and this is really the only place people can put boats in. And I know there's a boat dock, you know, a boat launch, but I don't know. It it just seems more
welcoming and I I I agree. People really are keeping it up. I mean, they're mowing the lawns and they're, you know, it looks great. I think uh years ago it it was not maintained, you know. I mean, I'm talking years ago. I've lived in town for like really long time, 50 more
more 60 years. Um and it was sort of the the wild west there. Um and um I think people are really being responsible now about it and I think they will continue to be responsible. Thank you.
Thanks everyone. Any closing remarks? Are you good? All set. All set. All right. Thank you, Chase. Appreciate it. Let's talk officer. I'll sign off now if you don't need me. Yeah. Thanks, Tom. Appreciate it.
Okay. Good to see you all. Likewise. Thanks, Tom. All right. Let's talk office hours. So, I think we wanted to say we wanted to try some different time slots and different days instead of doing it always on Friday, right?
Um, so what times I don't know. I'm open to suggestions. Weekends, daytime. Yeah. Um, I'll preface. Uh Gary did um get in touch with me and say that he would like to um participate. Okay, great. So um and he was fine with um
I think weekday weekday nights or during the day. Um I think he said during the day. Okay. for him. But um I I think he was fine with everybody setting their own hours if they wanted to, you know, like So I
guess that's one threshold question is do we want to have standard, you know, the same hours every week? Do we want to mix it up so that if somebody can't come on Wednesday afternoons, they can maybe catch us the next week on a Thursday afternoon or two weeks later? Um,
I think that was one of the problems with the Friday afternoon thing is that if you can't make Friday afternoons one week, you might, you know, it's a good chance you're not going to be able to make it, you know, two weeks later or two weeks after that either. Yeah. Um, so
my thought was that we try to um work out a schedule where we each um take one week out of the month every every month and then set whatever time works best
for us within that week. I think that's probably a great way to go and as we do it, we'll figure out what times are populated and what aren't. Yeah. Yeah. So, we'll just do a oneweek rotation, the four of us. Like, we each take a
week and then we start over. So, that we're each take doing once a month each of us roughly. Yeah. I mean, it'll a couple extras, but Yeah. Well, Mark, what do you think? I think that's fine. And then Okay. Okay. Good. Yeah, let's do that. All right.
So, um, one of us should email Lisa. Yeah. and set up a uh set up the document that we can put our names in and the times we're gonna the times we're gonna the time slots we're going to take because we probably don't want to have someone do Sunday afternoon and then the next person do Monday morning. Right.
Right. Probably not. Although you never know. You never know. Um we also sometimes, you know, there's people that want to talk to one of us and not another one of us, too. So that's true. Um do either of you use your Outlook calendars at all?
No. Okay. So, so a shared calendar would not be helpful to you. I mean, I I guess I could. It's just a matter of me remembering to look at it for one thing. So, I don't typically use them. You can import it into your Google calendar. I already have six calendars imported
from my Google. I can beat that. Um I mean, I like the shared spreadsheet. Okay. Um, but I guess I guess if I No, I mean if the calendar it makes sense to have to schedule
things on a calendar, right? If we're doing it once a week. So, it's probably probably the way to go. Yeah. Okay. All right. I'll talk to Lisa about setting up a um a shared calendar. Okay. For office hours. And we'll see. Okay. How that works out. So, there's effectively three weeks
well three or four weeks left in this month if you depending how you want. We just want to take a couple to get started. Yeah. Let me pull up my multiple calendars. I am not going to be able to do it this
week. But next week, the fifth week of the 15th, I could probably do Okay. Week of the 15th is terrible for me. So, okay. So, why don't I do the week of the 15th and I'll pick a time. Mark, do you have a preference between the week of the 22nd or the week of the 29th?
Um, both of those weeks are okay now. This week is not. Yeah, me neither. So, I think we need to let this week go unless Gary can take it.
Um, so do you have a preference between 22nd and 29th? Nope. All right. Whatever works for you. Uh, I'll take the 29th. Okay. Oh, no. I will take the 22nd, please. Okay.
So, I'll take the week of the 29th. Yeah. 15th, 22nd, 29th. And um I'll let Gary know, but that's what we've got worked out so far. Let's see if he wants to fill in this week or after that. And then what we should do
going forward is um get our times set in time so that they're in the newsletter when it's published. So that Yes, good idea. Newsletter and and it will go on the um website as well. Okay. Yeah, that's a good idea. Okay.
