Uh why don't we start with pledge of allegiance if you'd join me. >> I pledge algiance 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. Um we have uh uh Oh, Constance is here. So, uh, >> really quick, John. >> Yeah. >> Would you like to be reappointed? We
were just discussing who's being reappointed for the next year. >> Um, can I, um, let you know in a few days? >> Sure. I'd like to know what comes out of this meeting. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Uh,
>> yeah. What we want to do, Constance, is send a kind of batch uh, recommendation to the select board of who wants to be reappointed. Uh but uh we a couple days fine to wait on that. >> I thought the deadline was the 15th or something. So that's
>> the 22nd I think. >> Uh that's when the select board acts. >> We have it has to be the Thursday. >> Thursday before the 22nd, whenever that is. Okay. Thank you. Um, and Dia, uh, if
you could text Jake that he would make a quorum. Um, and I think there's only one vote necessary, which is approval of the minutes, and we can put that off till it gets here. >> Sure. Um so um
uh thank you uh Deian Michael for sending out not only the agenda but a lot of supplementary materials. I think it's clear uh [laughter] uh not due to anything I've done that we're making a
huge amount of progress in getting uh this report uh to the finish line. And I really want to thank Jeff and Dia especially and and all the subcommittee heads who've been reviewing things uh to
make sure they're uh line up with the uh discussions in the committees that they have led. So thank you all uh for that. Um I so we will put off the uh uh minutes.
Uh we've uh talked about um the need for reappoints um outreach at Westport River Days June 20th. Who who was going to lead that discussion? Do you? Yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. Would you like to discuss it now? Shall we go into it? Let's do it.
>> Yeah, let's do that. >> Okay. So, let me just pull up my Riverday's notes. Sorry, I thought I had them all up. Um but I've met with the Watershed Alliance and also with Nefelli and her two interns about this. So, I have a pretty good idea of what I think we should pull off, but I will definitely need some group discussion
right now on, you know, what we think about um the setup and, you know, who's who's available to help out. So, just as a reminder, um the River Days Festival is going to be next Saturday, June 20th at um from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. So,
I'm thinking 9:30 to 2:33 would be um the time given. And I personally actually have book club that day, so I'll just be doing a half shift. So you can do a half shift too if you want to leave at noon or something. Um but that's kind of the brief outline of how the structure goes. We do need at least
three people at the booth at all times. Now um Nefelli's two interns are going to be there all day. So I'll be there for one half. I think Jeff might be present for part of it. So anyone else who wants to come and just kind of be part of the group to engage residents to kind of like show face for what the CRC
represents, just let me know over email or you know you could call me. Um, you know, I'm not too stressed out about the structure of this because, um, I feel like we already have the staffing. So, this is just kind of something extra if you want to get um, more more facetime with residents. Um, and I'll go over
supplies in a second. I'm just going to go over the activities. And this is where I'd love um, your input on what we're bringing to the table. There might be too many things on here. So, number one, talk with Chief Dan Baldwin about Code Red. Now, Code Red is an emergency um messaging system that town government
can use to reach out for like any kind of weather weather hazards or any kind of like uh really um urgent messaging. And so I believe that um Chief Baldin did confirm with the select board that we are going to move forward with Code Red. I don't think we're fully set up as
a town, but the chief and I discussed it might be nice to get that resident base um on to Code Red at first so that when we do start to roll it out, you know, we have people there that are responding. we we can you know solicit some feedback you know how is this working so I signed up for code red myself actually super
easy so I'm thinking we bring we have like six iPads in the office one of the iPads can be dedicated like let's onboard you on to code red um thoughts on that before I move on to the next one >> yes Mike >> do you the point about the code red at
the river center is to actually have people sign up could put their information into the system so every resident eventually has to do that in town Yes. Yes. If you want to opt in for these, we're not going to like force it or anything, but you know, if you want to, especially, you know, non-Westers who might have boats in the marina, that
that's another target demographic for this. >> Interesting. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Mike, this is your uh operation. Is that consistent with goals of Riverdale? >> Oh, it's I mean, it's we have a lot of partner nonprofits that are there and uh it's an opportunity to, you know,
actually expands the offering, if you will, of of activities and things to see. So, yeah. Perfect. Okay, great. >> Yeah, Mike, >> just wondering if you could put some like a little index card with the link in case people don't want to take the time to do it there. >> Yep. >> Take that home and do it.
>> Um, I actually Let me see if I can QR code. >> Yes, the chief actually sent a flyer. Let me just show you guys right now. He got this from Oh, he got this from Chris Vitali. So, I was thinking I might have like this print out displayed as well. It's got kind of the quickbacks >> and it's in, you know, the code red
format. So, great. Glad we all like that. Um, I'll come back to FEMA apps because I had a question on that. Um, another thing we discussed with Nefelli, which would I think be a great way to prompt discussion and gain some feedback on this report is she said, "Why don't
you put up or we've done this in the past, they've put up like um flood maps or just kind of like a somewhat detailed map of Westport and they've asked people with sticky notes to identify um where they've experienced like a climate hazard or where they experienced extreme heat or if they have like questions about this part of town. So, I thought
it was effective way to kind of visually see where residents are experiencing different um impacts. And the report is kind of divided up into those five impacts. So, I thought maybe I'll have like a couple maps like one focusing on this is where I've experienced extreme heat, you know, in town or this is where I've seen like high amounts of pounding
and flooding in a storm, that sort of thing. Um, so what I'm looking for with the committee for that is just kind of um what discussions do you want prompted so I can, you know, um make the titles all clear. I was I was thinking maybe like flood events, the extreme heat. Um
I wasn't really sure what else we really wanted to get from folks because this is kind of like a fun event too. So I don't expect people are going to be here for, you know, 10 minutes giving us data. So those were kind of the two punchier ones. I thought >> nuclear. Okay, [laughter]
>> I'll write that down. Yeah, I >> I think it might be instructive for us to find out what areas of town lose electricity. >> Mhm. Okay, that's great. >> And if people could identify if they are
in a place that loses it often. >> We have all the other reports. So, if you really want that, we've got it. Okay. We we can't do temperature sensing, but we do have air quality sensors spread out in the neighborhoods
and uh I could ask Olive, who's in charge of that for the board of health, to see if there's a way that she could look at place, you know, the differential between locations with higher or
PM2.5 particulate kind of >> but I think she's looking for you walk up to a booth and you want to put a sticker on like I've had a flood here or I live here and my power goes out a lot or something like that. >> So I don't know that air quality is going to be >> Yeah. I don't know either. I'm just throwing it out there. >> Could flip it on like
>> interesting data but I'm not sure that person would be able to do that. >> Yeah. I mean, in my experience, I feel like in the South Coast, I don't Besides those fires, I don't feel like I've um I'm remembering experiencing like air quality, but we could flip it and be like, where have you experienced >> I'm just saying the information is there if you want.
