Hi, this is Carrie. I apologize for Well, I'm not late. I apologize for being right on time. >> You should apologize for being right on time. Uh-huh. >> We had to take extra precautions today because another meeting got uh Zoom
bombed. So, we're just, you know, >> Yeah. >> being careful. >> That's great. >> Yeah, that's great. Thank you for doing that. >> Oh, wow. >> Sorry. Yes, that's great that you're taking the precautions. That's not great that anything was
Yes. Okay, I think we can go ahead and get started. I um >> did someone let Adid in? >> Uh is Oh, he's right there. >> I got him. >> There you go.
>> Thanks, Sean. and Sophie Hansen is not a able to attend tonight. >> It looks like we're all here. So, um I'll call the meeting to order. um May 12th
um board of health and um can we have a a roll call >> presid Janelle here >> Kevin? Yes, >> here >> Joan Witzel here >> and Rick Lopez.
>> Um, and >> I do hear >> not in the background. >> Yeah, we got some feedback from somebody going on. >> Sorry. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, in terms of the agenda tonight, uh, we
have approval of the minutes from, uh, the April meeting. Uh, public comment, although, um, we'll see if there's, uh, any public comment. >> I think John Burke is here uh, for public comment. >> Okay.
>> Yes. And then um I was going to make uh since uh Chuck Terrone and Brian Boa are here uh from the conservation commission. I think we might um move that discussion up um to do first and
then we'll do the haulers regulation and the protocol for communication and then wrap up with the usual reports. So that's the plan for tonight. Um, in terms of the minutes for April 15th, everybody hopefully has had a
chance to review them. Any comments, questions, edits? >> No. >> Look. Okay. Good. Okay. And uh vote. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from April 15th. Do
I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. Um, roll call carry. Uh, >> sorry, I was muted. Yes, >> Kevin.
Kevin's muted as well. Um, um, but we can lipre Kevin. Um, you said yes, Joan. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay.
Um, in terms of public comment, um, I see a couple names I'm not familiar with. John Burke, Joseph Flurry. Uh, why don't we start? >> Go ahead, K Haley.
>> Start with John Burke. Does that work? >> Yes, he logged on first. Okay. >> I'll ask to unmute him. Thank you. Uh my name is John Burke. I live at uh 8 Sanborn Street. >> Yes.
>> And um I appreciate the opportunity. The folks at your health department have been um receptive to the fact that when I moved to town, I was told that there were some regulations in the town, rules in the town preventing uh dumpster
dumpster emptying at hours like 4:45, 5, 5:15 in the morning. And so I have repeatedly informed the when this happens. Um the noise is like a gun goes off when they dump those dumpsters. Uh
if you're not familiar with a sandborn, it's the postmark building. And uh so it's right in downtown. There are at least a dozen um various dumpsters within earshot of us behind CVS. Uh the various churches that are across the
street. And um so when they show up at 4:45 a.m. and back their truck in with the beep beep beep beep beep and then they dump it and it sounds like a uh a cannon has gone off, it's not good for sleep. So uh it is unhelpful and I think
if there's something the town can do to regulate that that's done during regular business hours, I know I live downtown during business hours, that's the way it goes. But you know 4:45 a.m. doesn't seem reasonable for that to happen. Great. Well, we hear you, Mr. Burke, and
um perfect timing because we will be discussing the all regulations and uh we'll definitely take that into consideration. >> I appreciate that very much. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh Joseph Flurry, do you have a public
comment or are you just tuning in to watch? Maybe we can unmute him. I am part of the conservation commission here to speak with Brian and Chuck later. Apologies. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Um All right.
>> Can I just clarify real quick? I'm just trying to figure out where 8 Sandborn is. John, if somebody couldn't unmute. >> Yep. >> Put John back on. >> So So Sanour Street runs between Haven and Lowel.
>> Okay. Are you familiar with the new post 1917 steakhouse? >> Uh, correct. Yes. Yeah. The old post office. That's what you're referring to. >> So, 8 Sanborn is the condominiums that are behind post 19 post 1917. We're we're in the residential. There are 50
units residential. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Okay. Um so why don't we as I mentioned go on to agenda item seven on the conservation commission's inquiry um
into the wildlife policy and I don't know a day do you want to just >> I'll just defer to you I'll defer to >> Thank you. Um, so in the pre-board packet, uh, I think everybody got the
email, um, that Brian Bo had sent asking, uh, a couple questions as to how the wildlife policy, uh, a affects or impacts or how the, uh, for
conservation and town lands um, how it relates to that. Um and he had a couple specific uh questions. Um you know, one was um was around
uh are they required for town managed lands to, you know, have signs up? Are there any specific requirements for those town owned lands? And um and then secondly, if as I
understand it, if there were approved wildlife feeding uh efforts to preserve certain types of wildlife on town lands, um would that be uh acceptable under the
current policy? And so maybe I could just ask Brian to um you know speak to those two questions. So we so really clear on what you're asking for. We did ask town council to comment, but we can
talk about that um later. So Brian, welcome. Hello. Thank you. Um you can't see me because for some reason I'll let me turn my camera on, but anyway, uh thanks for having us here tonight. Uh Adai, thank
you for passing my note on to the uh the board members. Um, as was just mentioned, uh, we did have some questions, uh, looking for clarifications and we did read the response from town council, um, which was helpful.
Um, I don't want to get into a lengthy statement of any kind above and beyond the letter that you're seeing in front of you, but for the most part, we want to make sure that uh we are in sync with the goals of the board while at the same
time being able to achieve the goals of the conservation commission. Um so for example uh we have a multi-year restoration project going on at Bear Meadow. Um we've done some tree culling,
some thinning, uh some grasses cutting and we are uh intending to bring back uh bird stock for example to promote further growth. Uh, one of the thoughts is that is likely we would have bird
feeders sometime in the future. Although the type of bird feeder, the type of seed isn't known yet. So our thought is our concern is that somehow that that process would be deemed a public nuisance.
Um, and so it would be helpful if we get clarification on what is meant by public nuisance. I have looked it up online. I know the words that are said are online, but as we know, the internet can lie. Um, so I'd like to understand from your
perspective how you will be judging uh a complaint if it comes in what deems a public nuisance um in a conservation area, which is by definition all about habitat and
wildlife. I give it back to you guys for a moment. Sure. Um, so I mean I guess I can start and see if other board members have other um
Oh, actually I can turn it over to Kevin. Uh, that's fine. And start the conversation. >> Yeah, I I I think Brian, it's it's it's pretty simple. Um, actually, sorry, let me backtrack. It's not simple. Um uh but the definition of
it is is fairly um self-evident where public nuisance is in the effect that you are affecting your neighbor in a way um by feeding of wildlife
um that they are are put out by this feeding. Right? So, um, the reason why bird feeders are excluded is because, you know, it's it's fine to have your bird feeder. If your bird feeder, however, is being um knocked over by
squirrels, for example, and then that that feed is now on the ground and those um fowl are then uh feeding off of that and creating a nuisance for your neighbor. That's kind of the the the
gray area that we're talking about. But make no mistake about it, it is a gray area. It is subject to this board's opinion as to you creating a public nuisance.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, so as I said, I've looked it up online and everything and in there, one of the words that jumps out to me is an unreasonable expectation. And again, conservation of land by definition is habitat and
wildlife. So, um, can you think of a scenario where it would be unreasonable to have birds being fed? How could that constitute a public nuisance? >> If it carries onto somebody else's property,
>> I see. I think I think one of the actually we can we can close the uh screen there. So, >> may I may may I join in on the convers? I'm sorry, I have my hand up, but I I just I mean, there's a legal definition
of nuisance that we're bound by as the board of health to investigate issues, and it's about whether they pose harm to um sorry, I'm just um um uh it's um uh something that may be
harmful to inhabitants, injurious to the estates, dangerous to the public health, or may be attended by injurious odors. Um, and so that's the the starting point. And then as Kevin says, there's a we have a duty and that duty is
delegated to our um agent to investigate and determine if it is a nuisance. You know, this isn't a a arbitrary definition. There's a a Massachusetts general law definition that applies across all the communities in the
Commonwealth. Um, and I I just want to make sure that that that we're that that that's extra clear. Um, because sometimes people aren't aren't clear on that. So, and again, I mean, as Kevin is saying, you know, a a bird feeder by itself
would not constitute a nuisance. there need to be additional conditions that would impact the neighbors, potentially impact the public health um and so forth as determined by the agent of the board of health and that then would constitute
um a nuisance and be under our jurisdiction. >> Okay. So perhaps I'll come back to that but the moment can you explain a bit what the process would be? Um, from what I can read, there's a complaint that is
submitted and then you folks decide based on that complaint. Is there any review process? Does any one of your enforcement people or one of you go out to the site whatever it is to make a judgment to do your own determination?
