 Good evening. I'm calling to order the meeting of the island and select board from Monday, March 21st, 2022 This is select recording in progress This is select board chair Steve D'Corsi Permit me to confirm that all members and persons Anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me our members. I want you to introduce yourselves Those in the room and then I'll ask Mr. Diggins John Hurt Diane Mahon Eric Helmuth staff as well Adam chaptering town manager Doug Heim town council Ashley Maher office manager and mr. Diggins if you can hear us if you can respond in the affirmative I am here. I can hear you clearly. Thank you. Thank you Tonight's meeting of the island and select board is being conducted in a hybrid format consistent with an act signed into law on February 15th 2022 that extends certain COVID-19 related measures the act includes an extension until July 15th 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12th 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting lot the governor's order Which is referenced with the gender materials on the town's website for this meeting allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely So long as reasonable public access is afforded so that the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting Before we begin permit me to offer a few notes First this meeting is being conducted via zoom is being recorded and is also being simultaneously broadcast on ACMI Persons wishing to join the meeting by zoom may find information on how to do so on the town's website Persons participating by zoom are reminded that they may be visible to others and that if you wish to participate You are asked to provide your full name in the interest of developing a record of the meeting All participants are advised that people may be listening who do not provide comment And those persons are not required to identify themselves both zoom participants and persons watching on ACMI Can follow the posted agenda of materials also found on the town's website Using the novice agenda platform finally each vote tonight will be taken by roll call We have many items on our agenda as you can see Including the continuation of our warrant article hearings So let's see how much of the town's business we can get done tonight I'll now turn to the next item on the agenda item 2 Which is a recognition of the health and human services department with us here this evening our Christine Bongio no a director of health and Human services and Natasha Whedon our public health director if you want to come up And I just want to say a few words thanking on behalf of the board But to also allow members to speak to to thank you for everything that you've done in leading the town through this public health crisis with COVID-19 and Since the end of February 2020 you and your team have worked constantly nights weekends Throughout this process keeping the town informed keeping us updated and getting us vaccinated getting us tested and I Went back and took a look at all that you've done since Just prior to the pandemic and your first COVID-19 written update was on February 28th 2020 on March 8th You announced the first presumptive case in the town of Arlington And the announcement to close the Arlington public schools was on March 12th and since that time As we've struggled as a nation as a community to find PPE To get through to a period where we can get tested get vaccinated You have led the local efforts and and we really want to thank you for your commitment to the town for keeping us informed for making difficult decisions all in while following the science And and getting us to to where we are now And so just a few of the accomplishments that I want to share with the public and and to thank you But also want to say all throughout this process and I credit to you Christine and Natasha your entire team and everybody's work With you is your goal is to learn the science how to and how to apply it Making rules that try to prevent the spread of COVID and try to keep us ahead of it and keep us safe And we really appreciate that So since the beginning of the pandemic The town through your efforts through your team Have distributed thousands of face masks. You've administered over 11,500 COVID-19 vaccines to residents ages five and over at over 70 vaccination clinics You conducted in with other communities the first responder clinics, which were back in January of 2021 January 12th. I think it was the first day you ran the regional vaccine clinics for seniors as part of the phase two of the of the vaccinations Christine had come before us both in eight back in April and then on October 13th And October 13th You told us how you were planning for the clinic for five to 11 year olds in the town of Arlington And Arlington was a leader in that on November 6th 1170 vaccines were administered to five to 11 year olds in the town of Arlington and Due to your planning and due to your extraordinary dedication Arlington was number one of all communities in the state for vaccinating children ages five to 11 at the outset of that rollout and it it wasn't by accident It was through your planning you told us over a month before where you were going and and what you wanted to do And the other thing that was really noticeable to to all of us is Throughout this whole process particularly in the beginning There wasn't a lot of guidance from the state on certain issues a lot of things fell to you at the local level And you had to reach out to other communities you had to make tough decisions and in some cases unpopular decisions but they were the right decisions and We want to we want to thank you for that Throughout this also within the health and human services department. I want to recognize the council on aging assisting Arlington eats By coordinating over 9,000 deliveries of food in the first year of the pandemic AYCC Pivoted to telehealth sessions Had to do that very quickly And they've had it well over 10,000 telehealth visits since the beginning of the pandemic You've investigated almost 5,000 COVID cases in the town 4854 at last count It's what I had and and I was one of the ones that was investigated last September and I can talk firsthand Lucille Nicholson was a nurse who had contacted me and followed up and just a remarkable effort Settling me down entering any questions and and just on the on the vaccine clinics too if I can go back to them for a second It wasn't just administering the vaccines It was making people comfortable and so for the senior citizens. I was there Brought my mother to one of them. It was a great atmosphere right down to the music That was being played over the loudspeaker and the flowers that were being given to people as they left for the children Making it a very relaxed environment I know some of the nurses dressed up to relax the kids there was a cutout at Dr. Fauci That the kids could take pictures with and it all made what was a very stressful time a very positive time for everybody In addition to investigating the COVID cases you coordinated hundreds of medical reserve corps volunteer hours Responding to the pandemic people volunteering to go to different areas of the state and the health departments and Natasha you involved in this a lot the the mask and capacity Mask and capacity compliance checks which again were difficult But they had to be done and we really appreciate it So on behalf of the board, I want to thank you Christina. I want to thank Natasha I want to thank the whole health and human services Department for all the great work that you did And if any other board members would like to Have anything like this egg Well, it's a tough act to follow But I just want to reiterate so what the chair said is that as I go back and look at the past two years The one thing that I remember is Arlington always being ahead of the curve We led all of our peers in COVID response and because of that our citizens were able to enjoys, you know, some of the the protections of The policies but also we were able to get back to life I think at times quicker because we led the the way with vaccinations with child vaccinations It kept our kids in school. We have policies that allowed our kids to stay in school and Allowed them to stay on the field on