Someone will have to remind me of the deadline for the newsletter. It's the 15th for the first. Okay. For the publication on the first. Okay. Um, all right. So, we could get our October dates in basically. Yeah, we can.
All right. Yes, we can get our October dates in. So, we should start a calendar and then an email thread with Gary and we'll figure out October. Yes. Okay. Who's my backup on remembering that? Um, I will as vice chair, I will do that.
Thank you. ready to move on to policy discussion regarding use of the common and the flag and flag pole on the common. I would I'm going to kick it off by saying I don't want to I would rather we didn't vote without two of our members
present. Um so but I'm happy to continue the discussion. So you rather not vote on the use of the common or the flag pole policy or both? The flag pole policy is pretty simple is just adding the P.
Yeah, the flag pole policy is pretty straightforward. Um and I think I'm fine with that. It's the common that I think is more substantive in terms of Yeah. But the P is already there. It's not adding the P. It's adding purple heart.
Oh, the purple heart. Sorry. Yes, you're right. Okay. Good call. Thank you. Yeah. Um my so my comments on the use of the common are I don't know
there's item number six which says applicants for the use of the common may be required to submit proof of liability insurance. We should that needs to be clear defined on who is required and who's not right. It should also follow whatever policy
like park and wreck must have a policy for the use of a park, right? And this we have multiple parcels in town that have some kind of agreement like this. They should all follow more or less the same
the same policy, right? It um I don't know what the policy is for FA Park if they have that in there or what if they have these same conditions too. we should figure out unifying them. Um I'm not sure. Yeah, in the insurance I'm not
sure on the other comment I would have is um this is another one of those things that I think we should end up delegating to the town administrator that he can approve them but he can't deny them. Kind of like we did with the one day liquor licenses, right? We don't
need to approve the use of these things if everyone else signed off at our meetings unless there's an exception. that he doesn't think it's fit and something right. So those are my two comments. How do you think we should solve the rationalizing the policy on the use of
the parks and commons and stuff like a you know I'll look at uh Saul yeah I mean we certainly can can take a look at the policies. I guess my my question and I don't know I don't necessarily want to take over um but you
know why do we have different control of different parks? What is the I mean the yeah 30 King Street obviously is recreation FA Park is much more a green space more in common with the common I would say than than
some of our other spaces. Yeah. So, I don't I don't know what we're doing next, I guess. So, I I've got to say I don't think we need this at all. I'm pretty not okay with it with any any policy at best. I think it should be with an
expectation of 100 or more people. Um I don't the common I think is is different in that it's um historic historically the place where free speech happens. Um I think a
requiring a permit is much too close to prior restraint for me to be comfortable with it. I don't think people should need a permit to walk onto the common with some signs as long as they're not impeding traffic or causing some other
uh disturbance. Um so I would I would say that um if if we want to do this, I think it should only apply when there's an expectation of 100 or more. So, I both agree and disagree with you on this because there are events like
the um country gardeners that go out there and and set up shop there, right? Those should have to get permission. But, um but the people that are doing, you know, going out and holding signs, I agree with you on right.
Well, that falls under the hundred or more, right? No, I mean easily 100 people at those at the country at the gardeners there might be a hundred but it would be if you counted everyone that was there over the course of the day there's not be a hundred at a time. Why are the none of the plants are walk
there at like 8:05 in the morning? How is that math isn't mapping? Yeah. The real difference there though is setting up all the setting up all the time. Right. Right. Right. Right. And that's that's why the permit was required. Right. Is because they start the night before. Right. But but you but that means you
have to have something that has a permit for the common for that type of event. You don't need to necessarily have it for the other type of events. Right. That's I think I think our policy is generally for events when somebody wants to reserve
the space for their activity whether it's the the road race or they've been weddings or other things there. But that's sort of the if you want to sort of lay claim to that space for a period of time, then we ask you to
get a permit. If you just want to show up and toss a ball or do whatever, then permits hel. So, it could either be like a I mean, so I could see two different ways of approaching it. It could be um if you
want to sell something on the common, you need a license um or excuse me, a permit and or if you um are intending to use the common overnight. I think that's that is also a reason to need a permit.
you know, if you're wanting to use the um the common outside of um dusk to dawn, no, inside of dusk to dawn, then um then you need a permit.
I agree with you on I agree with you 100% on the free speech and I I think we should carve that out as no permit is required and set up. I don't know exactly what the guidelines are, but I feel like we've already identified a few that pretty common sense things if
you're going to put a structure up, you know, if you're going to use it after dark or if you're going to reserve it with so that other people can't use it. All those are great criteria for a permit. And that might be enough. Those three might be enough. Structure, dark, and selling something.