>> Air quality hazard. Yeah. Okay. Um we can come back to that. Maybe I could reach out to the committee with a couple drafts or maybe just one draft of what I'm thinking and if you like it, give me the okay if you want it tweaked or to, you know, um kind of target a specific question, we can adjust too. I think a
flood plane map is always, you know, it has various purposes, but it's useful. >> Yeah. >> Uh for every and everyone, I think, is interested in >> in it, whether they're, you know, insurance issues or whatnot. >> Right. Right. Y
>> Jim, do you want uh people to say when they've lost power or when they haven't lost power? There's probably fewer people who haven't lost power frequently. >> Sorry, that's rhetorical. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think that's helpful. >> I think it's less of an information
collecting activity than just a participant and getting people think. >> Yeah, >> that Yeah. >> Yeah, >> that is true. That is true. >> Okay, >> keep going. >> Sure. Sure. So, then UMassd has created a little data flyer handout with some of the like dashboards we've used as um
data for this report, like some of the projections dashboards. So, she's made her own UMassd. I don't have a copy of it right now, but I'll circulate it when I do. and it comes with QR codes and she's going to be helping people navigate those viewers and how to read the data and how to, you know, source information that you need for your area.
Um, Westport Ready, I don't know who's familiar, but um, we had a grant MVP 2.0 where we ended up forming this kind of weather ready campaign called Westport Ready. So, I have a lot of handouts from that, so I thought I'd just keep some, too. Michael knows. Yeah, Jeff knows. So, we'll have a couple of those out.
Um, and then here are two kind of like uh getting people's information. I want to call for photos so we can start sourcing a lot of beautiful images for this report. And then in the same vein, I wanted to give people like a signup option so they can stay informed on like when the public engagement process is
coming for this report, when the draft is ready for release, that sort of thing. So those could kind of be I was envisioning together on the same flyer. you know, you can do a QR code, put your um email in, and then you can email me for updates, and maybe it links to a
drive for photos or something cuz I've had a little success getting photos from folks that I'm not directly connected with, like the committee or um planning board, that sort of thing. And then I know that we wanted to do kind of like a what is the town doing? So, I thought that could kind of be another
moreformational poster like here ongoing climate efforts in town. And maybe that could link to signing up to the websit's newsletter, you know, signing back up to this. So that's what I thought for adult activities. Are there any comments on that or >> Yeah, at our last meeting we talked
about my coast and having a demonstration. I didn't hear you mention that. >> Yeah, that actually totally will onboard folks or I'm envisioning that'll be more like the data flyer handout like how to >> how to use the tools. Excellent.
So like I said, we'll have a couple iPads. So one can be, you know, one dashboard, one can be my coast, one can be the code red. Great. >> So >> go ahead. >> With this report coming together finally, um
>> do we want to preview it? >> You know, we don't have anything final to show people, but >> right, >> you know, what has our process been, >> right? >> Where are we at? Um you know, what are some of the risks that we have identified in these different categories? I think we mocked up some kind of poster that could show that.
>> So you you thinking a poster? >> I I don't know what others think of that. >> Is it too early or >> Yeah. Uh >> are we far enough along with it to have the introduction to it public?
>> We have it, but I'm not sure. How hard would it be to produce what Jeff talked about which is kind of a summary. >> Do you have that sample slide? >> I know you have it in your email somewhere. >> Mhm. >> It was just each of the five categories and then examples of risk,
>> you know, affect people, agriculture, water resources. >> Maybe reminding people how we came to exist from the >> report from the select committee. >> Is this what you meant? No, it was just one slide. I think it was more recent
than that. I probably haven't. >> So, while you're looking um we had um
in in the five categories, do do we have forest fires as a separate category? because we got kind of a discreet report from the chief >> with with fire risk that kind of comes across there's some discussion in health
because people caught up in fire >> infrastructure obviously >> um I think it's mainly the discussion is >> spread across those two categories >> um what do people think about that because what I saw in the recommendations was not very much on
fire when the chief when he gave his presentation, especially the summary presentation was I looked at and said, "Wow, there's a lot of very specific stuff that a homeowner like me could do to reduce fire risk."
>> And u and it was all there. He'd done all the work. So, >> yeah, that's not showed up yet in the action items. >> Yeah. >> And I wanted to touch on that tonight. people have any thoughts on whether uh forest fires or fire risk whatever you
want to should be separate or uh put into other categories. >> Do we have a lot of do we have forest fires? Uh >> we have a lot of brush fire saying that again. >> We have a lot of brush fires. When
people start >> typically they're burning and it it gets out of control, but that's not the only reason. >> We're not California. We're not like forest fires. >> My neighborhood. Well, I mean, so if we get a real
drought, you know, our forests are likely to go. >> Yeah. >> They are so full of old vegetation >> that um thank God we don't have droughts like that or at least we haven't, but
doesn't mean we're not going to have one. I think what um >> you say, >> you know, the chief said as he as he showed ground plantings around a building with uh that kind of plastic
covered wood and he had a picture of a Dunkin Donuts where there were a lot of discarded cigarettes in the leaf matter right next to it. you know, it's uh if if we're not California, there are still risks
uh that can make a big difference. I I know when I I talked to Trip Milikin about, you know, how theirs was the only house that didn't burn in Hawaii. It's because he said, "Well, we weren't thinking about fire, but we were
uh rehabbing our house and we just happened to do things like a four to six ft barrier of crushed stone around the house instead of planting and that saved our house." So, um you know, just being educated about that
risk can can make a big difference. But John, when you say a separate category, you mean you don't mean a separate another subcommittee you're talking about? >> No. No. Well, he was like a he came in, gave a great presentation in one meeting, left a series of recommendations about what anyone could
do to reduce the chance of uh uh fire. And it seems to me it's useful information. And uh with uh a warmer atmosphere and drought,
you get more lightning and you have drier trees and drier brush. And so the incre the threat of forest fire increases. Now, um I I just we have the information. I'm just saying where do you want to put it?