the rink So I definitely appreciate that and I can't imagine the hours that you have all put in in the past two years But hopefully sometime soon. I know we're not there yet, but sometimes soon you'll get a little bit of a break But I certainly The chair said just again, thank you for all your efforts Not all heroes wear capes And I'm looking at two of them and I know that you represent a team that we are So lucky to have and so proud of for working really hard You haven't really been off-duty for two years you and a lot of your staff And that really accumulates and We see that and we are so very grateful You have kept us safer than Safe really is as much as we possibly could be You have followed the science even when you've had to endure Feedback shall we say from some of the people that you encounter who who don't You stuck to your guns to keep us safe and we appreciate that so very much We're very proud of you. Thank you Thank you, Mr. Hiller. This is mine Well, how much time do I have? Not gonna repeat anything that my colleagues have said but Excuse me one thing I definitely want to Highlight among all the other things you've been doing is really a lot of individual Work to the residents of Arlington that really are kind of tepid and sometimes not really capable of Overseeing their health care getting the information information getting the access Not this Sunday, but the Sunday before this has been general called me about Somebody in my family who you know needs the vaccination booster And I know that both you Christine and Natasha have been working You're not just Monday through Friday professionals. You're definitely some people say I worked 24 7365 You've definitely been doing that for the past two years and And so I would just say to residents who are out there Even if you're not sure, you know a lot of people think that the at-home services are just for seniors and they're not They're really homebound You know developmentally disabled and I can tell you if you call The Board of Health Health and Human Services and it's not the correct Place to be they're gonna get you there and hold your hand and make sure and do follow up And the other thing that I really have to take my cap off too And I know my colleagues have encountered this is you know going into a local Arlington business Where you had to make some safe decisions as they said based on the science But one of the things I really appreciated was every time I would come upon a merchant or Manager or store store owner they were saying oh we understand the town's gonna do this and I said well Yeah, I've heard about something like that. Well, there's a meeting. Is that zoom meeting should I go to that? and I think that you know I don't see many other cities in towns in Massachusetts and I do follow it as do my colleagues a lot of them just hand down the decision and that's it and they kind of just leave the door closed and There has been good conversation And and I've said to people even if you don't get your way Do you know do you feel like you were heard and a decision was made in the best interests of everyone and they say? Yeah, so and that's that's really tough to do that You're sort of like a mini select board sometimes when there's a dog hearing or something not as serious So this there's so many other facets of the job that you're both doing that you just sort of enveloped into health and human services That you could have easily I think sort of passed off and and stuck to the matrix and the framework But you didn't do that. I know the governor likes to say pivot and all the other words but you all are What we need from our professionals our administrative staff to top administrators to move with the times and adapt You've definitely done that. I'm very appreciative of it And I always say you don't have neither one of you have to call me back on the weekend, but God bless you that you do When I call people I'm like, well, I just got a call through so-and-so So I do appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is mine. Mr. Diggins Thank You, Mr. Chair and and and yes, you know We we could easily take you great work that you do granted Because we do come to expect great work, you know from all of our staff I mean, but you did a great job being and congratulations and keep up the good work because we we asked you to be here Because I know that you would be not declared mission accomplished in at this point You know, we we still have a ways to go. I think and so I Want you to know that the I'm always here to support you in the hard decisions And it's not often that you will hear me say that I support the work of service approach to me But I certainly do in this situation and so I know that you will do the right thing And I'm only my colleagues and we'll support you. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. Mr. Chapter Landon if you wanted to And I mean, I know you had a two-year I Didn't know but was it Get together an event that that you had updated so about as well But if you want to add anything sure, I mean I to that note, I'd say two things Three things first. Thank you in public Second Christine Natasha did put together a really wonderful event for staff Was that two weeks ago? No, we could go to commemorate that first time that we came together We had our first positive case in Arlington And it was a great time for all staff from all departments to come together and really to say thank you and to reconnect But what was clear in that meeting was that these two women were the leaders of this effort, right? And as they conducted that session and as other people got up and had a chance to speak It came back to Christine and Natasha and their team and the great work that they did So I think it was evident in that event just how important they've been to the town over the past two years and obviously far You know beyond that and then the other the other point I would raise again building from what the board members said is Over the course of the past two years I would often hear from other town managers town administrators mayors and often on the other end of the phone It was someone saying how did Arlington do that? How did they get those masks? How did you get those vaccines? How did you do it so fast and the answer was always sometimes I've got these two fanatical people Health and human services, and they just won't Stop from doing the best they can for Arlington residents and that and the evidence is just so clear that that's what they've done for two years So we're lucky to have them and thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Chappell. Thank you I don't know if either one of you would like to say anything, but we really appreciate everything you've done Thank you so much, and thank you for the opportunity I do want to acknowledge the team that stands with us Both in health and human services as well as the other town residents and the town manager Adam Chaps Lane obviously wouldn't have been able to purchase the test or the masks if I didn't have his approval and and Just the support throughout the entire Two years I also you know I want to thank all of you too because you obviously were supportive of Adam and Allowing us to do what we needed you to support our community Thank you, you know our team is fantastic. We've got Former and current members of our team that really stepped up both in health and human services as well as the town in general all of the departments and anyone that did come to our Clinics saw that we had staff from every department across the town And that was what's really special about Arlington and really what I've seen over the course of my almost two decades of employment here Just how dedicated the community the staff are to this community and you know, obviously the leadership of Adam To support all of that has been been really really important to us. So thank you so much. Thank you Thank you both and We have thank you for coming in tonight And I know there's still a lot of work to be done that if you go on your website You're still doing testing still doing vaccines and getting information out. So thanks very much. Thank you Item three is the Community Preservation Act committee presentation This evening by Clarissa Rowe the chair of