Oh, and selling something. Yeah. Yeah. And what was the Oh, that Well, reserving the space, but I think I think so I think selling something is a better Okay. Yeah. I mean, there's Yeah, there's always going to be gray area, right? There's always going to be like borderline cases that we can't figure
out here, right? Um, we just need a sensible approach to try to so that when someone says, "Do I need a permit for this?" We can say, "Are you doing one of these three things?" Yes, you need a permit. Or, "No, you don't." What does a structure mean, though? I
mean like when Rotary has you know they when the Rotary does the tree lighting for example they've never come asking for a permit right but they set up a podium and set up tables right what counts and it's after dark yeah I mean I think they would need a
permit you know and there's more than 100 people I think I think the DPW is worried when people start driving stakes into the ground so that might be a good way to to determine whether or not you need a permit or if that's a structure So again, I mean, I think we could probably work out these.
We could work them out. Yeah. Because you don't want to catch um a temporary flag pole that, you know, that the Indian-American Association had, you know, for their ceremony the other Yeah. the other week and they put the flag up and it was up for, you know, solid 5 10
minutes and then they put the flag down and um I you know, I don't want to burden people um needlessly. So yeah, the stakes thing makes sense. Do you have any comments? Are you are you is that a tipping point
of you so you you're you're permitting people to put stakes in stakes in the ground? No. No. Okay. Okay. I thought that was that would require a permit if you did that if you wanted that. Well, yeah, that's a good point. If we're not going to give the permission anyway, then how is it how is that the
threshold? We have I mean we have to define what a structure is I guess and I don't know if we can do that right now tonight. Yeah. Um but it
seems like we should be able to work it out. But I don't know who does it and who who like uh rationalizes the new policy with the old one and make sure the language is right. I mean, I know we're going to have council look at it
at the end, but someone has to actually like write the the meat of it to begin with. So, I don't know. So, I'll work on a draft of something based on what we've talked about. Okay. Okay.
Yeah. I would think structure. Anything that's going to be stood on anything that's erect structure, right? Anything that's erected. Anything. Could be a tent, could be a temp, you know, could be a lemonade stand or anything
like that. Any, you know, anything like that that's uh on on there. Is there chairs, folding chairs? No, I right. Take a crack at it.
Structure has to be defined somewhere in somebody else's policy. Um, do we want to vote on the flags? I'm fine with voting on the flag policy. Just to add the the add the purple. Yeah, I'm okay with voting on flags. Do we have a motion for it?
Uh, I don't think so. Um, or we can wait until until everyone's here. I can make it up. Okay. Uh, I'll make a motion that we update the flag policy to include the Purple Heart
flag as an allowed flag on town property. Second. Moved by Mark, seconded by Matthew. All those in favor? I. Yay. We did it. Okay, Mr. Administrator.
Thank you, uh, Madam Chairwoman. So, there is, uh, there's there's two requests, uh, for the select board to vote on tonight. The first of which is an inter municipal agreement. Um as a res uh with as you from my memo as you
can as you as you as you know Littleton Police Department has been participating in the community outreach initiative network program through the department of mental health and it is there was and uh it was a a company that uh was uh
that offered the the services to be able to to deal with uh the mental health issues that various ious communities around here. uh police departments and um unfortunately that uh uh the police departments were not uh pleased
with their performance and as such what they did is they took the uh initiative and they that the police chiefs did in the areas in the uh area and uh took control of it and uh as you as my memo
it reads it's uh it's a fully gr It's fully grantfunded municipal employees uh going to be led by air police by the by the town of air the police chief uh with chief Gil and the town manager Poran uh will take the
administration of the grant and with the support of uh DMH and uh it is uh in order to be able to be continue to be included in that it is requested that this IMA be uh be signed and for you. This has been vetted
through town council. Uh changes have uh some some suggestions. They have been uh included uh within the IMA. And uh so it is up to you whether you uh the
chairwoman can sign it or if you want to delegate me to sign it. However you would like to do that. So, it's a one-year um term that's subject to renewal. Termination requires 6 months notice. Yes.