A Dave, do you want to respond? >> Absolutely. Yes, we do. When we get a complaint, we go out investigate the complaint. Um, and then we determine if there is a violation or not. >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Um, I
don't want to monopolize the time, so if Chuck or Joe want to chime in, feel free to do so. Um, so from from my perspective, as I said before, we do want to stay on the right side of this. Um,
and so I would like to feel comfortable that if there was a complaint that was registered that we would be notified and we could meet somebody out there when you're doing the review you were talking about ODI so we could see what the
situation looked like through somebody else's eyes and to have a conversation on the spot about um why it is or isn't a nuisance. and what can or can't be done to amilarate it somewhat. So I guess what I'm looking
for is some assurances that this would be um a back and forth kind of process at least in the beginning especially in the beginning until the rules of the road get uh more smoothed out. >> Um
>> I know that wasn't a question. I guess I'm that made sense. >> Go ahead Carrie. Well, I I I mean, I'm I'm I'm I I think Sorry, I'm a I'm a little um our agent
certainly our agent can um go out to a site and investigate. they would investigate the complaint and um they had the authority under the regulation to um you know determine whether it is a nuisance and then issue you know the
regulation says you know there would be a a a fine um so while we absolutely want um to to to as you say have
good relations um I also would be concerned about us saying that um we give some sort of assurance that uh our staff would be engaging in dialogue with people before issuing um fines because that's not what's in our regulations. So that's why I'm kind of stuttering a
little. I'm trying to figure out h how we how we do this um without having people feel like we're giving preferential treatment or or um or in some way um second-guessing our agent and their authority.
I I understand. Um and I'm sort of in probably the same as you, but um so by asurances, what I'm looking for is uh some kind of a informal um back and forth process. For example,
if you're going to have an agent or somebody go out and check it out, if we're notified and we can meet that person out at the spot, then I think that could help uh cut through uh the issue in most if not all the cases. And
that's what I'd like to do. I'd like to have it be that we could go ahead and do our restoration without affecting budding neighbors or even people visiting the conservation lands. and not have it rise uh to be an a point of
contention with the board. Certainly not to the point of there being a fine being issued. >> Brian, can I chime in on that too? This is Joseph Flurry, 20 Willow Street, associate member of Conservation Commission. You know, just to kind of extend on that point, conservation
commission's responsible for over a thousand acres of property. Uh we've also had our budget cut 20%. And we depend on a lot of volunteer work and effort uh to fund kind of maintaining our properties uh here in Reading. And so, you know, one of those attractants
that we typically see on conservation land, not necessarily from an abuter or a neighbor is the use of wild flowers and um pollinators, pollinator gardens, etc. That will naturally attract wildlife. Um, people do go onto
conservation land, whether it's a trail, whether it's a park or a bench. Um, and occasionally you may see feeding happening. Those situations definitely can be addressed, but it is on conservation land. And the way I'm reading and interpreting this policy is
that the fine would be issued to the managing authority of that property. So, would a fine be issued on the town of Reading or the Conservation Commission if a resident or a visitor to a conservation area was seen feeding multiple occasions or a single occasion
to warrant an investigation. um whether you know feeding is happening on this this property or not. Um we're we're not in a position to pay fines uh for for behavior, but we can encourage practices that align with the board of
health's policy here for feeding wildlife as well as our conservation and recreation um policies that we post on any of our properties. But these are the situations where I think and just to elaborate on Brian's point, we would rather have a
member of conservation meet the board of health on conservation land, not on a neighbor's property or resident's property. >> I'm gonna Kevin, >> I know I know you I know you want to say something. Carrie, let let me go first. I I have
>> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I couldn't see you. >> I I I have a couple questions here. So for um Brian and Joe uh and for a day um so um firstly it I know we touched on this in our last meeting is our first
point of contact aformational one or I believe we can find on the first point of contact is that correct day >> or anybody >> required to that's what our regulation says because that was what our
discussion was last month that there's no leeway for a you know we could the the permit sorry the regulation requires says first offense is a finable offense and I'm I'm sorry >> I I got I got one more hold on
>> let me get through this >> um the the so I I realize that and and and I understand that's our regulation I I think that's something we should take up at at a future meeting >> to discuss. >> Um I know we've discussed it at Nauseium
already, but you know, here we are um a few months into this regulation and we are having these discussions again. So I just think it's worth to bring it up not not for a vote, but just to discuss and and see if if we may want to vote at a future meeting about it. M neither here
nor there. Um, so it it sounds like what we're hearing though doesn't rise to the level cuz I mean the you know town forest and conservation land typically I know it
abuts um private residences but it it is not something that I would qualify that you'd run into from a nuisance standpoint. Right? So one part of the regulation is that if this becomes a
nuisance to somebody other than yourself that that's where our fines really start. Am I misreading that a day or anybody in on the board? >> I think that's I think that's true. Um,
and so I if there was some inadvertent feeding of wildlife in the center of a large reservation that wasn't impacting anybody, you know, that's probably not a pro that's not a
problem. If if that same activity was happening right at the border to some adjacent homes and that activity was drawing, you know, um other animals, raccoons and and rats
>> to that area and there and there was adjacent in you know residences. Yes. Then it so so it does it there is some judgment about whether it's causing I think a public nuisance. Um, go ahead, Carrie. And I then I want
>> Which just Carrie, I'm gonna let you go in a second. This is my last point. >> Oh, okay. >> Which brings me back to my first point, which is I feel like we really should revisit how we handle the first offense of this uh regulation um because of things of this nature
where it's like, okay, well, I mean, is it a violation? Technically, yes, because we made it so, but it's in the middle of the town forest and it didn't impact anybody, right? So, >> I I I just think we should have this as a as a future conversation. All right,
Carrie, now go ahead and kill me. >> Sorry. Sorry. No, no, no, no, no. And and please, no, no, that's not what this is. No, I mean, I think I I I I think there's a couple things. What I wanted to just reiterate just just I I really
I do not see how we can possibly agree to any kinds of asurances that here's how we're going to do our regulation for you folks. That's just I mean we are we it would be like
>> you know it would be like and then I'll shut up. >> Can I finish? It would be like saying to one particular restaurant, "Okay, we're going to enforce the food code this way for you, but we're not going to do it the same way with everyone else." And
>> I'm not I'm not I'm not suggesting that. No, no, but this is what I'm saying is that giving any informal asurances really puts our agent and our authority at risk because we are not holding true to the >> correct
>> um the the law and the regulation. That's so that's my concern and I have one more but go ahead. >> No, so so like like I said you and I are in agreement with that. My whole position has been I you know when we when we started this process I thought our first point of contact was going to
be giving the actual regulation to the person that the complaint has been lodged against and that is like the first point of contact like hey this is this is who we are when I come back here next time I'm going to be finding you
just so you know and I feel like we've jumped that point where we're just going where we've given authority to just fine right out of the gate. And I don't agree with that point. I didn't um and this is my fault. I I personally didn't um
realize that that's how we set it up as we were going through this regulation. And I think it should be something that we revisit to the point where it's like, hey, just so you know, this is the way we do things in town now. U we're putting you on notice. Here is the
actual regulation. the, you know, verbatim. Here you go. You can read it all you want. Just know next time I come back out here from a complaint standpoint, this is serving as your notice and we're going to be finding you
that I I don't disagree with the fine part of it. I disagree with the methodology to get to it. >> That's all. A question that I would like to ask is does this regulation prevent us from issuing a warning?