the Community Preservation Act committee. Is this real with us yet? It looks like she's trying to start her camera. Okay. She's hello all of you It's so nice to see you you as well and I Add my congratulations to those two wonderful women So tonight But He's And Yeah, and just for the public Before you go on Clarissa, this is our first meeting back in the chamber since last June We only had two meetings last year So we're trying up the hybrid format and we're the laboratory for experimenting with these meetings So we're doing the best we can tonight. I think we're getting there And The next thing that we are doing is giving a tiny little bit of money to the Summerville Homeless Coalition to help the projects in Arlington that they take care of. The next project is the Arlington Affordable Housing Trust, and this is, as you all know, and Eric is on that committee. This is a new fund. We hope to be partners with them in the future. Two of my colleagues on the committee, Sue Dottrow and Dave Swanson, will be meeting and working with that committee to come up with a memorandum of understanding so that the money that is spent is spent on things that can be in our daily lives. So thank you. Next. And now we go to recreation and open space. And we're here again, you can go to the next slide, in Herd Field, where, as you all probably know, it's in terrible shape, we've done phase one, the phase two has got the lighting and other items that need to be done. We may have a third phase next year because the Conservation Commission would like to do more with the millbrook that runs underneath the Herd Field. And then the next one, the next slide, I was told to be quick, so I'm going to be quick. This is a wonderful playground that is renowned not only in Arlington, but regionally. And as you know, it's not in good shape. Those wonderful slides have been replaced, but we're going to spend that much money fixing it up, making it accessible to all, and it's a very important project. And next, please. These next two projects are very important projects. This is Mount Gilboa looking at the building to see if there's something we can do to make the building more usable for the town. In the past, it's been rented out to different town employees and nonprofit managers, but it could be artist lofts, it could be many different things. It's not structurally in very good shape. So the Conservation Commission is going to be looking at it. And the next slide, please. Hooks Hollow is, again, an under-resourced, wonderful space in Arlington. The picture on the left shows the problem with it, which is the millbrook rises actually up and goes over the roadway at times. So it's a beautiful, passive space. It's right near one of the elderly projects, and it's a very important, unused, unusual spaces, and the planning department's going to take care of it by really having a feasibility study about what can be done there. And here we go into preservation. This is the Jarvis House, home of Doug, who's sitting in the room, but it needs help. The ventilation is, shall we say, not the best, but we're doing this little by little, and this is some painting and exterior work. Next. And the Dallin Museum, these are some of their files and their filing spaces. And they, as is our planning department, are looking at really digitizing the files and putting them in to really safe files, not only physically, but keeping them forever. And you can see from here, and you'll see the planning documents pretty soon. This is a great step forward for two places in Arlington, and the Dallin Museum is a real resource for us. And the planning department is probably one of the first, it's the next slide, and then we can go back to the church. The next slide after that one is the planning department, they're also doing it. And we're hoping that the planning department's work will serve as an example for other town departments who are also in need of this kind of work. Now let's go back to Covenant Church. This is a, it is a church, and there were people in the finance committee that said, what are you doing about a church? And I said, well this is the first church that's come to us, and the church is putting up a third of the money, and they're trying to make their entrance accessible, and also the bathroom is on the first floor accessible. They are a great community resource. Okay, then we can go to the next one. And these are two more of our old friends, the old Chua Mill, the north and west side. We've done the whole mill I think at this point, and the preservation of the Jason Russell House has had, as we do many preservation projects at CPA, it started with the fees ability study, and they have slowly worked through, worked their way through the whole study, and they've just finished up a project doing geothermal there so that the museum can stay open year round. Okay, and next. This, I think I read something in your Arlington about the electrical panels at, in the housing authority that are being replaced, they also came to us, try to get electrical panel upgrade in the house or building. These panels were probably a mistake many years ago, but because we've had a fire and the facilities, both Chestnut Manor and the house or building run completely on electricity, we're, we got an emergency request and we're funding it to replace all the electrical panels. We think it's terribly important, and it's, you know, their elevators don't work, if there's no electricity, their kitchens don't work, their heating doesn't work. So we thought, the committee thought it was very important that we do this. Okay, and the next is the summary, and I will stop talking so fast and let you look at it for a little bit. You can see that we're spending 3.4 million dollars this year, which is the most we've ever spent, and it is a absolutely wonderful amount. We don't know that we'll ever get that much money again, but we spent it, and we're, we have actually 3.6, but we don't get some of the money until July. So we're really pleased, I think the committee is pleased. And then the last slide, before I answer questions, is something the finance committee asked us to do, which is to do a five-year plan. So this is the beginning of it. I wouldn't say it's representative of all of our work because it doesn't have as much in community housing as we've, we've done for the last years. HCA did not, the Housing Corporation of Arlington did not apply this year for a new project. So I would say that the bottom line figures are very low because of that, and we do expect them to do that in the future. So with that, I will stop and see if you have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Owen. I'll turn to board members. Since we are back in the chambers, if you want to talk, just signal to me. We can see you as well, Mr. Viggin. So Mrs. Mahun. Thank you, Ms. Rowe. My old friend, I do want to say how appreciative we all are for all of these projects, but especially for the emergency one that you, I think last spoke about on the Hauser Building, which could be a fire issue was not the cause of the fire at Chestnut Manor. And my question is, it's my understanding that is it the Hauser Building and Chestnut Manor that have these trunk electrical boxes that need to be replaced, and this amount is just for the Hauser Building or is this emergency amount going to cover the buildings? It's just for the Hauser Building they have. They've already set aside money for Chestnut Manor. And I'm led to understand that the Department of Housing and Community Development has gotten money from the state to fund, it was their decision to have these panels put in all the facilities, not just in Arlington, but all over the Commonwealth. And they are putting together the money, and they're going to have a process for how to revive the money to replace the panels. But in Arlington, where the feeling was we needed to start doing it now. And once the process is in place, they can apply for more money, but it didn't, having had the Chestnut Manor fire, we just said time is now, we're not going to wait for the agency. No, and I'm very appreciative of that. I've had conversations, some if not all of my colleagues with the chair, Brian Connor and the new executive director, if I'm