>> You could tuck it in infrastructure and safety. >> Yes, you could. Yeah, that's that's the intent. >> I think as far as this goes, as of now, we've >> pretty much honed in on what the risks are. We've done our prioritization. >> Yeah. >> You know, we may play with that a little
bit. What we haven't really finalized is our recommendations. We've got a lot of things thrown against the wall. I think part of tonight is >> that's tonight about and what you sent out. All right. So if we're going to do that, that's great with me as long as the information that the chief gave us
is good is in there. >> River day and report, you know, communicating the activities of the committee, we can talk about we got these five categories. This is how we've analyzed things. Yeah. And these are examples of the risks that we were we're looking. >> Yeah. But uh so that piece would have to
be written, right? Because we don't have it. >> One poster for it. >> Yeah. So Dia, can you >> I got it somewhere. >> You've got it somewhere. All right. Well, we should have we should have that there if we got it. >> Does the chief have a handout for this? >> Uh, no. But it wouldn't take much to
turn it into a handout, >> right? >> If we went back to the minutes of his uh presentation, it's like >> Joseph, how are you? >> Thank you. >> Uh, Joseph, one quick uh one quick thing
before you get to it. Uh we are trying to determine who wants to be appointed or reappointed to the CRC. We covered that before you got in. Uh you've been very active and very helpful. Uh if you
want to be reappointed, we're going to send a list to the select board on the like the 18th of June. >> I think I've done what I can do at this point. And >> No. No, I haven't. all this year.
>> Okay. >> Beyond that, I think that's closure. >> Well, I I couldn't agree more, but uh we're not going to publish this the report before, uh the end of the fiscal year. So, uh if you want to stay on till
the end of the report, that entails getting into the next fiscal year. >> So, let Michael know. >> Yes. But you were going to say something. Go ahead. going to comment on forestry because I was part of the extension on
agriculture and forestry and one thing I've noticed in the past um 50 years in uh the little compound westport area is that there's been a dieback of trees and if you notice that there's lyan and almost like a little Spanish moss
>> which are actually not they're not symbiotic they're parasitic and uh this is something that's you you don't see it in other areas. So, it's affecting South Coast. And you'll notice that when the trees are infected with that uh or
infested, I should say, with that, uh that the limbs dry out, they die because it's sucking you see the the fluids out of out of the tree limbs. And so that's going to add to the uh forestry issues because trees are dying here because
there's a parasitic lychans moss etc that are infesting the trees here and you'll notice them on the trees and you'll notice them falling. the wrist is falling when they've sucked
that thin dry and you can save it by pulling it off, but it's beyond doing that unless you're a homeowner. Uh they could be saved. And what's interesting on it is that even when they drop,
>> um if you moisten them, they come back to life and then they start scoring. So, so they have sort of a life of their own. So that's something that's a little scary but uh but and that's something
I'm going to work with some botnists on to get a little deeper into that but that's just observations that uh the forests are being affected and it's within my memory and the first I saw it
was in Little Compton years ago and it spread from little Compton to the swamp area by the dump uh and now around here ones that are weakened perhaps >> related to temperature change or could
be it could be as tied in with with botist and others who have a scientific >> well I think that's a really good point I'm calling my wife right after I get out of this meeting because she says
look at all this mo these lychans on our trees and I say Oh, that's okay. Don't worry about it. And now I'm going to call her and say, "Oh, I was wrong. You were right, Laura. [laughter] And now I've got an expert who's uh uh
saying we got to watch out for this." But in Colorado, it was a uh I think a powder post beetle that killed 90% of the trees. And and so they're standing dead and lightning hits and you've got
in Colorado huge fires because of just what you're saying, a parasite in the trees that kills the trees. So yeah, that's Thank you. >> the little Compton swamp monster, right? >> Yes. [laughter] >> Yeah.
So the it it's impossible to get them out get it out of trees cuz the canopy is 40 50 60 ft high and you can't get up there. >> Um but the the same trees mostly oak trees I've seen. >> Yeah.
>> Are like u second generation trees from recovered farm fields. And what is killing them too are gypsy moths and winter moths. And we've had big swasts go through of gypsy moss
starting like 40 years ago. And the winter moths can decimate them. And now the beach trees are being affected by a nematode. So >> that's all right. >> Yeah, they're dying. I I know they're dying. I didn't know that was
>> yeah we're we're fortunate that >> then we have the deer that are eating any new growth that comes in the forest form. So >> yeah. >> All right. So, uh, to get to this issue, uh, Dia and Jeff are Jeff probably has
something that can be, uh, uh, used to summarize what we're doing so that people can say, "Yeah, I'd like to sign up when we get to the public engagement." So, we can do that. They'll know what they're what we're about. Anything else on this, Dia? Yeah, >> just the last three. These are a lot
lighter. The kids activities. Um, the Watershed Alliance is going to organize for us. there's going to be like a fishing for climate elements and then like a salt marsh activity. I thought we could also do draw your climate memory or just leave that out. That was my first thought before I um talked with an
affelli about the identify you know your hazard. Um so let me know if you think it would be helpful not helpful but just like relevant to have kids also draw their climate memory and they can paste it up or we could just get rid of that one and just keep it to the fishing and
the salt marsh activity. Oh, >> okay. >> I don't think you need it. >> I don't think so either. Okay. Yeah, let's take it off. Great. >> So, yeah, I'll try to have some candy and oranges, but I told Nefelli um so this holds for you guys, too. I think I'll reach out maybe on Monday with or
maybe Tuesday with some of the materials and I'll try to have them in a draft form and stuff. >> We've got someformational pieces and then we've got some interactive pieces including the kids activities. So, >> how many people do we need kind of at a time during that 10 to two period? I I
feel like four, maybe three or four. So, >> going to be the two UMass interns. >> Yep. >> Okay, that's good. >> Yep. >> And some of this is predicated on us having good Wi-Fi there. Am I correct? >> We're next to the outlet and we're next to the waterershed and they said the Wi-Fi should reach. >> Okay.
>> Yep. And we have an awning. >> We are close. >> Yep. Um I believe we have a table, Michael, in the office. >> I have a table. >> You have a table? >> We don't have a table. We have a tent, though. >> Okay. We don't need the tent, but Okay. Jeff has the table. So, would you mind bringing that, too? We don't have a table. >> I mean, I'm sure we have one somewhere
that we could use, but not not >> I mean, we've just spent a lot of time what we're going to lay out for people to pick up. So, I have >> Tiff has a table. >> Okay. >> We have a banner. Um, but what about easels? >> We have three and I as Nefelli if she
has a couple and then um Kim from the waterershed was like you can also there's like a railing. She's like you can affix them to the railing too. So, I asked Nefelli if she has any >> kind of straps or anything. Um, could we get maybe one more person or two more people to commit to either like a half shift or like the whole thing?
>> I'm going to be out of town unfortunately, but >> I'm at the board of health table. >> Mhm. Okay. Yep. >> I can do half a day. >> Okay. Thanks, Jim. >> Thank you, Jim. >> Thank you for time, but I'm also at another I'm at the bike path table, too.