Um what are the provisions for is there any clawback if we were to um if we were to terminate? Is there any way for us to to um get
back a proportion of the grant money that we put in. Um, or is it it's a it's more of a regional thing. So there's no it's not so so basically advocates was supplying
all the personnel and now air police chief and town administrator are going to administer the funds and hire personnel or are they using in-house people in air or no it's uh uh hire person because a lot of the personnel left
okay the the vendor okay and the the the co-cl clinician mentioned that the town was the services that was being utilized. Uh Susan La mayor uh will continue to work.
I see. Okay. All right. I got it. Okay. So, basically they're just taking over administration of the correct personnel and Okay. Correct. And D uh DH recognizes uh what the towns are doing and support it. Okay. Good.
So, I generally don't have a problem with the agreement. There's a couple things. So, the 180 days is an awfully long time for the cancellation because they're going to let us know December 31st what our budget is for the next year,
which means we don't even have time before the fiscal year starts to cancel it before it kicks in. Right. Yes. It's too long of a cancellation period when we don't know what we're actually on the hook for. I thought I read in
there unless mutually agreed. Did I not did I did I confuse that with something else? I thought I unless it was mutually agreed. Um where is it? I mean it is uh that the the issue also
that we have here if I'm I'm mistaking confusing with something else but the issue is we have as you can see we've got multiple other towns is not just us and them I mean everybody's in the same boat um and I believe it is uh has been for
the most part universally accepted. Where is it about December 31st? And um it said in on page three of the agreement on item six, it says air shall prepare an annual fiscal year budget um
air shall provide said budget to the towns no later than December 31st preceding the fiscal year which the budget pertains. So, but isn't that but does since our fiscal year starts in July, doesn't that mean we have six months to to review their
their budget before our fiscal year starts? But that means that if they provided on December 31st, your six months takes you to your beginning of your fiscal year. You're already going to be paying for some of it in the next fiscal year if you have to before you even had a chance to say no.
I thought if they gave us it December 31st of this year, we would be looking at fiscal 27, right? which would starts six months later, right? But you 180 days is six months. So by the time they told you what the budget is, you're already into the next fiscal year before you could get out of
it, right? By at least a day by a minimum of a day, right? Or a few hours maximum. Who knows? Okay. I don't June 30th falls on June 30th, which would be a roughly 180 days after
December 30th first, right? So Yes, sir. So by the time you got around to looking at the budget numbers when we had our normal budget sessions, it would be too late to say we can't afford this without already incurring cost. I think um I mean the intent is that
it's all paid for through grant funding. So the I think the question more is how the grant cycle lines up with the termination clause. um if we if we find out we you know the
grant didn't come through then I think every nobody's going to want to continue right then if it if we don't get the grant money none of the towns are going to want to participate um correct there's no obligation so as long as the grant finding out about
the grant doesn't um come so late that we are already committed to expenses we should be fine I mean is there any obligation I mean, in order for us to spend money on this, I would assume we have has to be in the budget and there's have to be a town meeting vote. So, how could we
possibly be on the hook for money? We're not. Yeah. So, I don't So, so I don't know what you're worried about, but we are if we can't get out of this agreement. If this agreement commits us to money that we're not allowed to spend, that's the So, I guess I'm saying like does this this
it's also kind of under duration. It says it lasts for a year. So I don't understand what happens after a year either. It can be renewed. It says unless it's extended by a vote of the town. So if we don't vote to extend it, what does the 180 days really mean?
It's it's just there's statements that are kind of contradictory to each other that I don't understand which one wins. There were a couple there that town council had uh had corrected contradictory uh statements that to your
point. Well, if you want to um continue it, I can I can have a deeper conversation. I don't know. I mean, how other I mean, it just I don't know how others feel about it. I
I'm just looking for any place where it says that we I don't see us on the hook. Right. It says Costs and expenses incurred by AIR are the sole responsibility of AIR unless otherwise so stated. Understood the AIR
is entitled for reimbursement through the state um department of mental health the grant. Basically at the end of paragraph six it says it is the intent of heir that all costs, fees and expenses to be incurred will be eligible for reimbursement through grant
funding. it is the intent but no but it does not say that it is the case that all costs will always be covered by grant funding. So I'm not sure what uh I'm not sure how to read that and I I'm I think that's a question for town council. Okay. I I guess I would I I I think I see what
Mark is getting at like is there a world in which we are on the hook for expenses here um based on the language of this agreement? I don't see anything that says we have to pay it though. Each town shall bear its own cost, fees, and expenses related to the enforcement
of this IMA. That's lawyers. That's our time with Tom. I mean, I only see costs cost reimbursement tied to the grant. I don't see it tied to the towns. I mean, the scope of services says the
town of air will use the grant money to fund and enhance the community outreach initiative network. So there's no Yeah, I I guess I don't know for sure, but I don't see any place where it says we are on the hook for for paying for any of the services. We're only on the
hook for paying for um what what was it the our legal time and even the administration of the grant air will bear all the cost of that and get reimbursed. So, I would be I mean
I'm I would be okay signing I would be okay voting to sign this I think but if you are concerned or the language isn't clear enough we can ask council to give us an opinion. I mean council council gave us an opinion right?