saying this title correctly, Mr. Nagel, and I'm really impressed with. I've always tried to foster and encourage a relationship between CPA and Arlington Housing Authority, along with other institutions. And they've certainly taken the ball with that. And I don't know if you have a quick answer to this, but I remember when we first started talking about the Community Preservation Act, and I told you my story about John, but I won't go into that. I used to like her. But anyways, one of the things that we heard in the beginning was that this wasn't really something that we should do, because once all these cities and towns get involved in it, then we're not going to get any money from the state. Is there, you know, a five to 15 cent sort of answer to that? Are we still not getting any money from the state? Which I think I know the answer. Well, I think we got more money this year than we've ever gotten. And the big cities are already in there. So, I mean, part of it was the real estate agent is hot. Real estate is hot. And it's, you know, I think if we have a recession and real estate gets cool, I can't imagine it, but anyway, the match will go down. But it's, you know, this is what people like myself that believed in CPA thought that would happen. And it has happened, and it's only grown in popularity all over the commonwealth. I think 183 communities now that have adopted it, 187, I can't remember. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mrs. Mahan. Mr. Helman, I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Helman. Thank you very much. Nice PowerPoint. I want to give my compliments to the five-year plan. That was something that was on the former chair's plate for a couple of years, and he never seemed to get around to it. So, I have to say, good riddance and well done for getting that done, because it really is helpful, I think particularly since the capital budget goes on a five-year cycle, it's really good to try to synchronize that. And, you know, the committee has long done that informally, but I think even though this is obviously incomplete, it's a really good start. So, thank you for that extra work. Well, thank you, Mr. Helmuth, but I will not take the credit for that. There's this young woman named Julie Wayman, and a man named Jim Feeney, and they beat me into it. That's great, but I, you know, and I, because I've been kind of the informal liaison to this committee, I'm familiar with these projects, but I have to say you've done a really great job with a great lineup of projects that is diverse, covers all the needs, and then some, it's thoughtful, it's spread out across town, and I think you're making really good use of this windfall that we're getting from the state this year responsibly, and so just kudos to all of you and keep up the good work. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that although we don't have the default motion before town meeting, that select board would endorse the projects. Okay, great. Do I have a second on the motion? Second. Okay, thank you, Mr. Herd. Thank you for the presentation. I was going to comment that the presentation went so much better this year than the guy that did it last year, but it's very similar. I think I say this every time we talk about CPA. I think everyone knows what a wild success it is, but as you go through the projects and we're looking at projections with our budget and we have a lot of demand on the budget with limited funds, and it's just amazing that we're able to fund projects like records preservation, which are very important. Restoration of the Jason Russell house and give our legal department proper ventilation, things that we just wouldn't be able to do otherwise without the CPA. So in that sense, it's just been such a wild success, and it's great to go around the town and see the sign on the fencing that says funded by the CPA and see all the projects that it's been able to accomplish. So thank you for all your work and both you and the committee and continued success and work on all these projects that we'll have in the future. And it was really, as we went through the presentation, I was thinking myself, this is a lot of money that we're throwing at these projects. So it's good to see the amount that we're able to spend and do all the work that needs to be done around town. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hurt. Mr. Diggins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say to ACMI, the audio from the hearing room is a bit lower than the audio coming out soon, so you can boost it a little bit. And also I'd like to say alongside Clarissa is Mr. Franzoza, and I know Mr. Franzoza is working on the Youth and Young Adults Study Committee, and he is so devoted to this. They had to miss one of our meetings because he was working at the presentation. So they did a great job. I like seeing all the different programs, especially the feasibility studies. A couple of questions. So on the revenue estimates, I see that for fiscal year 24, it's down by about a million from fiscal year 2026. 2023, and then there are some pretty hefty projections, meaning in 2026 to 2027. What's the basis for those projections? Well, are you looking at the five-year plan? I guess so. Yeah, the five-year plan, what that is, is we're asking all the applicants that we have all the time, like the Jason Russell House. And people that we see all the time to make, those are going to be their requests. It doesn't mean that we'll have the revenue to go with those requests. Also, so the estimated total revenue is based on the requests? No, what you're seeing in the last spreadsheet is a five-year plan of requests, not the revenue. But at the top, though, I do see estimated total revenues. You see, in the page, I think it's 27, we don't have, we don't project the revenue. That's, see, that's the page you're looking at now. Yeah, I'm looking at 21. That one, that is a request spreadsheet. It's not what the revenues will be. We don't know. The Department of Revenue gives us the estimates, and they give them to us some in November and for sure in March. So those, what you're looking at there is not the revenue we're going to get, it's the request that people have put in. All right. All right. And I'm asking this to be partly out of curiosity, because I'm trying to see if it matches up something that I saw a while ago with respect to Windows. So the $600K on Windows for Anatomy Manor, you know, how many Windows is that getting us? Well, it's actually a $4 million project, and it will pay for all the Windows in the Anatomy Manor that need to be replaced. So it's, I mean, like the electrical panels, the Windows in that complex are just way past their due date. And they're very drafty and have some really awful, more awful pictures I can show you. But the idea is to get a start. And I think it's, you know, it's probably a three-year project. And we didn't want to phase it by doing some and not all. We're going to, with, I think, some ARPA funds and some other DHCD funds, we're going to be doing all the Windows. That's where it's coming back to me now is the ARPA. I knew I'd seen the Windows. Yes, you have. So we're doing them all, it's roughly $4 million. Good, good, excellent. So thank you for the great work. I'm going to look forward to next year's presentations. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. Yeah, and I just want to echo the comments of my colleagues. And the nice thing about the CPA projects is you can see this community housing, open space and recreation, and historic preservation. And it's really great the way you've been able to slot in projects. And you have to slot in to each category, but just to see the breadth of what's here and some really worthwhile projects. So thank you for all the work that you're doing on this and for the presentation tonight. All right, thank you, Steve. Sure, Mr. Chair. Yes, I forgot one thing. So very recently, Ms. Clarissa Rowe left her position after 20 years on the State Community Preservation Coalition Board. Many years of that were as chair. And for those of you who don't know in the public, Clarissa was one of the progenitors of CPA in Massachusetts going all the way back to the 90s. So as we reflect on the value that CPA is bringing to Arlington, we have in very large part this woman to thank. Thank you, Clarissa. Thank you, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Allen. That's very kind of you. Even though John Mahon doesn't like me. No, we saw the bill and he goes, what's CPA? My Cambridge Physician Associates, I don't know. And then I say, oh, Community Preservation Act. And he goes, I suppose you're a favor of that. I said, well, yeah, but Clarissa Rowe, who he loves. I said, Clarissa is the champion of it. And he went, oh, jeez, I really liked her, but anyway. So that's the. We see each other in the supermarket occasionally. That's the history. Thank you, Mr. Helmuth, for that. So on a motion by Mr. Helmuth that was seconded by Mr. Heard, Attorney Heim. Mr. Heard? Yes. Mr. Diggins? Yes. Mr. Helmuth? Yes. Mrs. Mahon? Yes. Mr. Diggins, of course. Yes. Thank you both. Thank you so much for listening to us. Also, watch out for that gasoline going down my street. Would you please? Yeah, yeah, yeah, this near our neighborhood too. Keeping an eye out. Thank you. Take care. Thanks so much. You too. Thank you. Next is our consent agenda to items this evening. Item four is the minutes of meeting February 23rd, 2022. Item five is no left turn at Mass Ave and Appleton Street. Move approval. Second. OK. Any questions or comments from board members? OK. Motion for approval by Mrs. Mahon, seconded by Mr. Heard, Attorney Heim. Mr. Heard? Yes. Mr. Diggins? Yes. Mr. Helmuth? Yes. Mrs. Mahon? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Corsi? Yes. Ms. Diana's vote. OK, great. Thank you. Now we're starting public hearings on utility petitions. Item six and seven are national grid petitions. I am going to recuse myself from item six and seven as I do legal work for national grid. So I will turn this part of the meeting over to Mrs. Mahon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Ms. Mah spoke to me and has indicated that the minutes will reflect at the time that the chair exited the meeting as well as the time that he returns. OK, we now go to agenda item six, which is a public hearing, the first national grid petition for Ravine Street. I have down here that the representative from national grid is Mary Mulroney, but sometimes they change. So is it Ms. Mulroney or someone else? I think we just raised their hand. If the representative from national grid could raise his or her hand through the Zoom meeting so we can recognize you. Mr. Chapelling. She was emailing me earlier saying she was logged in. Well, I do know on two other agenda items I've gotten a text that the person has gotten dropped but then have been able to get back on. So I don't know if that's the case right now. You don't see anyone? OK, what I'll do for the national grid for Ravine Street first because this was a public hearing and we will come back to it unless there's no representative. I'm just wondering if there are any residents around the Ravine Street project that wanted to speak, if you could raise your hand. The same with agenda item seven. Again, we'll come back to it. National grid, Herbert Road. If we get a representative from national grid but I'm just wondering if there are any residents for the public hearing that wanted to speak on Herbert Road, if you could raise your hand through Zoom. OK, so what I'd like to do with my colleague's permission is to table right now agenda item six and we may have her. Sorry. Ms. Maroney, can you hear us? Yes, good evening. Sorry, I could see you and I listened to everything prior. I don't know why I wasn't able to join the Zoom call. No, thank you. Thank you for a couple other. We've had that problem on a couple other agenda items. So first, Ravine Street, if you could just give a brief description of what national grid is proposing. Sure. National grid would like to install and maintain approximately 240 looked east of 16 classic main in Ravine Street from Irving Street to number eight, Ravine Street. Thank you. I'm just going to ask if I can before I turn to my colleagues for any questions or motions. Again, are there any residents from Ravine Street for the public hearing? Raise your hand and I'll turn it over to my colleagues. Move approval subject to the conditions. On agenda item six, Ravine, moved by Mr. Helmuth, seconded by Mr. Herd. I don't see that any of my colleagues have any other questions. I don't see any hands raised. There is one hand to vote, removed. Removed. OK. On a motion to approve by Mr. Helmuth, seconded by Mr. Herd, attorney Heim. Mr. Herd? Yes. Mr. Diggins? Yes. Mr. Helmuth? Yes. This is Mohan. Yes. So 4-0 vote. Mr. D'Corsi abstained from participation. Thank you, attorney Heim. Agenda item seven, National Grid Petition, Herbert Road. Again, Ms. Mulroney, if you could give us sort of a brief explanation what this job encompasses. This is a request to install and maintain approximately 1,590 feet of 6-inch plastic in Herbert Road from the existing 12-inch plastic at 26th Lake Street, all the way to Magnolia Street. And we lay approximately 455 feet of 6-inch coated steel dating back to 1963 and approximately 15 feet of 6-inch plastic dating back to 2019 and 10 feet of 6-inch plastic dating back to 2005. And 330 feet of 6-inch B.S. steel and approximately 30 feet of 6-inch plastic dating back to 1997 in Herbert Street with approximately 830 feet of 6-inch plastic in Herbert Road from Magnolia Street to Lafayette. And then to relay approximately 1,060 feet of 4-inch cast diane dating back to 1908 with an approximately 10 feet of 6-inch plastic from 2005 to 245 feet of 4-inch B.S. steel dating back to 1964 and approximately 365 feet of 6-inch plastic dating back to 2002 and approximately 225 feet of 6-inch plastic dating back to 2010 in Thorne Dyke Street with approximately 1905 feet of 4-inch plastic from Mousav to the end of Maine at 155 Thorne Dyke Street. And relay approximately 1,315 feet of 4-inch cast diane dating back to 1908 and approximately 335 feet of 4-inch plastic dating back to 2007 in Fama Street with 1,650 feet of 4-inch plastic from Mousav to the end of Maine at 112 Fairmount Street. And then to relay approximately 1,065 feet of 4-inch cast diane Maine dating back to 1908 and approximately 45 feet of 6-inch plastic dating back to 1997 with 1,110 feet of 4-inch plastic in Lafayette Street from Herbert Road to Mousav and relay approximately 500 feet of 4-inch coated steel dated back to 1969 and approximately 75 feet of 4-inch plastic dating back to 2011 in Boulevard Road with 575 feet of 4-inch plastic from Lafayette Street to the end of the Maine at 21 Boulevard Road. Wow, that's it? I don't know, I'm only kidding. I thought it was just 60 miles this week. No, you know I was hanging in there figuring out how old I was, I was a two at one point, I was 40 at another, but then you hit 1908 and I can't. I'm gone with that. Again, I'll ask if there's anyone here from the public, I mean anyone at the meeting through Zoom from the public who would like to speak? We have two hands raised as well as there's two questions in the question and answer. If you'd like me to read them or one of them's being promoted. Okay, why don't we do the two people who want to and we can see what's left with the other question. They're being promoted now. And I know the questions are on the screen but I cannot read that from here. That's okay, I was gonna read them to you if you, they're both being promoted. And the two names we're promoting are? Tanya, we promoted them and now we don't see it up. Here's one, Jonathan Wise. Yes, Jonathan Wise. Thank you, Jonathan Wise, yes. I just wanted to confirm that I understand correctly that this project is entirely replacing existing main of various ages. Ms. Mulroney, could you add? Yes, it is, yes. Thank you, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Wise. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, and then we have Tanya, I'm sorry I did not get her last name. I promoted her and I can have a panel. Tanya Fersenheim, corner of Herbert and Varna, I don't remember what my number is. Just had a question, no objections obviously, this sounds like a good project. Just curious how long it might take and what kind of disruptions we might experience during it. I just wanna plan ahead. Okay, could you say your street again? 