>> Sure. Um, Jim, would you prefer first half or second half? >> I guess first. >> Okay. Shauna, would you be okay coming second half or do you want to stay with the bike? Okay, >> I'm kind of committed the whole time. >> That's fine. I bet you are. Yeah.
[laughter] >> Um, great. Thank you everybody. I I I feel good about this. I'll keep you posted um on all the things. So, yeah, we can move on from this agenda item, I believe. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, should be a good opportunity to
increase engagement with people of Westport. Um, item three is review uh, chapter 7. I I think I hope everyone got the uh, uh, material that D and Jeff sent out. Jeff, are you going to walk us
through this? How do you want to do this? >> Well, I think uh, as of the last meeting, we had shared and um, gotten some comment on sections 1 to six, right? >> I think we're in reasonably good shape there. Section seven is the assessment
of the risks. Um I personally found that that came in in all different forms and shapes and sizes. I did uh do fair bit of work trying to >> file things down, make it consistent. Got a little help from co-pilot on that on the formatting.
>> Um so what we have here is uh the result of probably say 40 pages combined boiled down to maybe 15 at this point. So there is some stuff on the cutting room floor which uh I want to
>> You're talking about the recommend >> chapter 7 you've boiled from 40 pages down to 15 >> roughly. Gotcha. >> Um so if there is stuff that is not showing up in there that you feel is critical um when you review it, please flag that. Yeah, >> we'll find a way to put it back. I've
done some text boxes. We can probably do more of that. Um, there's still placeholders for graphics and charts if you have recommendations for what could go in there. Um, there's little call out boxes already that I think add some, you know, draw your eye into, you know, what
this is chapter about or sections about. Um, so I'm I'm looking for feedback on overall how does it look and is there anything critical that's been left off? >> Was that the action items draft attachment? >> No, that's chapter eight.
Ah, thank you. Constance submit. >> I was confused by that. >> Yeah. >> So, if you want to talk about that, um, we have recommendations that come out of the subcommittee reports. Um, I circulated something that summarized
those as well as pulled related action items that we've found or seen in other climate reports or some of these uh >> portals that have, >> you know, action items available >> and and what do you u I marked mine up.
>> Okay. >> I don't like track changes, so unfortunately it's on this piece of paper. Uh but uh what do you want on on the recommendations from members of the committee?
>> Well, I had some instructions in that highlighted box. Um I think some of them are in good shape as far as being welldeveloped. Um you know, it's not just we should consider this, it's this is how we would do it. Yeah. >> Um
I I want to make sure that where there's Westport specific detail, we add it in there. Like we're already doing this, so we can add on to this and you know, this would be an easier lift for us. Um or we're going to want to coordinate with other departments or programs or
initiatives. Let's identify those. I don't think it's helpful to just have a lot of ideas thrown against the wall. And there's some of that in there. Um the other thing and going back to the fire recommendation is um I think it's
important this report have uh action items that the town can consider but also individuals >> right >> and I think they're there you know I think if we're talking about health awareness of ticks and uh where to go if you you know it's an extreme heat event and you don't have air conditioning there's a cool just those kinds of
things um infrastructure you know clear the brush from around your house um take a give the line coming off the pole to your house. Is there are there tree limbs that are uh at risk during a big storm? Because you're going to be on the hook to get that reconnected, I believe. >> Yeah. >> Um so those kind of things I want to
make sure we have and I don't I don't think you know the people who um have put their subsection together have necessarily um found enough of those. So I'd like I'd like to know at least I'd like to have the ones that we know of that are
obvious that can be put in All right. So, uh in the uh breakout that said what we've completed this >> uh it it seems to show hey we're pretty close to there. >> Yeah. The last chapter of the recommendation we have I'll call it a
deliverable from each of the subcommittees. >> Yeah. >> But they're not to near final form yet. The other ones I think were pretty good shape. >> Yeah. So any questions Phil on either chapter 7 or eight? >> Yeah, this is like on the chapter 7 stuff in related to the coordination
piece. um which is that and what could be improved which is that at least from my perspective there's none of the leads
when I you know fire police Matt from the board of health the town administrator um who have really plugged in to what's going on because it that really happens behind behind the scene like the you
know the fire at um >> yeah at Mid City. There was a lot of a lot of stuff that went on as an example of, you know, an like an an emergency response kind of thing. And and if we're
going to try to describe or ask those folks who are really have the inside knowledge of where it's working and where it's not working because it was really hard for me from from the board of health perspective
because I'm not part of those discussions and I'm not part of that process to really give concrete discussion of here's how it's working. Boy, it would really be good if we could have some additional tools or what whatever it is.
>> So, are you saying though we need to solicit input from them on >> if if we're Yeah, I mean, >> exactly. Yeah, I I think that would I think that would really help. And we have a new administrator and maybe he
has ideas about what he would like to see across all the departments, >> you know, as far as coordination on. So >> because it overlaps the whole hazard response, you know, kind of thing. And so >> anyway, so Phil
>> sequencing and next steps. >> Yeah. >> Like what what are our next steps? Are we all going to review it and say this looks good? Let's go to the next step. What is the next step? Do we want additional review from people like that, from other organizations in town? That's something we need to discuss.
>> Yeah, I think that um Bill, you make a really good point. Um, and I think when we get a complete draft and we're close to it, uh, then the word
draft is important because what you're pointing out is in terms of public engagement, there are different constituencies. So there's the general public where if we have a draft, we can have a couple of
public hearings, public meetings, go through it and solicit citizen input. But you're pointing out there's a very narrow constituency of people like Matt and uh and others
that are going to look at this in a different way like what what does this mean I have to do? It it probably goes beyond >> all right. No way I have the resources to do this. Do we want to go public and does the you know as a committee we think you should do this without really
>> reaching out to somebody and saying you know no this this is we're here this is here you know for I mean some are recommend we need better coordination departments. Well that's a little naive. There is a lot of coordination on the departments. We need to reflect what's going on. And that goes back to my point
about making all these recommendations more specific. >> We're talking about what's going on. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Phil. Bob, I know you sent out an email this afternoon. I think it's pretty uh detailed in terms of your thoughts on this. Do you want to
summarize for people who haven't had a chance to read it? >> Uh I mean, basically in the uh >> there it is. If you want to >> No, I I I don't know my laptop, but thank you for bringing this. I I made a couple of points in the tables. Uh just
sort of updating things in the water section said that uh the uh the Gooseber causeway issue is being studied. In fact, the study's been reported and we have the findings. And
also I think in that same section uh particularly for East Beach is that there's now an agreement with the town on the restoration of all the wash materials onto the properties that run the south side. So So
>> that that's because some of these recommendations been you know sitting for 12 14 months. >> Yeah. They have to be reviewed and updated. I I realize that I I just, you know, want to update [clears throat] where we know that those things have
happened, we should just make sure that they get in inserted before we go public. If someone said, "No, that's that's already done." Um, >> and that's part of the request back is to review what what you recommended and
if it needs updated, updated. And >> then the the sort of chapter eight Hopefully we could have real action items and I I think your point about having individual action items as well as recommendation to the
select board, recommendation to the town officials, u you know, it's it's just a essentially the the town's short-handedness is is a liability that's had to overcome.