>> It says first offense is I mean this is what our this is what this was our whole conversation last last month, right? And it says first offense is and there's no provision for issuing a warning. And I I I understand what you're saying, Kevin,
and I I I I would be interested in perhaps amending our regulation to, you know, make it clear that that we would and here's the procedure for a warning. Um >> I I think it's fair just for us to discuss. We don't have to vote. >> Exactly. I would discuss in a future
meeting, >> you know, how we want to do it. >> I would be open to that. So I would um I would say that um the health department already has the authority to give a warning. This if you read the uh
regulation, it says, you know, the board of health can assess um fines for violations and it gives the you know the dollar amount. It doesn't say it can't give a warning.
We give warnings all the time. Dumpsters overflow. We give a warning. We go back the next day. If they're not cleaned up, we we give a violet. You know, we we do that all the time. So, I'm not sure we have to have it in black and white. And
um I would say the second thing is um the the regulation has it says that um an ex an exception is for state related activities. Um and maybe we should we
should amend it to include town related activities so that um it's not just the commonwealth, it's also if the town of Reading has a specific um program it's trying to do with
wildlife that that would be um an acceptable exception because currently if it isn't done by the Commonwealth then it's not Um, and then >> point I think um, and then thirdly, one of Brian's
question was, are they required to put up signs? And I think it's the kind of thing where if there's a complaint um or if they see evidence that a bird feeder is dropping seeds and other animals are, you know, then they need to
act on it whether or not they got a warning or not, whether or not we know about it or not. But I don't think we're in the in the business of, you know, saying you have to have signage here or there. um you know, it's it's following
the regulation. So, I you know, I think that um I think the idea of a warning would address Brian's concern that uh if there was a complaint and the inspector saw it and then and you know within a
day or two it was rectified. Um I think that would be acceptable. I'm gonna Carrie, I'm gonna ask, you know, Chuck and Joseph had the hands up for a while. So, um, why don't we go with uh Chuck, do you have a comment? >> Uh, uh, most of my comments were
addressed by the board of health and I appreciate the discussion about the warning and I was just going to say that, you know, the conservation commission is also in the uh, finding uh, I don't know, we're part of finding and we do that a lot. I found it much
easier to walk around town and to talk to people and to understand their point of view and it helps me deliver the message of education to um what the conservation commission wants to do and
I use that first interaction to make sure that they understand what'll happen if I have to come out again. I think there's a lot of uh confusion if you sent me a fine because I put up a bird feeder in the middle of
bare meadow which is only 4 acres so it's not very far away from any spot um any houses I would not understand why because my perspective is from a conservation standpoint and I'm
wondering if the uh health department goes out there and doesn't look at what what we know, so this opportunity to have a discussion and to educate each other about what's going on um seems to
me like a good opportunity and a nice buffer between uh some action that can't be taken away as I understand it. When you issue a fine, it has to be it can't be uh uh taken back. Um, and I think the
only other thing that I that I wanted to say is that um, we talk about Bear Meadow. We've tried to ban uh, dogs up there that bans in effect. Uh, we have um, it's been about two years. We haven't found find one person at this
point. Um, we could and sometimes I feel like we should and of course sometimes I feel like I should chase them down the street and follow them to their house and just, you know, stamp and and pound my chest. But the whole idea is I
understand that when you change make changes, it takes a while to to get them into the fabric of this community which has been here for a very long time. We have people that have been walking through bare meadow forever and you probably have people that have been
feeding birds forever and they just don't understand what's going on. So I I think I'll leave it at that, but I I would appreciate uh if a day ever came over to me and said, "Hey, look, uh we got a complaint about Mlets and Morgan. Someone's sitting on a bench and uh
eating his lunch and what he doesn't eat, he feeds to whatever's out there, pigeons or whatever. and that's that's going to be a problem if it doesn't stop and uh you need to put up a sign or something like that. So, I did notice in the correspondence with um IRA that
signs are recommended where we think they're needed and where people may have lunch. And so again, um, we'd like to educate those people first before we had to spend, I mean, the last time I bought
a sign that was going to work for Bare Meadow, I think it was, uh, about $120. And so, and and again, no one wants signs all over the place either, so we really want to make sure that they're needed. So, that's all I have to say.
Appreciate your time. Um, thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Flurry, you had your hand up earlier. Are you all set now or do you want to make a comment? >> Yeah. No, I just wanted to follow back up. Uh, and I appreciate all this
conversation and I think this dialogue would have been helpful last year while you guys were shaping the policy. So, that's kind of why we wanted to ask clarifying questions as part of conservation. I would actually have to echo what Chuck had said and I hope that Aday and Chuck are having conversations
at the town level together. If an issue does arise on conservation land, um the thing that I'm still trying to wrap my head around is if a fine is issued on conservation land, is it to the individual that was feeding or is it to
the owner of the property, which is effectively the town of Reading or the Conservation Commission who manages the thousand acres. Um that clarification I think is where having a day and Chuck in town hall about 10 ft away from each other talking uh would be beneficial. Um
especially when these kind of policy conversations come up. We have public outreach events that we talk on conservation commission. This is something we can definitely talk about. We have a lot of burders that have expressed questions about this policy. So for us to talk on behalf of the
policy as well as the board of health and conservation, how it relates to us, that's why we c kind of came to you tonight. So thank you again for your time. >> Thank you. >> Yes, Carrie. >> Thank you. Um and and I just I I what this was the second piece I wanted to
say, but I gave Kevin back a little time and I lost my window. But we share. No, we share. But but just I I I I I say that only because what I what I wanted to say is I I don't I'm not sure people are clear. The act of feeding a
bird or or or or sitting on a bench and eating your lunch does not in and of itself constitute a violation. And it does not it's what happens is if there's a complaint then our agent is instructed to go out and assess the circumstance
and determine whether it is a nuisance or not. So I think the circumst I think some of the circumstances that folks are concerning themselves with are not actually scenarios where um that there
would be a a reason for a a fine. Right? If there if you're talking about something in the middle of nowhere, then I I I don't know how it it it fits within the definition of nuisance. I would want to hear from my agent before I would say that it did. I don't see
that in any way. I think somebody sitting on a bench and feeding, you know, just dropping their bread once a day, right? Um that in and of itself would, you know, so yes, if there was a complaint, our agent would go out, they would
investigate, they would identify, and um they may say, "No, this doesn't this doesn't meet the threshold of nuisance as we understand the law." And um and I think that in those instances, absolutely, there's a there would be a
opportunity for a a town employee to be discussing it with another town employee. Um but I I just I I I think this is a really important education piece and understanding of what we're what we're doing here, right? We're not
we we're not talking about >> just feeding the birds. We're talking about feeding the birds to to a degree that it constitutes a nuisance that endangers public health or >> um land and and and public safety. So,
um and then if I can just I just want to say too and and the the point I I I hear your point, Rick, about the issuance of warnings, but I I don't I think maybe this is where we're not consistent. My understanding is that our regulations
say the agent may issue a warning, you know, or there may and we don't have that in this regulation and that's where we're kind of >> um creating a little >> confusion for ourselves and you know amongst ourselves. That's my observation.