87 Varna, corner of Herbert and Varna. Okay, Varna, Ms. Mulroney? Yes, the project is gonna take some time. It's probably a couple of months. They go in sections and just so that, you know, National Grid is very concerned about the neighbors and the neighborhood. So if you have any issues, anybody on that job site, you could, you can call over and ask, they will direct you to the supervisor or just please, details, we're really there for the customer. So it could be some interruptions, like you might have a detour that would make you go around the block, but it wouldn't be there for that long as they move rather quickly once they rent, weather permitting. I'm also curious about like, will our gas to our houses be interrupted at all? Ms. Mulroney? No, no, there should be no interruption in gas service, no. Thank you, those are my questions. Thank you so much. Thank you. Do we have one question left in the queue that? Yes, we, Hiles Berger, who is asking if we could explain why you need to extend the pipe so far. Ms. Mulroney? Don't believe we're extending the pipe, but we're replacing the pipe to bring it all. As you heard from my description, we have different dates and years of the pipe. So, National Grid, again, is on the side of safety. They always want to get in, replace old pipes. There's a water issue in this area. So, they wanna make sure that water doesn't get into the mains. It's just for safety, and it's probably the resident's best interest, obviously. Okay, thank you. I'll turn it to my colleagues for a motion and any comments, Mr. Diggins? I'll make the motion to accept the petition or the petition with conditions met, and I hate to do this on a night where we have so much. You know, so I'm just gonna ask a couple of quick questions. Give me a quick answer, you know? Because I walk on the Long Herb Street, the Fairmount, and in the past I was going to get some gas. So, how are these projects selected? You know, how do you determine what you're gonna do? Because I know that we kinda wanna deal with the gas leak issues. So, you think that any of these will help with the gas leaks that we've seen? Ms. Morris? Yes, yes, this actually will, going forward, it protects the pressure of the water, this water, like I said, that can get into the mains, which isn't good. And it's also, it's to reduce potential leaks from the water intrusion, and also, obviously when everything is put in the ground, it's loud, I don't want you to use the word never, but it's a great thing. It minimizes the leaks. Thank you, Ms. Henson. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. I have a motion by Mr. Diggins to move approval subject to conditions. Is there a second? Second. By Mr. Helmut. Any further questions from my colleagues? If not, Attorney Heim? On a motion by Mr. Diggins to approve, seconded by Mr. Helmut. Mr. Hurd? Yes. Mr. Diggins? Yes. Mr. Helmut? Yes. Mrs. Mohan? Yes. Mr. Yanimis-Volk, Mr. D'Corsi abstained from this discussion. Thank you. Mr. D'Corsi, I don't know if you can hear me, if someone can let him know. We can balance. And thank you all so much. Thank you. Thanks for bearing with us. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Sorry, Mr. Chair. We had a problem connecting Ms. Moroney for about two, three minutes, so. We're now on, as you know, agenda item eight. So. I had said I had received two other people on the agenda that were on, got dropped, but are back on again. So that may have been Ms. Moroney's issue also. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mrs. Mohan. So items eight and nine are from Eversource. Item eight is an Eversource petition for Mystic Street. Jacqueline Duffy is with us from Eversource. Good evening, Ms. Duffy. How are you? Good evening. Thank you. This one is for Mystic Avenue. I'm going to go through with the work. We're having a little bit of trouble hearing. Mystic Street job that they're going to go through with the construction. Ms. Duffy, can you hold off one? Ms. Duffy? Yeah, we're having trouble hearing you. Yep. I don't know if. It might be a problem. Yeah, your internet connection may be unstable, but let's try it again. You hear me now? Yes. Yeah, it's now, it's going in and out. I don't know if there's a call in or. I called in. I didn't have a call. All right, why don't you try it again? We've heard you there. It's just as you go on, you're going in and out. This job is going to go forward. Can you hear me now? Yes. It's going to go forward. We've got the approval to go through with this. We don't need a granular location, but we are going to supply as we build plans for it. It's for the Mystic Street reconstruction project. Well, we have the application materials. Any board members wish to? Move approval. Okay. Second. Okay, any questions? Public hearing. Okay. This is a public hearing. I don't know if there's anybody who wishes to be heard on this. Jackie Duffy has her hand raised. Okay. No, that's me. Okay. You want to speak in favor of it? Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out why you couldn't hear me. Okay. All right. So we have a motion by Mrs. Mahans. Oh, Mr. Diggins. I will specify that this one, it's not really formality on this one. It says this one did have some stipulations. So we definitely want to point that out on this one that they need to be dealt with. Oh yeah. Okay. It's subject to the conditions. Yeah. Okay. So on a motion by Mrs. Mahans, seconded by Mr. Hurd. Tony Hyman. Mr. Hurd. Yes. Mr. Diggins. Yes. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. Mrs. Mahans. Yes, thank you. Mr. DeCorsi. Yes. It's a five zero vote. Okay. And item nine is a ever sourced petition from Mill Street. Ms. Duffy, if you could just describe the petition. I'd like to install approximately 170 feet of conduit in Mill Street. This is the purpose of this spot. I led the service to 10th Mill Street. It's with the High Rock Covenant Church. All right. Thank you. Move approval. Okay. Subject to conditions. Second that. Okay. Any comments from board members? Seeing none. Again, this is a public hearing. Are there any members of the public who wish to be heard? No, hands raised. Okay. Is it? So on a motion by Mr. Hurd, seconded by Mr. Helmuth, attorney Hyman. Mr. Hurd. Yes. Mr. Diggins. Yes. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. Mrs. Mahans. Yes, thank you. Mr. DeCorsi. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Duffy. You've lost her. Thank you. Sorry for the confusion. No problem. Have a good night. You too. Thanks, Chuck. Okay. Item 10, under licenses and permits, outdoor restaurant and retail permit application, the Roasted Granola 1346 Massachusetts Avenue. I believe there is someone here from Roasted Granola tonight. Yep. Emily Patel is being promoted to panelist. Emily should be here now. Okay. Good evening, Ms. Patel. Yes, I'm here. Hi. Yeah, if you could tell us a little bit about what you would like to do with the outdoor seating for the permit application? Yes, we have submitted basically the same application as we, we didn't really have to submit the last two years, but we had an outdoor seating, 60 feet of parklet space in front of our restaurant. We have five tables, it's about three to four chairs each, and it's right outside of our restaurant with an opening right outside of it, and then sort of roped off, excuse me, from the sidewalk. We have planters out there and it's pretty basic. We have little outdoor carpets and our tables and a few umbrellas. All right, thank you. Turn to the board for any questions or motion. Mr. Hillman. I'd like to move approval, and thank you for being such a great business in the Heights. You probably might remember, I like to frequent it myself, and a lot of my neighbors are really grateful to have a restaurant that serves the need that you do in our neighborhood. So I enjoyed the parklet last year and look forward to doing that again this year. Oh, thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Helmuth. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Hurd. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, okay, on a motion by Mr. Helmuth, seconded by Mr. Hurd. Turn to the high. Mr. Hurd? Yes. Mr. Diggins? Nothing. Mr. Helmuth? Yes. Mrs. Mohan? Yes, thank you. Mr. DeCourcy? Yes. Senators Faux? Thank you. Thank you so much. Sure. Under traffic rules and orders, item 11 is a vote for a special town meeting on May 11th, 2022. And item 12 is for approval, opening of the special town meeting warrant. Attorney Hyam. Thank you, Mr. DeCourcy. As you can see in my memo, there's basically a motion in front of you to call a special town meeting within our annual town meeting, which is our usual practice, and to set a date to open and close that warrant. The timelines are set forth within. I did some limited consultation with the director of planning and community development, the chair of the finance committee, the manager for a proposed date for the special town meeting this year. It seems like there's some consensus that a little bit later in what's gonna be probably a decent like town meeting would be better. So I've got a draft motion for you to call a special town meeting on Wednesday, May 11th, and to open and close the warrant on March 28th. And obviously any town departments and committees can try to put an article on that special town meeting warrant just for the public certification. You need 100 signatures, however, for a resident petition article on a special town meeting warrant. Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Hyam. And for the regular town meeting, it's 10, I believe. That's right. Special, it's 100. Kay, do we have any questions, motions? This is mine. Right to move that the select board hereby calls a special town meeting on Wednesday, May 11th, 2022 to take place within the annual 2022 annual town meeting at Arlington Town Hall or other location as deemed appropriate in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, including virtually if requested by the moderator and approved by this board, as Attorney Hyam stated and wrote this motion, the warrant for which shall be open at 8 a.m. on Monday, March 28th, 2022 and close the same day on Monday, March 28th, 2022 at 4 p.m. Okay, move a second. Second. Any questions, comments? Seeing none on a motion by Mrs. Mahan. Seconded by Mr. Helmuth, Attorney Hyam. Mr. Hurt. Yes. Mr. Diggins. Yes. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. Mrs. Mahan. Yes. Mr. DeCoursey. Yes. Ms. Giannimo's vote. Thank you. So that covers both 11 and 12. We are now moving into our warrant article hearings. Before we start, we have a number of warrant articles as you can see on this evening and what we're going to do, we'll go through them in the order as they're listed on the agenda. I had, we had spoken last time about having a meeting on the 23rd. There was a conflict and it has to do with my commitment to do something else on Wednesday. So we're going to have a meeting on January 28th and then on January 20th, March 28th and then March 30th. There's some things that have to be done before the end of the month and it's a couple presentations because of conflicts with the planning department. They're going to come in on March 30th. So what we're going to do is we'll go through these at 1045 wherever we are, if we haven't completed it, we will put whatever we haven't done onto the beginning of the warrant article hearings for the next meeting. So there's a couple here at the second half. We may have to push you back if we get through everything great but I just want to let people know up front that 1045 because we have a couple things remaining on the agenda, we will stop the warrant article hearings for the evening. So let me listen to that. And I just want to clarify, both meetings still start at 715 in this format and unless there's some emergency agenda item that the chair or select board office needs to place on the agenda, the 28th and 30th will pretty much be solely designated to warrant article hearings and or approval or final votes on warrant article hearings. Well. If not, that's fine. Well, we're going to just so some people know we're gonna, there is a presentation from the MBTA that has to take place by the end of the month and the housing production plan presentation is March 30th. Attorney Hyman, was there something else that we talked about too? I'm sorry, Mr. Chrissy. There is also the matter of the conservation commission has been trying to get on the agenda for a little while about the Arlington Great Meadows. So that's not a long discussion. March 28th is definitely, we'll go through one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. So let's start with article 26, the endorsement of the CBBG application. Mrs. Molden. Molden, are there issues? Molden's here with us tonight. Good evening, Ms. Molden. Good evening, Mallory Molden, CBBG administrator. Thank you for having me this evening. Tonight we'll be presenting the CBBG subcommittee's budget for the still year 23 program year 48. This year, the CBBG program received applications from 14 different organizations and town departments for 22 different projects. All together, the funder requests total $1,150,288. These applications were reviewed by the CBBG subcommittee members individually using a rubric for evaluation and then all together in CBBG subcommittee meeting in order to develop our budget. The applications are split into category including affordable housing, public services, public facilities and improvements and planning and administration. Collectively, the subcommittee established a budget to totaling $1,100,000, which is our institute of allocation from HUD for program year 48. So I would like to request the select board approval of the CBBG subcommittee's program year 48 recommended budget and movement to town meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sullivan. I'll turn to board members and Mr. Hurd. I'll move favorable action on article 26. Second. Okay, thank you, Mrs. Mohan. Any questions from board members? I just have one quick question, Ms. Sullivan. Have we received any, I understand there's a third resident on the CBBG subcommittee that's open. Have we received any applicants for that? And I know, I only say that because it seems with opera funding and funding from the federal government that sometimes CBBG has to hold another meeting besides usual. So has anyone applied? If not, we need to get the word out, meaning the board. Yes, the position is still open. We haven't received any new applications from interested individuals. So we are still looking to get the word out. As a reminder for the board, we have two members termed in January and one of those positions is still open. Okay, so I want to thank Jennifer Hernandez and along with Mr. Hurd and to Netsako who are two of the three residents. So I just will all keep our encouraging words to anyone else who might want to apply for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mrs. Mohan. Any other questions or comments? Turning back. Mr. Chris, I just reminded that the manager also participates in this vote. Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you. And I want to thank the two subcommittee. Mrs. Mohan, Mr. Hurd, there are two subcommittee members from the board. So on a motion of public hearing. I'm sorry? Public hearing. Oh, okay. No members of the public hearing. No, but thank you, Mr. Hurd. Yeah, this is a public hearing. I'll get it one of these days. There are no members of the public who wish to be heard on this. So on a motion by Mr. Hurd, seconded by Mrs. Mohan, attorney Heim. Mr. Hurd? Yes. Mr. Diggins? Yes. Mr. Helmuth? Yes. Mrs. Mohan? Yes. Mr. Dacorsi? Yes. Mr. Chapter Lane? Yes. It's a six year vote. I thought you said a six year vote. Wow, that's a good vote. Thank you for watching. Thanks for being. Can we vote for the next six years for the applications? We'll get ahead. Okay. Next item is article 16, bylaw amendment, noise regulations for gas powered leaf blowers. Opponents will be joining us in this deal. We talked about this a lot at the last meeting. This is within title five, article 12, the noise abatement bylaw, a different section than we spoke about last time. Hello. Hello, yeah, the proponents are with us. If you could introduce yourselves and just tell us a little, or tell us about the article and the action that you'd like us to recommend. Thank you. We do have slides that we submitted if we could present them. Isn't that great? Sure. In the meantime, I'll introduce