>> Yeah. And um hopefully that's reflected in the risk. >> Yeah. And I think you have limited, >> you know, we just need to make it clear that the the ability of the highway department to respond in an emergency,
clearing roads, that kind of stuff is limited. And probably the same with the police and fire. Although we we now have updated emergency response plans and and and those those things have
while they were 20 years old, they've all been there's been action over over the last year on on those kind of issues. So your comment as I read it is related to what Phil brought up which is we've talked about their
recommendations for the town, their recommendations for individuals, their recommendations for organizations. So there there are different constituencies and what you're saying is that when we deliver this to the select board which is the town
>> that we uh make it easy for them to see these are recommendations that affect town government um and are therefore ones that you can the the town can take action on. I think that's what you
>> Yeah. And it's it's you know can we build public support for town meeting actions? Can we you know the those kinds of those kinds of activities the report should also do
that and and we're we're about you know this this will get published this fall some soon. We're about to undertake the the master plan. So there'll there'll be this public
activity and usually all of this can help support the selectment and support the town meeting. Do you have >> Hold on. Constance, you had your hand up and >> um are you?
Um, yeah. I I didn't really understand what chapter 7 was about. I looked at it and I didn't really understand. I actually called in to find out. I didn't hear back. But um so I focused on what I guess is chapter seven, I mean eight,
which is um the the draft items. And uh read through them all pretty carefully and there were some really I thought some really good suggestions. I thought the agriculture uh piece was uh particularly good. Um but the one that worried me the most was the water
section and uh which I've worked on uh which I've been a part of with Mike and um there are a few items that I'd like to ask you about specifically right now. Um there's four I think.
>> Yeah, go ahead. Um, so I I'm just I don't really know how to interpret some of these. Uh so one I think what I'm getting um is >> do this
is um start conversations with homeowners on changes that are occurring and how they will impact access to and value and use of their homes in
future flooded areas. elevation and retreat options, moving utilities, issues with roads, etc. And my reaction that was what? Uh I mean this sounds pretty
radical and also kind of confusing and scary. Um and and then require so I'd like to talk a little bit about that and what that means. um requiring floodp proofing as a condition of a
certification of occupancy for structures in the flood plane. For example, when renovation cost are 25%. >> That's an example of something that's been recommended elsewhere that you put in that column so that we could look at
and say, is this something that's part of the instructions? Take a look at these. Are these things that you know we want to think about here? It's not something we've identified yet. It's just something we've identified that other people are doing other locations. >> Okay. Well, I just it they're a little
alarming. Um and I'm like floodproofing, you know, what what does all does that entail? Um and and then identify, harden, and water seal critical infrastructure, especially
electrical, heating, and ventilation hardware in the flood plane. Uh, I'm not even sure what all that means and how one would do that. Um, especially with a lot of the cottages that are pretty much right on the river like mine. But, um,
and then, you know, where where exactly is the flood plane? Um I you all do know that the intergovernmental panel on climate change finally admitted
that there uh R CP8.5 was completely implausible and uh they stepped back on that way >> unlikely to occur was >> no implausible was the word that they used highly implausible and they stepped
way back from that and uh and I believe that of course that doomsday scenario 8.5 is what the state uses in their flood planes. Um and of course the insurance companies love doing that because then they can collect a whole
lot more money from everybody. Um but if you look at those >> doesn't predict the future at all. >> Yeah. what >> the existing flood plane is almost identical to the the future and it it doesn't it doesn't predict does doesn't
take any of the climate change effects into account. >> Okay, good. Well, that's good. That's good to know because I didn't I mean I know that the flood plane has or whatever they say what the insurance company char has you know charged you what they've included in the flood plane
is expanded inc a lot since um well since uh hurricane Katrina I mean they just basically gobbled up most of the coastline and said oh now everything's at risk and now you have to pay a whole lot more insurance. Um, so I I would,
you know, I didn't see any reference into what is the floor the flood plane exactly. And I'm glad to know that it it doesn't that it's not just an amplification of of scaryness. Um, >> well, that's a good reason why Dia
mentioned uh on river days, one of the things we might display is what is the flood plane? >> So people can see it. >> Yes. And um but it it is very confusing because I know that I didn't you know I mean I know that a lot of property
wasn't in the flood plane before Katrina and now it is and that insurance rates are really really high. The federal government has increased the level of the flood plane throughout the country and the town of
Westport has changed their uh flood plane bylaw to coincide with the FEMA regulations. And anybody if if if we had to do that because the town if it didn't approve it then nobody
in town would be able to get flood insurance from the federal government and it has to do with uh where if you're going to build new you have to build above the flood plan and it could be different in different areas of town
right >> whether it's a velocity zone or not. and >> or upgrade >> or upgrade if you upgrade as as the thing said more than 25% or 50% value >> it used to be 49% or whatever now we're
saying 25% you can't >> well no as Jeff said that is a recommendation that he has searched and found other efforts at climate resilience have come up with that recommendation and so he said somebody
else thinks it's a good idea do we want to think it's a good idea. It's not in the report until we decide to put it in the report. >> I think it's a recommendation that if you're if you're spending 25% of the value of your house that you ought to take that into account. The federal
government says or we say 50%. Isn't that right? >> Yeah, that's correct. So it the town law is that if you increase the value of your house by 50% or more, you have to comply with the flood plane bylaw, which
is the same as the federal flood plan. And um when it talks about the utilities and the heating and all that stuff, I think that just makes sense. You don't want all your utilities and heating
equipment to be flooded. And I don't think you have to get it above the flood plane, but you have to get it high enough so that it's unlikely that it's going to be flooded based on the bakeries of when things happen. But