>> I'm sorry to interrupt. Um I was just wondering if I could just create a situation where a day would need to talk to me. So, if your agent uh or staff, I'm not saying it's always a day that goes out there. I don't know how things work. Um went out into a field and did
notice that the bird feeders and there was a lot of other activity around a bird feeder and he he determined that that uh somehow violated this um regulation because of whatever. But if he had the
opportunity to talk to the conservation agent, he could say he could find out that we're doing a bird study. What we're doing at Bear Meadow is we're trying to create new habitat. That's why we've banned dogs. We're trying to bring in the American woodcock. And every year for Mass Ottabon, um we want to count
them. We want to find out if we have two nesting pairs, we want to have four nesting pairs. And how do you do that? Well, it's almost like how do you do a turtle count? you have to actually string a line of fence up in the woods and people don't know what that is and when they see that maybe that's a
nuisance to people but this line of fence is going to allow us to count turtles because you know that's that's why it's happening there's no reason not to have an opportunity to find out what's going on unless you only want to find people
and and I don't think that's way the way the town of Reading wants its town offices to to work. So, >> absolutely. C >> can I just uh comment because I I think Carrie um as I read this I'm reading the
regulation here. I think there is an opportunity for warning written into the regulation um under the exceptions 26.4 before um exceptions to violation. Um
uh paragraph F says the feeding of pets, you know, provided if the food's intended for pets, um the landowner or person responsible for the premises will be required to take steps to render such food inaccessible to wildlife, including
the requirement because it's it is talking about pets. uh that the food be removed if any wildlife gains access to food conditions and we talked about this 48 hours the conditions allowing access be corrected and the food removed within
48 hours. So that suggests to me this 48 hours doesn't that suggest um that the interaction with the inspector and then 48 hours an expected correction of the
problem. Um >> um yeah, I'm not I'm not I'm not sure. And I and I think I think like Kevin, I think it would be good to revisit put the put the regulation on the agenda and revisit it another time. Um because I I don't know that we Yeah, I'm just
confused. But but but I I want to um I want to shoot um I I want to I want to address something that I heard in the in the comments about someone might decide it's a nuisance to them. That's not what this law is about. This regulation is
about this regulation is about a very specific definition of nuisance created in the mass general laws and enforced by our agent. So it's not we're I think you know there's a broad use of the term oh this is a nuisance this is a pain in the
neck that that that's not what um a day is going to be engaged in or any other member of the staff right they they have we're responsible for identifying very specifically does this meet the standard
of nuisance as described in chapter 111 I forget which but section 143 I Um so so I hope that that can allay some concerns among folks um as y'all are considering these things and I hope that we can take up the discussion of this
regulation at another meeting and see if we can get some you maybe we need to add a couple more definitions and may you know make a clear carve out of what we're talking about with um warnings and the like because sure we want our you know we want to be able to afford our
staff some some opportunity But we also cannot say um we're going to give informal assurances that you know anybody to anybody you know if a day was giving informal assurances to any one individual that would be a a matter of
concern um that about you know a sort of a special way of applying the the the rule and if we can apply it and not or not apply it to others that's we we can't we can't we can't do that. We want to be helpful and want to collaborate. Um but we do have to be careful about
that. >> Evan, >> um so um I this is an interesting conversation um to say the least and I and I appreciate you all for coming out and having it. Um
Joe, don't think I didn't notice h how you dropped the dime on we did not collaborate with with you guys. I that is absolutely the case. We didn't. You're right. I saw that. I notice how you did that. Good job. Um and you're
right. Like, you know, so I I think this being a new um regulation, um we worked through it with the intent, just so you know, we worked through it with the intent from a U resident perspective. A resident brought this to
us and said, "Hey, this is a massive issue going on with us. We it happens all the time." and we said actually we don't have any way to enforce a a a fix for that issue. Um so you're right 100%.
um we hear it, we get it and I think when we have the the conversation next, we should invite more stakeholders to that meeting so that we can have a big broad um discussion because at the end of the day, you know, um different
perspectives create good policy, right? That's and that's what we're looking to do. Um so the one thing I will say um a day has no want to go out and find anybody. He is not looking to do that kind of
level of like this is complaintoriented stuff that he has to now go look at that we as a board have forced him to go look at. Um it is definitely not a want-based thing. So, I just want to make sure that I I I say both of those things um out
loud, but I definitely hear you and I think we should definitely put this on as a future agenda item and we should invite as many stakeholders as we can um to that meeting. Um it it's not obviously it's it's rolled out as not a
perfect thing, but that's okay. We can change it. We can make it we can make it as close to perfect as we as we possibly can. Brian. >> Yeah. Um, so it seems like this conversation is wrapping up and we've taken a lot of your time and I
appreciate the time. Even more so, I appreciate the open-mindedness of the conversation. Um, I do think it'd be great if you could revisit some of these issues that were talked about tonight. And one last thing, as a person who
spent my career in tech, I never buy 1.0 know of anything you know so things are made to be written and then adjusted and so if that's what you guys do that's a great way that's a great path people follow so thank you very much for your time
>> thank you and thank you for coming and >> there'll be more discussion for sure y >> at our next meeting >> okay thank you >> thank you >> thank you >> thank you Joseph >> all right and Chuck >> and Chuck thanks y'all
That was a good conversation. It was very interesting. >> Interesting. >> Yeah. >> Some perspectives I hadn't at least considered. >> Yeah. >> What what um >> this is why this board is works so well. Just so you know. Mhm.