Yeah council reviewed this made a couple changes that were contradictory in in other areas and um offered no other concerns. Okay. So, the concerns that they noted, are those incorporated into what we into what's in our packet? Yes. Okay.
So, we can either um Mark, if you'd like, we can vote to authorize Jim to sign it once he's run it through council again or once I would be okay with that if we get a
determination. just get council to weigh in on some of the questions. Okay. Um and then once council confirms that we don't need to go through town meeting. Yeah. Or just that for anything related to the agreement, right? Because otherwise it doesn't it
doesn't much matter. I would say that we're not obligated to spend any money apart from, you know, the time that basically paying for counsel to review the agreement. Correct. I that's what I you know. Okay. That's what I would know. So, let's Yeah. So,
so let's let's vote. Let's authorize Jim to do that to Jim to sign once once that's clarified. Yeah. Okay. So, bring it and I'll also ask I'll also ask town council with the 180 180 days concern.
So, I'll move that we vote to authorize uh the town administrator to assign it pending comments from uh town council. Second. Moved by Mark, seconded by Matthew. All those in favor? I I Thank you.
Um here we have uh have Okay, so here we have uh on the second uh item um and I don't know how to pronounce that uh second word, the Boston
Aanam. Ethan um proprietor share uh as uh we were notified uh that uh they're one of the oldest nation's oldest libraries and the select board holds one share uh and they and you must
designate an official representative among the staff. The previous representative was uh Miss Laura Zalins Zalookski. um of the library in 2012 and it is a share that was purchased by
George Shadic of Boston in 1854. So it says in here that the value has changed and that the value is zero. Yes. I wish I knew what it was before it changed, but I do notice elsewhere that you can buy a share if you want for $5,000. It
says that later on, but yes, I'm in favor of holding on to this val valuable asset. So, I gave a little bit more information on this from the library trustees days um that the Boston AANAM is one of the oldest private libraries in the country.
It's right downtown. It's uh we the trustees tooured it with Marne back in probably 2008. We went into a tea that they had. Um they have you can buy like one day memberships too and go in events. It's
um it's really amazing to go in and see it. Um I was wondering what ever happened to this share. Um I know at one point the Aanam was trying to claw these shares back and we fought hard to keep this share. We were like one of two libraries in the Commonwealth or two
towns that actually have one of these shares. um um they tried to get they tried to buy them all back and we refused to sell ours. So this is a great resource for the town. I wish we used it more. Um I would suggest the select
board go and if we give this to Mr. Alvarez go and say when are you taking us? Um because it's it is a really cool thing to go and see. So if we have since we have the share we can get in without paying for the one day. Can anyone from town get in? I'm not entirely sure of that. I'd have to read
this in a little more careful detail. Okay. But um I'm just curious if it's one of the, you know, because the library has the day passes. I'm wondering I don't think you I don't think it works that way, but I'm not 100% positive. So Okay. Is it like an invite only library sort of? Yes. Okay. Wow.
Um it's very very cool to go to. Um and are we designating Sam as the as the as the holder? Yeah, I think that makes sense. Yes. Okay, great. I'll take a motion. I'll move the SLboard vote to approve
the Boston AAN proprietary proprietor share transfer to Sam Alvarez, library director. Second. Moved by Mark, seconded by Matthew. All those in favor? I. That's cool. Now I want to Yeah, thanks for the background info.
Any um comments about minutes? I gave it a cursory glance. But I wasn't here. So I only I was not at one of these. The only one that's listed is August 11th, right? Oh, no. There's one above
that. June 10th. That was the Zoom meeting. Oh, yes. Okay. Ready for a motion or? Yeah. Move the select board vote to approve the meeting minutes from the select board meetings on June 10th, 2025 and
August 11th, 2025. Second. Moved by Mark, seconded by Matthew. All those in favor? I I moved to Motion to adjourn. Second. Moved by Mark, seconded by Matthew. All those in favor? I.
Thanks everyone and thank you Littleton. That's it.