>> well, >> so constants, you said you had four. >> Yeah, I just have a couple more here. Uh so also like plan to relocate critical facilities in high-risk areas using a frame in line with their expansion or refurbishment cycles. I just don't
obtain easements on properties at risk of flooding and use those areas for water retention and drainage. So, we've seen those ideas elsewhere and they're documented here so that we can look at them and say it'll be up to the
committees to look at them and say, "Are these things that >> Well, I would say that those things are incredibly uh alarming and it seems overblown and it just will just scare the heck out of most people. And if we want to completely tank the real estate
values of of Westport and if we don't want I mean maybe we should just like I mean you know one of the suggestions was not allow any more building in the flood plane so that's fine. you know, I've already got my house in the flood plane, so whatever. But, uh, it just I don't
know these when I was reading these, I I just didn't know where they came from, and they were confusing and used a lot of terms that I didn't understand, and frankly, incredibly alarming. And I I hope that's not the intent or what we're
going for in this um in this report is to just scare the be Jesus out of people and and you know say okay doomsday is coming not only is your house going to flood and everything but you're a forest fire is going to take it too so cut back all your trees. I mean, I, you know, I'm
hoping that like with some of most of what I saw in the agriculture and some of the other ones, it's like pretty common sense good practice, not we're all going to die. And uh, you know, I'm just hoping that that's more the tone of
this than than what I read in the water section, which I was a part of, and I don't want my name on that. >> John, >> yeah, go ahead. Dr. Constant makes a good point, but Jeff's homework to us is to consider these things and we will as a as a subcommittee and make a
recommendation to the committee about whether we think they should be added or not. And um I I I think some of these things are are pretty aggressive and maybe deserve to be considered. And there probably areas that have had
steam, you know, >> supertorm Sandy, you know, parts of New Jersey were just completely destroyed. So, it only makes sense to say this is likely to happen or possibly it could happen again. We've got to take some of
>> Yeah. I'll say is that is that the subcommittee should look at the suggested ones that fall the ones that fall into our subcommittee and and we can take a look at them and and in the next meeting which we can do fairly quickly >> and concur or or suggest that they be
taken out and even if they we say they should be taken out. I think they you know some of these things might be considered down the road as we get more serious and we see more evidence that that things are heading in that good direction. right? Doesn't have we don't
have to have it in the first report if it's if it's an action that is say interpreted as a little bit you know an overstep in some cases but we will discuss this among our ourselves and get back to it. Yeah, Mike. Yeah. >> Yeah. I just want to say that I've been
very involved in the discussions uh about what's happening in the seapport in Boston and it's not hypothetical. Every time there's a big flood or a big rainstorm, the children museum on the board floods >> and we've just gotten grants totaling
over $14 million to basically totally reshape move the first floor of the museum up, move all the infrastructure up to the roof. I mean, it is not hypothetical. It's real. the uh the damage uh potential damage to the museum
is extraordinary >> and uh it's why um we've we've gotten the funding to actually make substantial changes because we know that you know we haven't even had the the supertorrm that we're worrying about. This is just with
normal tidal uh and rainstorms. So can I suggest u um a way that uh we um approach this given that there's not
likely to be unonymity on everything and I think there's about three levels of review. The first that's going on right now is that Jeff and Dia are taking
information from the subcommittees and uh editing it and lining it up so that we have a readable document. Uh and then u
we have something that we can comment on just the way constants did. Um and you did Mike. Um then I would guess like you know the budget at town meeting when the moderator goes down through all the
items individually and people say I want to talk about that one. We're going to find that 80 or 90% of the recommendations are like consensus. You said hey I love the forestry thing. you know that there'll be an awful lot
of them where everyone says, "Yep, this is a good idea. We don't need to debate this cuz everyone agrees on it and then we're going to get to the ones where there is some disagreement. Uh but it won't won't be all of them.
It'll be I think a minority of them and then uh the subcommittees weigh in. But this report is a report of the entire committee. So ultimately the entire committee uh I think makes the decision
on uh do we include this in it or not and comments from individual reviewers are important and need to be listened to and comments from subcommittees like water or forestry need to be listened
to. But uh as we are putting this draft together for public release, it's uh you know if we have to take votes on things uh then we'll take votes on things. But I I think it will be uh only a few that
are contentious. I don't think if I don't know how many recommendations there are. If there 80 recommendations, you know, we we may have an argument about five. So, let's have the argument about >> I hope we don't I hope we don't put this draft out. >> I know, but I hope we do. So, you see,
we're gonna have an argument. >> But, I mean, if we if we put out what is listed right now underwater under the water thing, it's confusing. It's alarming. It's it's there's no point in doing that. >> Yeah, I know. And people should be
alarmed when there are things to be alarmed about because >> ignoring a threat doesn't protect you from the threat. it. Well, >> again, the things you've flagked as alarming are things that other areas have recommended. So, we haven't adopted
those as recommendations. >> Well, I've been on the water committee now for years. We've been working on this. And you asked uh you sent some documents for us to look at. I do my homework. I read it through it. I I looked at the water thing. I couldn't recognize the water thing. It was like,
"Okay, wait a minute. Where did all this come from?" I got in touch with Mike and I said, "Mike, could you explain some of this? I mean, where did this come from?" And what what what does this mean? Can you tell me what this means? And actually, he said he could not. And that it looked like boilerplate
recommendations, overblown, I believe, what you said. And uh you you know, you're much more um politic here, but you were a little alarmed by it, too. And you didn't know what it meant either. And so uh you know that's all I'm saying. It it's like
>> a table to show additional strategies identified through searches of state national resilience clearing hubs other best practices. So they're from other areas. We should look at what other areas have done. That's >> there's nothing wrong with what you've done. I had read it at that point.