>> Who on your point Kevin if we had a broad if we had a discussion about this policy who besides the people the conservation people would be um people we should invite? I'm not sure because
it's it it is focused a lot on residents per se. I mean the conservation commission's a a focal thing. I'm not I'm not sure who else um we could really uh >> but we do have um don't we have a forest
committee? Um let's >> that's not the right name. Um, it's it's forest >> trails >> town forest town forest committee >> town forest committee >> and that's not under the com the conservation commission that's not >> that's separate >> separate >> yes >> okay
>> yeah so I mean I I would say you know anybody that I I mean you could you could argue DPW right so like public parks >> um you know so yeah >> so it might be the kind of thing that >> any public land that is not yeah any
public land. Any anybody that oversees public land, whether it's a committee or division um of the town, um would probably be the right people to invite and some people might not come. That's fine. Um but people interested certainly will. So
>> maybe >> do we do we want to like adopt a policy to have a hearing for each and every regulation? Uh >> that's a conversation for >> Yeah, that's a bigger conversation. >> That's a big conversation. We should
have I want to just wrap up this one um piece. So maybe a day what you can do is uh prior to the next meeting or um would be to uh email a copy of the regulation
to the people um that Kevin mentioned and others you know the town forest certainly the conservation commission maybe DPW anybody who you think may be interested and just say we're going to
have a conversation about this. If there are parts of this policy you are concerned about with respect to your area of responsibility, you know, you may want to attend and just kind of leave it up to them. >> Sounds like a good idea
>> and um we have the all uh regulations coming up. Y >> would you like to postpone that to the next meeting and give us some time to you know inform all the stakeholders and see if they can
be at that meeting because um >> for for the holler policy >> correct the DBW uh director would like to attend one of these meetings regarding these um regulations. Uh he stated that he would like to attend the June 11th uh meeting just to talk about
it. So, um, if you want to defer this conversation, this discussion to the next meeting, um, we can do that tonight as well. >> Okay. >> Okay. I Sorry, I missed that. What are we deferring uh, a day? Sorry, I I missed that. >> The, uh, the holla regulations that's on
the agenda for tonight. >> Oh. Oh, right. Right. Okay. >> It's just a It's a draft and it's there for, you know, >> I was actually going to bring this up to you. I I have yet to really look into um um that that regulation um in its
entirety. So, I was actually going to bring that up tonight to say, you know, this is probably something that well, if we want to talk about it, great. But I I don't think it's worthy of a vote um um tonight. >> Agree. >> Um
>> and but and I would rather if we're going to do something around um Sorry, Rick. uh if we're going to do something in regards to discussing uh the wildlife uh feeding regulation, let's try not to have it be done in July or August
just so we can get as many people that may want to attend as possible. Might just just thinking from a structural standpoint. >> Okay. Um I think uh
um we can we can defer the I mean we've been deferring it. As a matter of fact, just minor point um the draft that we got in our pre-board packet says section 26. Um, in fact, the wildlife we we've been
talking about this for a year and the wildlife stuff got fasttracked and it's section 26. So, this would be section 27 public health. >> So, I suppose we've been >> I wondered about that >> a while.
>> Um, and we can certainly defer it. It will make for a long meeting because um, are people okay with that? Is that >> perfectly fine? >> That's great. >> That's great. Why don't we do that? >> Well, especially if the DPW director has
has expressed interest in attending, >> right? Actually, two birds of one stone wildlife and a hauler for them. >> We're going to defer that. Um why don't we go on then to um
agenda item number six, the protocol for communicating uh new or amended regulations. Um and you know I think it occurred to all of us uh in recent meetings that um we
didn't have a consistent way to um to really communicate regulations that we've uh adopted and so I took the liberty of putting together this grid.
Maybe Haley, can you share um the document? >> Sorry, just give me one second. >> And forgive me. I've had a lot going on in my personal life lately. Did we approve the minutes from the last meeting >> earlier? Yeah, we we did.
>> Yeah, we did. >> Okay. We did in this meeting. You were you were muted and you were like yelling at the or I don't know what you were >> sorry. No, you're fine. >> It's one of those weeks. Sorry, folks. >> I We all have them, Kevin. We understand.
>> I just for the record, I did review them and I agree with them. So, I'm hope hopefully I I I I voted that way. >> You voted. Yes, you >> Yes, we we said we could we could read your lips. Yes. >> Okay, good.
So, um, this protocol and I and I know the, um, I know that the agenda came out as a vote. Um, I mean, I guess we could take a vote. I wasn't I was actually thinking of this more as a
um, an understanding of what we expect um, as opposed to some legal document um, that we need to take a vote on. Uh but basically it occurred to me that uh we passed two types of regulations. One
are regulations that just really impacts residents all 25,000 in some way shape or form and then others that are very specific to certain businesses uh particularly if there's a permit issued. um if and so it's a it's a small
subset of uh businesses or individuals or or what have you. Um and so the how you communicate might be considered different. And so, um, just to quickly
run down this, starting at the top, um, for regulations that impact really all residents, um, you know, we are required by law to post them within 30 days, um, in a local newspaper. Um, and so that
has to be on here. Um, I think we would want to post it on our website, on the town website, uh, and certainly, you know, the health department website. Um,
we could consider a press release. And I talked to a reporter about the wildlife regulation a week or two ago, and she suggested a press release um, as a way to get the word out.
Um and then we are required to forward a copy uh to the state. So, you know, in these first few items, except for the press release, they're required. And then the the next couple really is
to um besides posting it to to websites to to really do some kind of education whether it's in the town manager minutes or you know the town has a I think a Facebook
um site um and and this is less urgent. So I said 60 to 90 days for these, but really to have an expectation that there would be some uh everyday language explaining a
regulation that impacts uh the entire population. Um and so this would be a essentially a communication strategy. um for regulations that impact a subset of businesses or individuals
um it's all it's very similar the same type of thing. I think the only real difference is that the last um item is that here we would have a group of
individuals who presumably have permits whether they're food establishments or they have a you know septic sewer arrangement or you know they have a a dumpster. And in those cases, we actually know who those people are
because they've required permits and we can communicate to them directly um explaining the updated or new um regulations. >> Um we did this, I think, fairly effectively with the nicotine-free
generation uh policy that we passed um almost two years ago, >> next month. and you know went out to and made sure that all the tobacco and nicotine retailers in the town knew the change about the change that was going
to come. Uh and so that was kind of the model I was I was thinking about. So um any comments, additions, subtractions, thoughts? Carrie, I'm surprised
>> Kevin and Pan came out just at the same time. It's not just me. No, it's not just you, Carrie. I'm in the same boat and I bet you're gonna ask questions that I was going to ask. So, please go right ahead. >> All right. I have first, thank you, Rick, for doing this. I It's great. Um,
and I'm a huge fan of checklists and and kind of capturing things like this and and I thank you for for for taking this on. It's awesome. Um, I have two comments and two questions.
My first comment is it it just as we think about making it really clear how we're using it. I I would say add in the title um for communicating newly adopted or amended. Um just to make it really
clear because somebody could read this and say wait communicating new is this is this it splitting hairs but just just making it clear this is for the trigger is the board has adopted or amended a regulation and when that happens these
are the steps that would occur. Um the second one is maybe adding in on action um in the action column just adding in um noting
which ones are required by Mass General Law and the um requirement because it's kind of a yes, we're we're following the steps. Just tiny things to to polish it a little. Um and and um I'll say my one of my old bosses used to say these are
the things that we do so that if if you get hit by a bus I know what to do. Um and I would then it would then always be the oh please could we have another thing besides hit by a bus? I get your point but anyways but it was funny. Um and then I just had two questions and
and it was do do we think any of the steps are like dependent upon each other? Um, you know, you usually think in terms of dependencies like we wouldn't post, you know, we wouldn't post it to the website until we'd submitted it to the state or we wouldn't
post, you know, we wouldn't post it in the local newspaper until we'd made sure that it was posted on the website. And just kind of noting that. And then the last one is is is there a do we do we need to like do we do we need to add a
step of we verify that everything happened or that we've got a record that everything happened um or do we just sort of trust that it's a um I guess is it a recipe or is it also a a kind of com you know compliance tool you know
recipe just says do this and and maybe it comes out that way a compl science tool has you know >> in terms of um >> in terms of sequence whether there you have to do one thing before the other um I think the idea of the time frame
um is really more of a of a deadline as opposed to a sequence. So when it says within 90 days, it could be done within 30 days. I don't think right, you know. So I don't think there's any um uh
problem with with that. I think in terms of mass required by Massachusetts law, we could um we could aster those and have a footnote down the the bottom. Um and you had one other very good point.
Oh, in terms of tracking this, >> uh, >> I mean, I'll just say one way I might do it would be I'd add a column and it's a checklist then and it's just either a date that of when it happened or a date that it was verified or um, that's one
way to do it. I don't I I I I >> I suggest done in the minutes. It could be um we we could put another column and it could be that it just
comes out with the pre-board packet um like if we passed an amendment or new new regulation um in the meeting um at the pre-board packet of the next meeting and maybe the second one and third depending on when
things were done um it would just get append you know appended. It's not something we need to um we need to necessarily discuss or anything, but we could be aware as a board that those things were done and then when they've
all been done, >> it no longer appears in the board packet. >> Um I'm not even I don't think we need to even bring it up at at a meeting necessarily unless there was some concern >> unless there was a gap. >> But I think that's a good idea. >> Yeah. just a thought, you know, and I
don't want to I I I I don't want to um I don't want to get us too too much into sort of dictating staff activity, but but I think, you know, these kinds of tools, you know, are uh are are, you know, they're hopefully helpful for
staff as well as for us in terms of we know kind of what the expectations are and >> and um you have a way to communicate to us or if somebody says, "No, that didn't happened. There's a check. There's a thing that you No, here it is.
>> Yeah, absolutely. I'm not opposed to it. I think it's a good uh tool. Um but last year was hectic, >> right? >> The MBTA issue, >> right? >> And that really consumed our time. >> You know, it was back and forth, back
and forth. You know, there was no clear decision on, you know, what we were doing. Um I was getting emails from you know multiple individuals. I had to respond. It was just too many things happening at once. You know we were shut >> turnover staff.
>> Turn. Yeah. All these things. So >> sure. >> Yeah. Last year was a little bit different. >> Absolutely. Sub you know when there's when there's a a highly intense issue or when there's staff turnover or you know I mean that's absolutely you know we we
understand that. Um but I think so yeah I think it's the how can you communicate easily with us and and you know and um you know obviously you do the things that are required by by law within the
time that's required as you know and um maybe the other things don't get done as quickly and whatever. Yes, I think we're all kind of saying the same thing. I love that you did this Rick and and I know Kevin had his hand up and I he hasn't said a word. I'm patiently
waiting. >> Go Kevin. This is your chance. >> All right. So I So I see this thing and and first of all, you all know by now how my brain works. So I go right to the structural nature of it. What was the
the reasoning behind it is the first question I would have and then and then that that answer will depend on a billion other questions I may have. I think the rationale was it occurred to some of us and certainly to me um you
know that we we've passed regulations and we really as a board in our oversight responsibilities haven't we feel our job is done. you
know, we voted on the regulations and it gets posted and >> and that's it. And um >> and there's a lot more that we could do, you know, to make sure that people understand what's going on and
and so forth. And um and so that was the that was the rationale. It was >> You just cut down like a thousand questions right there with that answer. Just um No. Okay, that's good. The only reason I really ask in in all seriousness is because I see something like this and I'm like, "Okay, there
there clearly is a need. I want to know what what the need behind that is." I I get the need. I I see it. I just want to know where it came from. Um my first response to be truthful when I saw this
was okay this is about talking about what we do post making a regulation but not pre >> and I feel like where we miss sometimes is making sure and we just had this conversation literally uh a couple
minutes ago with with Joe and and Brian and Chuck where we miss the pre-con conversation going on with public stakeholders and what have you. >> So, while I love this, I I I think it's great. I think it is good for staff
because they have a clear definition here. Um, I agree with the day that, you know, hey, there needs to be some kind of >> and I don't know how you would word this, >> but some kind of ability to understand that staff might be stressed out and
can't meet these timelines necessarily. um that these are more guidelines um than hard deadlines. Um I I I think that would be something but I also think we need to be able to we should have something
that is even just policywise. How are we going to handle um having discussions about uh new regulations? Who who are the stakeholders? Making sure that we're involving we're all in perfect so we're not going to get everybody involved.
we're going to do, but doing our best to make sure that we do bring in um the people that are going to be affected by this in some even small measure. I mean, we saw we saw it tonight. It was a it's a small measure. There's at no point are
we going to find for for wildlife that they had no control over somebody doing uh on their property, right? So, >> I I think there's there's there's a degree there that I would I would love to see also um brought up and it's probably a broader discussion than than
than what you have here tonight. I'm I'm fine with voting on this here tonight, but I'm just saying, you know, I think we should have a broader discussion about how we as a board handle our day-to-day business with the people that it affects the most. And and I think >> Yeah. No, I agree
>> for my being on the board. You know, I think this board is great in that regard and wanting to do that. I know previous boards have been horrible in in in doing that. Um and and so you know all of our boards we've always talked about them as
silos to a degree where they're kind of they're out on their own on their own thing and and I think >> in general most people try to to to >> to not do that that are on our different in various boards that we have in town.
Um and I think it's important thing to to to keep in mind that we you know >> we we are an independent board at the end of the day. we have definitive say so and that's great, >> but we should also listen to all parties involved before we get to that point.
And so I think this is a great thing to have. Uh Rick, I'm glad that you put it together. I I just like to expound on it a little bit um and make sure that we talk about before we get to this before we get to the regulation part who we bring in and who we
>> prereg. Yeah. What's our prereg process? I I I agree heartily, Kevin. Yeah. And and I and we we actually have started that with Yep. >> the hollow regulation saying we don't have all the people at the table that we need to have. >> Yeah.
>> This is one of the more more productive meetings we've had in all I'm not saying we don't have meetings, but this was a very productive meeting tonight. Yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. I think this is Yeah. This is this is terrific and I think you know it helps us it helps the board uh the staff
you know it makes you know gives us some some guard rails for ourselves and and you know to hold ourselves accountable and and step back and sort of say yeah who how do we make sure that we're doing our best without turning ourselves into pretzels >> to engage folks that
>> and we'll save time as well too because >> that's right >> people have people have ideas that we didn't think of and it's like oh well that changes the way I think of this thing now and you know let's just >> discussion is always a good thing. >> Would you like to adopt a policy to have
a public hearing for every regulation because that solves this problem if you do that? >> Yes. >> Yes. 100%. >> I'm in favor. >> I I'll speak only for me. Yes. 100%. >> Yeah. And I I'll I'll say also I I'm in favor. I think it is a good policy. I know that it is it can be
>> well I know that it is time consuming um but I I think it's appropriate you know I mean we're only required on title five regulations but I I think that we should be we should hold ourselves to the same standard for all of our regulations. >> It it als it also holds future boards to
that regulation as well >> which gives accountability right to the public. Yep. Yep. >> Historically, how many new regulations do we do? >> Right. >> Great question. >> Per two years, probably not that many, right?
>> One every four or five years, >> right? >> Um, >> how many have we done? >> We we did the the tobacco ones two years ago. >> We had a public hearing for that. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> We did. >> Dumpster. >> Dumpster.
>> Dumpster. We did one for um residents houses that were not occupied, >> wasn't there? Wasn't didn't we do a >> we started to talk about it. There is um a a draft of it. It hasn't been passed yet. Abandoned properties,
>> wildlife, >> abandoned property regulation. >> Yes. >> Wildlife and now haulers of all regulations. That's all one a year. So we'll kind of averaging. Okay. Um yeah and you know it's interesting
because you talk about a public um hearing and I was thinking well what in the in the context of let's say the hauler regulations like what um other than the haulers um you know where would there be public
issues but we heard one earlier at the beginning of this meeting you know the the idea of um a dump a dump stir being emptied at 4:45 a.m. >> So there So even I guess even regulations that um
>> which is a continual problem by the way, just saying. >> That's right. >> Is it? >> Yeah. Home homegoods on uh on Main Street is is a habitual offender. >> Okay. So >> that goes way back to my time on the board.
>> Let let me ask u So couple things. I think we we have this general understanding going forward about public hearings before new regulations. And with respect to this document, um
I'll do the edits that um Carrie suggested and send it just send it out to people so you have it. Um do we feel we need to vote on this or is this more of a guiding document?