>> I'm not saying there's >> it's just we we have to do our homework and take a look at them as a committee and um and we'll get back and you know but but const another good And that is that um this
UN you know organization that follows this stuff >> has made some drastic changes quietly but made some drastic changes to their predictions and um to the degree that they filter down to the state level RCP
especially sea level flood ride we've been talking about that two or three years we pointed out that there's just no connection between those predict predictions and the reality we're almost at the end of the first prediction was which predicted a foot and a third of
sea level rise by 2030. We're almost there. We've had [clears throat] an inch and a third. >> Bob point just finish. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Just finish. We previously talked about having negative communication with the
state and gently chiding them to reconsider some of these and reframe some of these because we have to work to those predictions. >> Um they might need a little prompting to get with the program here and to give us
a new realistic prediction for the next 20 30 years because those predictions are what we're trying to make recommendations around. What? >> A couple of points. Um, >> thank you. >> The the first is um I I don't find the
report to be critically alarming and and not is a tone that we're all about to die. If you look at the uh u the which is which [music] is what you said constant and if you if you look at the
the uh the section on the flood maps and who's affected by the flood maps it is you know an incredibly small percentage of the towns area number one
and and a an even smaller percentage to the town population. Yeah, let Bob the effect that we're all going to die and you know as as an action for the town is an action for the town meeting there are things that we can do
but it it is it it essentially the sea sea level rise issue is is and from my experience is that nobody is is taking that is none of the state agencies are making the most
radical. You know, if you look at what the state agency's projections are, >> not for the south coast, which is smaller, that is we we we're projected to have a smaller increase, but for the east facing Boston Harbor projection,
it's 30 in. It's not 10 feet, it's not 7 feet, it's 30 in in 50 years. And if you think well you know we're actually seeing roughly looking back we're seeing 11 in a
century. So that you know that's that's a possibility if it increased. But if you look at if you look at the flood maps now today to to you know the the existing flood
maps that FEMA produces they're not if you look at what that cover we have that >> right we we can produce a map that has nothing to do with projections of the climate projections and you can see what the flood area in the town is and it's
relatively small and you can see the current update, the ones that Jim's talking about that we've had to update. So, our bylaws look like that. And you'll see it is a very small addition to the flood plane. So that so that you
know it it affects yes those who sit on the beach or those who sit close to the beach they're at high risk but it is a relatively small percentage of the population
and local street flooding and things like that a real risk and and and and I think the tone is is is really that climate change for us
that is residents of West are really only multipliers on the risk that we already have. You know, it's if if your house had 10 ft of water in it in the 1938
hurricane. So, nothing to do with climate change, right? The 1938 hurricane occurred. It that's a fact. If it had 10 ft of water, if if it has 10 feet 5 in of water in
2050 50, are you materially different? And that's what we're talking about. You know, the people that are at risk are at significant risk, but if you're if you're a few feet
higher than you were in 1938, you're you're no risk. Or the risk is not from flooding. The risk is you're going to lose power for 10 days. And how do you live in your
house without a well? That's the risk. The risk is it blows down all the trees and we lose power for extended periods. That's that's the risk. So let me suggest I'll try and phrase it a little differently the point about
decisionmaking and that is uh you raised a couple of issues uh uh constants one was things were confusing and I think if something is confusing then we need to write it in a way that
it isn't confusing. >> That's right so that people need to understand it. That's absolutely legit. So if you're confused by it, other people are going to be confused by it. So we got to write it in a way that it's not confusing. Uh then uh there's an
issue of we're going to have x number of recommendations [clears throat] and uh there may be uh some people who uh support that recommendation and other people who don't support that recommendation. And I think ultimately
while we want to listen to individual views on that, we want to listen to subcommittee views on that uh the committee should decide what recommendations end up in the committee report. Uh so I I think this is very
close. One of the things I found confusing for example is so many of the recommendations are just repeated over and over and over again in different sections. So that >> that that makes it look like, oh god, we got 200 recommendations here. It just it's intimidating. Uh and if we
eliminated the duplications and just had a recommendation put down once uh and we can note uh well this is in the water committee, it's in uh the you know it's in different committees, but you only see the
recommendation once. Then I think that eliminates some of of the confusion. And then I think um I don't know how many meetings from now it would be a case of constants you saying uh and
there I don't think there's anything in here that talks about 8.5. So um >> I just didn't know what the flood plan was based on what the state was mandating. >> Yeah. It's not based on the future as Bob said. Um, but I I think that you
would offer I I move that this recommendation be deleted >> and then if someone seconds it then we'll debate it and we'll vote on it. And that's the way this committee should make a decision like you know any
democratic body operating you know with Robert's rules or whatever. And so people would say, I think this should be added as a motion or I think this should be deleted or I think this should be amended and we can move it, second it,
debate it and vote on it and then put it in the rearview mirror because we do have to go forward. And I I'm not naive to think that all of these recommendations are going to be consensus recommendations. I think that the tone of the report is
of concern. I just would when when will we get I think that the um the introductory the introduction will be very important because that frames it all and I know that you're writing that right. Well, I I uh I don't know what it's called, whether it's the
introduction or the chairman's letter or whatever, but I wrote it and it's been distributed and I put based on your comments and others, I I changed it from the one I did a year or two ago. So, that wasn't about climate change. It was about resiliency, you know, ways that we
can be more >> I think I read it. I would like to read it. >> Yeah. So, that got sent out a couple months ago. Okay. And Dia, would you send it send it again so you can look at the tone of that and see what you think about that? >> I think that that worries me the most.
>> I know because I worry cuz I wrote it. So >> how well how we frame it, how we set it up. >> Yeah. Well, I changed based on your comments and Jeff's from a focus on climate change to a focus on resiliency. So I listened to you and I tried to
change the way to pre present it based in part on your comments. Do you? Well, I just want to say, Constance, you know, thank you for sharing your thoughts, but um just want to advocate for Jeff a little bit. Um this is kind of still super draft, so I totally hear your concerns about tone, uh clarity, making
sure we're getting the right message out there. We're not repeating ourselves. Um so, just wanted to say this is super still kind of in the mix of all that. like we haven't even started looking for tone and stuff cuz we want to get all the content first then we'll kind of rewrite it and kind of you know give it that warmth give it a unified voice you
know start thinking about the angle we want to present it so just wanted to get that out there that it's it's not really at that stage yet so >> good point for future >> I ask for comments on the on what you sent us therefore I read it and given you my comments don't take it personally
I'm just [laughter] you know it's I don't really need to own this It's not something that can be done. >> I apologize if the, you know, presentation wasn't explained enough, but you know, this this was information pulled from what we have already. And
then side by side, we have this is what other places have said. Take a look at it. If there's anything that you think is appropriate, let's bring it and talk about it. Does it belong here in Westport? >> Phil had his hand up. >> Some of them would be alarming. >> Yeah. I'm just going to so um you know
I'll speak personally of saying going through the torturous process of ranking what the priority what the priorities were and I think that we need to align the all the recommendations that were
made things that we might do with the priority >> that we've assigned to things >> you know so we all know that ticks are a really big problem, you know. So, if I was going to pick that, I would say, yeah, it's here, it's now. There are things that we should be doing about it.
And yeah, mold is a problem, but there's, you know, >> you know, it's down threats to >> drinking water from salt intrusion. It's real. It's going to happen over time, how intensely, but it's not the first
thing on our list. And so I think that that is going to be a big and a good you know constraint and it relates to >> uh like we like one of the things I
recommend recommended is would be to create an implementation subcommittee that is going to um you know make presentations to the finance committee and make presentations to the select forward for things that we
would want to get money to do because we have no money to do 99.9% of the things that we're proposing and so we do need to drill down. That doesn't necessarily mean that the I think that the report has to be >> limited to
uh you know what's happening the next year but I I do think that we can control it within the framework that we have designed already. >> Yeah. Jeff, do you want to respond to do do the recommendations line up with the priorities when this comes together?
>> Phil's first point. >> I think that's another issue is that uh we may have a lot of recommendations for what we've defined as relatively low priority risk. So maybe we should >> which would not make logical sense.