Um, >> it's not a regulation. I don't know what >> if you want to make sure that future boards have to adhere to it. >> Yeah. >> Then you should vote on it. >> If you think it's a thing that you just do, um, you know, that that you're
comfortable with changing on the fly and I can't think of the reasons why you would, >> but I can also I can't think of the reasons why you wouldn't either. um you know that you know then then it's more of a kind of a a policy of the board rather than a vote. So it just depends
on what this board wants to do in um from a formal standpoint. >> Okay? >> I mean if we vote on it so you know right out again if we vote on it then it must be adhered to by staff >> and if it has to be adhered to by staff
then it should have some leeway into um um the timelines. If it's more of a policy, then it's like, well, this is what we'd like you to do, and if you, you know, if you have to change that timeline for for a specific reason, you can't. Um, that'd be my take.
>> Very Can I can I add in I just I I I I wonder you know with our conversation you the suggestion Kevin made about you know considering what are our pre-regulation steps whether we think about having that aspect developed and then
perhaps vote on the whole thing of a this is these are the wraparound these are the wraparound steps that you know we expect to you know expect to occur that we're going to adhere to >> um you know that were required by law and that you know we're applicable and then and then we just have one vote for
that one document. Does that make sense? >> It does. It makes a lot of sense, Carrie. I mean, you know, there's no we don't have to rush into it. >> Sure. >> If you if you adopt the policy or you know to have a public hearing for new regulations that takes care of all the
pre things you're talking about >> because we know how to run public hearings over here, >> correct? >> We know how to reach out to people. So you don't need to have a separate document for that. >> Oh, you can do other things. >> Okay. Oh, interesting. Okay. Huh.
>> A day, what are what are your feelings on that document um that Rick laid out? You fan of it? It like you know, good, bad, or indifferent, give us the give us your uh your layout of it. >> Honestly, um I like it. >> Okay.
>> I I can't complain. I like it. Okay. And um if you vote on it in the event that I'm not here, >> give you some wiggle room. >> Oh, there's a different director or you know, they know exactly what to do. >> Yes, >> that's a good point, too. But as well as
I I feel like there should be some wiggle room added in there. >> Yeah. >> That it that it is a guideline, not a strict adherence. So the way I see it is um there are some some that are like required by the the state and their hard
deadlines. >> Sure. >> Yes. >> So those would be followed 100%. >> Yep. >> But the ones by the board they will be followed but I mean I could since I'm the agents >> since I'm the B agent then I can I can
get some leeway on on those. Most of them had up to 90 days to comply, >> right? >> Um correct for those additional ones that would seem at least to me it's it's quite a lot of wiggle room. >> Yes. >> So that seem to seems to be already
built in. >> Yes. I think it's reasonable. >> So I I always think in the terms of what can't we figure out, right? So, it's like don't don't handcuff me to something that in the future I haven't come up with the uh solution to a
problem that hasn't existed yet. Right. So, I I get the state guidelines, Joan. I would like have a little asterk on next to those ones where this is a state guideline. It must be adhered to and then a double aster next to the other. This is a guideline from the board of
health to uh be adhered to as best u possible or some other verbiage. I mean we can we can come up with some kind of language. I just >> I don't want to handcuff us into something that >> we can't think of right now >> as a >> Yeah, that's all. >> Yeah, sure. I mean we we could always
amend it. >> Usually by the time you amend it, the problem has already existed. >> Right. Right. But I I like the idea of I do like the idea of voting on it because it is the this is what the board's expectation is, right? So there's not
any gray area if not a day go don't go anywhere. Um but but but you know but but but should there be other staff or should a day you know need to you know need to be out of office to support a family member for his own reasons you know there there's a tool there's some
some kind of clear direction of expectations that other staff could follow. Um >> so why don't I why don't I do this? Why don't I make some edits based on this conversation? Um, and we can have it on
next next meeting's agenda for a quick uh review and and vote. Um, >> right. >> Okay, >> that sounds good to me. >> And and just just to make it maybe a little faster, um, Rick, if you can send that out to all of us and then we can
send our comments and edits to day directly >> to a day. Yeah. >> Yeah. Just so we're not, you know, um, so we're not meeting obviously outside of a meeting laws. And then he has all those things for the next meeting and I think it'll roll faster. >> Yeah. Yeah, we'd want to. Okay, sounds
good. >> Love it. >> All right. Monthly report, >> right? So, I'll go through this really quickly and then hand it over to uh Liv.
Um, April was busy for us. Um we were able to complete uh eight comprehensive food inspections. Um we got a lot of housing uh complaints as well. So we we we conducted eight housing inspections as well. We had a
lot of trash complaints about eight to 10. We issued about 11 order letters and uh we issued one temporary food event permit. All right. Leave.
Thank you. I'm just going to go ahead and share my screen. >> Thank you for hanging in there, Liz. >> I am always listening and I love I love hearing you guys discuss. It's really awesome. >> Liar. You're such a good liar.
>> Oh my goodness. There we go. Sorry. All right. So, we have our May nursing updates. Um, last month in the month of April, we had 25 influenza cases and 10 COVID cases. Those are pretty on par with our numbers from last year. These
are May blood pressure screenings. I was at the Pleasant Street Senior Center on um May 7th and I was at the Reading I will be at the Reading Public Library on the 18th and I will be at uh Frank Tanner on the 21st.
This month we are doing mental health awareness month and uh specifically talking about sleep. When sleep suffers, so does our mental health. So make sure you are getting a good night's sleep. It's also women's health month this month. Um just really want to increase
awareness for women's health issues and encourage self-care practices. So get those yearly physicals and those yearly mimograph or um yeah mimography um sessions and um get in with all the doctors that you need to.
It is also ramping up on tick season. And I am seeing a lot of lime cases um coming through my Maven. Um and also now we I just recently went to a seminar for the alpha gal syndrome that is being placed in Maven. So please watch
yourself for ticks and contact your primary care if you find one on you. We have our annual hearing screening coming up on May 20th. Uh that is next Wednesday. So please go ahead and sign up if you need to get your ears checked.
This is free for all residents and um the practitioner that comes in is wonderful and she does a great job. I also have that same practitioner coming into the Reading Fire Department tomorrow to do hearing screenings for our fire individuals
and EMS. We also have our health fair coming up on June 1st. I have plenty of vendors coming to that and um I would love to see any and all residents there. It would be wonderful. We have our bump baby and beyond this
upcoming Saturday, May 16th. Um that is being hosted by the Middle Sex Essex Public Health Collaborative. And Reading is one of the towns within that collaborative. So, we are co-hosting this event. And as always, I have my diabetic
supplies takeback program and our medical supplies takeback program. I also just wanted to speak on the mimography van that we had last week. It was a great success. We had um 10 participants who were able to get
screened that um and the company reached out to me um Dana Farber um Memo Van and they said our residents were so kind. So I'm very very happy. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Thanks, Lee. Dr. Lopez. >> Yes. Um, any other comments or questions? I did talk to a day about having Liv put together what she did a
few months ago in terms of uh an update on the um community health improvement plan um in terms of our goals and the kinds of things that Liv has been working on and others in terms of um you
know addressing those where they where they have been addressed and I'm sure there are things that haven't been yet Mhm. But it's good for us to couple times a year to just check in on that uh given all the work we put into it. >> Absolutely. >> Definitely.
>> Do you remember when we did the um community health needs assessment because we're meant to do it every 5 years. So it looks like you know that time is approaching five years. >> Was that like three years? >> Can't have been five years. >> Oh, it can't be five years.
>> I think it was three years ago. >> Two or three. Yeah, I think yeah, two or three. Three at most. Yeah. So, >> okay. So, we need to start preparing >> for the next next. >> You're not wrong. >> Yeah. And we need the funding. Remember, we used um the upper funding from COVID.
>> I'm not sure where we're going to get the money from, but >> to do that again. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, hopefully there will be some funding for local public health activities in the uh budget that is passed in this year and coming years. Um
we have a great advantage that there has been funding added. There was never local funding for local public health in the in the budget and we um we have um we're we have an opportunity here. I I believe that the current number um under
discussion is well I'm not even going to say but I think that's a really good point a day that that is something that you know that is something that that is is we we need to figure out where we get support from it and shared services is certainly
one vehicle that or another method through that local health funding Yeah. Yeah. I think I think it's it's a good point around the budget though. I'm just thinking very far ahead. Maybe a year down the line or two years down the line. I'm I'm a town meeting member as
well and the override is coming and and there there will be hard conversations. There will be hard cuts and so it's worthwhile to start maybe building a firewall around the must do activities and start planning around that. Just my
>> identifying. Yep. Agree, Addie. Yes, thank you. Yeah. Um, yeah. Oh gosh, we had a quorum. Um, >> we did. We did. >> We did because Kevin and I are also town meeting members, Addie. >> And and and good job speaking, by the
way, meeting, Addie. >> Yes. Well done. Um, yeah. No, that's a that's another reason for looking, you know, making sure that that we're identifying all sorts of, you know, where are their resources and and what resources, what activities are must dos
and what um and what what has, you know, where do we possibly get funding for them? Um, really good point. Uh just one um interesting update. I I was mentioning to a day that I kind of
uh got drafted into this small group of a dozen people who are actively trying to promote nicotine free generation tobacco policy across the state. And um
uh and so I've spoken at several board of health meetings on Zoom and um just to let you know that we that there now currently are 24 communities that have adopted the policy um
>> across the state >> and there's probably another two dozen that are in the pro in the various stages of considering Um and so yeah,
>> that's great. >> Yeah, >> actually >> that's rising to the level of um when the state usually steps in. >> Right. Right. Exactly. What I heard today at at um at one of these discussions was that um apparently the
you know getting to the uh making purchasing nicotine and tobacco products at 21 uniform across the state. there was something like 160 or 200 cities and towns that passed it
before Beacon Hill and the state, you know, had and made it a state. And it was the same for >> um uh smoking in restaurants and uh flavored tobacco and nicotine products.
that these all these policies came from many many boards of health adopting policies that policy until finally uh Beacon Hill you know really realizes that they could pass it and so so it's a
it's a grounds up approach kind of a blog but >> yeah no that's right it's a you know it's a you know acknowledging local control and you know looking at local interests and um yeah, I was gosh, I was just beginning my public health career
when um smoking in workplaces was being debated across the Commonwealth. It was fascinating. But um that's that's great, Rick. Um >> that you are are sharing the experience that we had here in in Reading. Um I two
things. I understand that there is legislation out there actually working to in some way curtail the ability to um uh for boards of health to enact that kind of regulation. Um and um we're interested in watching how that
progresses. Um not in favor um not in favor of curtailment of board of health authority. Um but we'll we'll I don't know if you know anything more about that. And then I think linked was it was nice to um Rick and I spent the day
together sort of um in Danvers a couple weeks ago for the Mass Association of Health Board's annual meeting and learned some good stuff. Um you know learn I the the the the nicotine the tobacco and nicotine free came up but I
I don't >> was sort of a a a general conversation of what is current and the like. Um >> but um >> just uh just on the >> there there are two um bills floating around on Beacon Hill um that are
somewhat deceptive in in the way they're worded which say um you know uh across the Commonwealth for alcohol, cannabis, gambling, and nicotine and tobacco. um
>> the uh you know no one can participate in these unless they're 21 years of age and if there are any other um sort of reg local regulations that are different from this then they are null and void >> and so that would make the nicotine-free
generation. So today, this group and me as I was there, we spent about five hours at the state house going to a variety of different senators, Jason Lewis, Mariano,
um several others, uh the governor's policy committee explaining why these two apparently innocuous um amendments would be problematic. And so trying to get people to be aware of
that. >> Yeah, I'm I'm glad to hear that because my understanding is at least one of them has made it out of >> the third place where Yeah. the third reading and that's you know uh they it has made some some progress. So hoping
that it um >> I don't want to create an issue um here without having something on our agenda, but I'm shocked to hear something's coming out of this uh legislature in that manner like no like really I that
>> what do you mean? I I I I would never envision our our state legislature to to go against that policy or excuse me that policy uh that regulation that we that towns have have enacted.
>> Right. Right. That is actually you know the opposite would would make more sense than this. So that's stunning to hear. I am >> that that's actually one of the major points because it really preempts the role of the board of health which for
200 years the boards of health have had you know say over health issues >> autonomy communities >> we are out we are outside of of their their rules. >> Yes. And um so that's why like >> agree it's stunning to I just I just
it's the first I've heard of it. So, I'll have to look at agree. >> Yeah. No, it is it's catching a lot of it's it's interesting to a number of folks that this has somehow gotten some legs and it it seems um >> like so I'm saying this in a degree
which I don't want to really say about talk about the elephant in the room, >> but the legislature is set up in a certain way that can can basically put anything through that they really want to. >> That's right. >> Yeah. in this state and that's why I'm I'm like I'm very surprised that this
has legs at all. >> Yes. I also would like to mention that there is a push to banratom drinks. >> I don't know if you've heard about that. >> I'm sorry. Say that. Say that again. >> There's a push to ban drinks.
>> I'm I'm miss. It's a cratom. It >> go. It's like um like a leaf and they use it to make drinks and um you have the young people, they overdose on those
on those those drinks. >> Okay. So, we're obviously talking about something that's not FDA regulated. >> There's two different kinds ofratom. We learned about this, right, Rick? There's two different kinds of >> Be careful about where we're going into this conversation. >> Yeah. No. Well, no. I think it's I mean
this this kind of there's two different kinds of ofratom. There is the naturalratom which has been used for centuries um for pain relief and anecdotally for um support of opioid withdrawal. And there is a synthetic
version uh not dissimilar to the um synthetic marijuana um items that um that um is has has had negative impact. There's a a a national
association, the Americanratom association who are actively advocating for uh banning of the synthetic cratom and regulation of the naturalratom. Um it's a it's a confusing area because
people don't know the difference between them. It's very difficult to get your your information of of is this synthetic or is it not. Um it's sold in um well it's sold in convenience stores.
Somebody referred to it as a convenience store >> over the counter. Yeah. And you know it's the interesting thing is you see this pattern over and over. >> Umratom itself is relatively innocuous but >> industries then create syntheticum which
is you know 50 times more potent and actually can cause overdoses. Um, it's like tobacco and nicotine. Um, nicotine pouches and vapes have many times the amount of nicotine per serving than a
simple cigarette. You know, it's the same with cannabis. Synthetic cannabis much more potent um than natural cannabis. So, it's uh we see this over and over and over again. >> Interesting. Okay.
And on that note, um, I'll make a motion to adjourn. Uh, do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. Kevin. >> Roll call. Carrie. >> Yes. >> Kevin. >> Yes. >> Joan. >> Yes. >> And Rick. Yes. >> All right. Very good meeting.
>> Thanks. >> Discussion here tonight. >> See you next month. >> See y'all next month. Thank you. Thanks a day. Thanks, Haley. Thanks, Liv. >> Great to see everybody. Bye. Okay. >> Bye-bye.