Yeah. But, you know, on the other hand, if it's something that's easy to do, even though it's a long list, >> yeah, >> Fred, I think it's worth mentioning. >> Okay, >> I'm with Phil. >> Uh, Joseph had his hand up, then Mike,
and then both mics. >> Joseph, >> vocabulary is important, and the way that you wrote the introduction, I thought was spot on. that was very readable for people of all
generations and abilities. For one, it was apolitical and uh it set the tone I think without being alarmist uh but also hitting on the important points. And so I I think that that was
successful. Very successful. Well, I want a motion to adjurnn so that we can adjourn on that. >> No, keep going. >> Because when it goes to town meeting, >> you know, there's there's always a possibility of it being politicized for
one reason or another. >> Yeah. >> And believers or disbelievers, but to write it for the agnostics, I think would be way of doing it. >> Yeah. Well, I tried tried. >> Thank you. Just a reminder, we are
trying to write this to like a 10th grade reading level and that is something that like >> software can determine. So we are using that make it easy to understand and digest. >> Okay, Mike, you had it. >> No, I just want to be just reiterate.
appreciate the work that Jeff has done to get us this far and to come up with Dia and Michael and um but to you know to add to augment what we've done to take a look at that that's our task that's on us to take a look at and uh uh
appreciate you giving us a little bit outside respect what we've come up with so thank you >> let me uh I had a couple of comments myself and I'll hand this to you and and Dia sorry for not doing track changes
But uh one I mentioned that I I I think we should list a recommendation once so it's not repeated. Um and uh Ben, um
I I think we should work I I really appreciate that what you did was to say here's what the subcommittees recommended, but here are what other towns have also recommended and um uh because that's useful
information and I think the subcommittees can look at those uh recommendations that come from quote outside and say, "Oh, wow, that's a good idea, you know, or it isn't a good idea for Westport or it would be a good idea if
it were 50% and not 25%." Because I think ultimately we shouldn't have two lists. We should have one list of recommendations. So, uh, as as each subcommittee looks at
the outside suggested ones, they should say, I'd like to incorporate these from that list and add it to our list. So, it's one list. And there are three or four of them I don't think fit Westport.
So, I don't think we should do that. So that we can take two lists and merge them into one list which I think you know gets to the issue of understandability reduces confusion and uh something's either a good idea or it's not doesn't
matter so much where it comes from it's just is it a good idea or not. So, I I hope people will look at those two lists and and you know, like going through a buffet line, there's something there you want to eat, put it on the list.
>> All right. Other uh Yeah, Mike. >> Yeah. I just had one suggestion which is rather than worrying about the hypotheticals of what uh flood plans are going to change, one of our recommendations can be for Westport given the limits of our feasibility is
to actually collect data on what's happening with our uh our sea level rise >> um and what gets flooded. I think uh you know we certainly had a root awakening this winter with that snowstorm which is not unrelated I think to climate change
and put >> two snow storms >> but yeah too of that worst one and put people really at serious risk. Um so I just want to come back to Jeff and because we had worked on the MVP grant >> and there were two recommendations there. I don't know if they're in this
report, but one was better communication by the town to everyone broadly about things that are happening. >> Yeah. >> Um number one and number two, uh modeling on Little Compton on emergency posting emergency access routes. Um so
very >> and and at the meeting last month [clears throat] uh to Mike's point, Mike Yagman's point, uh the my coast uh is a way that citizens can add to data.
Right? Here's a photograph of a flooded u road or here's a photograph of um electric wires that have come down in the storm or you know whatever it is and here's the date and here's what it looks
like and it's easy to do. Grab your cell phone camera, take a picture and um input it. And you're starting to do two things. one, build up the database that you're talking about, and two, the more people who are involved in that, the
more citizens are getting used to observing and uh that's a good thing, too. >> And it also builds community. >> Yeah. Yeah. There. All right. Uh what else you got, Jeff?
>> That's it. I mean, we need we will need to discuss once we all get consistent on this. What is the next step? Do we identify and should we start building a list of people we want to look at this to make sure we haven't overlooked something that they can help us with? Um
who are those people? Is that the first step or do we >> the select board with the report? >> We haven't really discussed. >> Yeah. But I think that in the discussion, you know, about different constituencies
like the the uh uh town officials who have responsibility get one kind of targeted approach at looking at this. The general public gets another kind of approach. Um, and the materials may be different,
but I think we're close to having a draft that's readable. And then people can kind of look at it and go through it and they can say, I agree with this, I disagree with this. You know, I think
this would be okay if you if you changed it a little bit. and and it'll really start to focus where we have consensus on stuff and where uh we have disagreement and how do we go about resolving it >> with a firm deadline to get your comments in.
>> That's right. I I have one uh question on on the chart this chart that shows Wow, we're checking off lots of boxes. It looked like UMass Dartmouth was only checking off one box. Is that >> No, it cuts across those five areas,
right? >> Oh, all right. >> So, so we don't have to nudge them to do more. >> We are nudging. >> Okay. [laughter] >> Okay. >> That's the wrong conclusion. >> All right. Okay.
Yes. I just have one postcript in the previous discussion which so I supplemented the health report substantial I think between what um Jeff and Dia put together and I don't know if it makes and I haven't gotten
feedback on but I don't know if it makes sense to circulate that >> more you know more broadly than >> I I would circulate it uh through Jeff and >> I you know so >> I haven't had a to look at. >> Yeah. So when they get a chance to look
at it, >> Yeah. >> they can decide what to feed us >> and particularly bec because >> um the in part of the infrastructure part and power loss and all is is also in the
health section. So and I agree with you it would be good not to have that repeated but anyway just so there may be a supplement to the health part that people can look at too. >> Yeah. All right. Uh, I do want to come back to just one piece of business, the minutes.
We have a quorum. Um, I I read them. I thought they were complete, accurate, but I don't know if pe people have had a chance to look at them, if there are any changes or emissions, people who were there, who weren't there. Otherwise, I'd
love a motion to approve the minutes of uh, April 30th. >> So, move second. filled. Mike seconds. Uh, any discussion? All in favor say I. I. >> Okay. Thank you very much for that.
>> I haven't got the copy. So, >> you don't have your unprepared for class. >> I haven't gotten copies for this meeting or anything. >> So, I do you know how to get in touch with the planning board chair? [laughter]
>> Do you have this correct email? I sent it to both. >> It must be stuffed. [laughter and clears throat] >> All right. Uh, next meeting, uh, July 23rd. We >> we're going on, you know, about a month because it's the sprint to the finish
here. >> Um, and so appreciate especially in the summertime, uh, folks doing that. And uh uh we will uh is there a motion to adjurnn? So move second debate. All in
favor say I. We are journ till uh July 23rd. Thank you all. Thank you all.