myself. I'm Anne Goodwin, and I'm here from Clean, Healthy, Arlington. Quiet, Healthy, Arlington. And I'm Alicia Russell, I'm also here from Quiet, Healthy, Arlington. Good evening. Ms. Farrell, are we able to? Would either of you like to share your screen or would you like me to go through the slides for you? I think I'd prefer to if you went through them, thanks. Just to tell you what to do. Sure. Hold on one second. Appreciate it. Thank you. Great. Actually, I think it's gonna work out better if this screen is shared because we have a video feedback issue going on. Hold on one second. Invisible to those of us who zoom in and are next. Excellent. Thank you. All right, we could go to the first slide. Can you go back one slide please? Thank you. All right. Quiet, Healthy, Arlington is proposing an amendment to by-law Article 12, Section 5, noise regulation relating to gas power and clean flow rate. The current by-law, which was adopted in 2013, does not meaningfully regulate their use and has been impractical to enforce. The proposed amendment will restore the rights of residents to a quiet, healthy environment, simplify the regulations about late flow rate, allow small businesses time to adapt to the changes and further the council's commitment to transition away from fossil fuel. If town meeting passes this, Arlington will be in step with many surrounding communities, including our neighbor Lexington, which just passed a similar measure. Next slide please. The use of gas power and clean flow has come with high cost to public health, the environment and the quality of life in our community. Costs that includes stressful noise and toxic pollution imposed on entire neighborhoods at a time. We see this issue as similar to that of secondhand smoking. When the harmful effects of secondhand smoke were understood, there was a movement to ban smoking in public places. This initially caused alarm on the part of restaurants and bars that feared they would suddenly go out of business and patrons couldn't smoke inside. In fact, when it was passed, restaurants and bars remained full of hatred. Today it is a non-issue for businesses and it seems strange that the public was ever allowed to be burned from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Next slide please. It has been claimed that restricted gas power and clean flow were used with seriously hurt lawn care companies and their customers. It's true that the companies would have the inconvenience of having to replace a specific piece of equipment with an updated model using a different source of power, but they will not be driven out of business. Customers will still be able to get a high quality maintenance service and the costs need not increase very much if at all. Businesses will adapt and stay in business. I'll pass it over to Alicia Russell now who will outline the details of the noise pollution and health problems of gas power and clean flow. I was muted. So the noise, how bad is it? It's very bad. Gas power and clean flowers have a unique low frequency wall penetrating noise that makes them sound much louder than electric blowers. A single commercial-grade gas-powered leaf blower emits roughly 77 decibels at 50 feet and roughly 100 decibels at the ear of the operator. We've outlined some of the hearing loss that happens at different decibels here. Next slide please. As you see from this slide, it shows you how many homes are affected by a gas-powered leaf blower and how many homes are affected by a battery-powered leaf blower. So on the right you see 88 homes experience 55 or more decibels of noise and for the battery-powered leaf blower, it's only 15 at 55 decibels. So the 50-foot industry standard I mentioned before underestimates the noise of Arlington where many homes are smaller. At 20 feet, the noise from that single gas-powered leaf blower would reach 85 decibels. The far-reaching noise of gas-powered leaf blowers often comes in neighborhoods from many different directions for lengthy periods, penetrating walls, disrupting lives, reducing productivity, especially during the pandemic, and contributing to stress-related health issues associated with loud noise, including anxiety, hypertension, and heart disease. Next slide please. And the next slide please. So this is the worst for the workers. And the noise is especially dangerous for them. The National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health recommends limiting exposure to 100 decibels, the noise of the ear of the operator from a single gas-powered leaf blower to 15 minutes per day to avoid permanent hearing loss. But landscape workers are often exposed to this noise for many hours each day. Generalizing a bit here, the crews who operate the leaf blowers are frequently immigrants who are non-native speakers of English. They may not be well-equipped to find legal or medical representation if they have difficulties, and they're not covered by generous corporate medical plans. They're not likely to be working for the same company a decade from now when the most serious hearing loss will set in. Next slide please. Oh, sorry, one more thing. Hearing protectors are useful, but they do not work unless they're worn and fitted correctly. And in addition, many hearing protectors on the market now are not capable of bating the noise of a 100 plus decibel machine down to the required 85 decibel standard. This is very important because the CDC has found that even two hours of exposure to 85 decibel noise can cause permanent hearing loss. So gas-powered blowers dirty two-stroke engines burn oil mixed with gas. This fuel produces toxic particles and volatile organic compounds such as carcinogenic benzene. These are inhaled by equipment operators, residents, and passers-by. Even short-term exposure can be harmful. Workers, children, seniors, and people with chronic illnesses are at the greatest risk. So operating a single gas-powered leaf blower for just one hour emits as much smog-forming pollution as driving a Toyota Camry 1,100 miles, roughly the distance from Boston to Atlanta. And there's some other points on here, too. The two-stroke gas-powered leaf blower emits approximately 300 times the non-methane hydrocarbons of a Ford Raptor pickup truck. Next slide, please. But fortunately, there's a better way. A number of landscapers already offer services with cleaner, quieter alternatives in our area. One in our area, for instance, has been using electric-powered equipment for nearly a decade while growing his business. His service area includes a dozen towns. The Arlington Facilities Department is showing the way by replacing gas-powered leaf blowers when they wear out with electric alternatives. So it's positive. So next slide, please. This is an interesting slide to see the noise from multiple blowers. If you look at the slide, the electric blowers are in green. The gas-powered ones are in red. The electric ones are at least 10 decibels quieter. This slide also shows how the noise is compounded. What we want you to notice is that it takes four electric blowers, as you see circled in green there, to equal the noise of one gas leaf blower. Next slide, please. So we're gonna give you a little bit of an idea of the cost, the comparative equipment cost. The American Green Zone Alliance, which has done extensive research on transitioning to electrics, estimates that over a four-year period, the annual cost of switching to battery-powered blowers ranges from essentially zero to about 1,250 for a crew using three leaf blowers. And the electrics costs are coming down as major companies such as Steel and Husqvarna compete for market share. Battery technology is improving too. Next slide, please. So the previous slide, please. Customer prices, the electric equipment, landscapers indicate that they are cost competitive, typically charging similar or only modestly higher prices. Going forward, prices should reflect the extent to which landscapers have transitioned to electrics and become capitalizing on their lower operating costs. Competition should come into play too. Few local landscapers currently provide electric service and as more transition to it, competitive offerings of such services should help keep prices down. So now I'll pass it back to Ann Goodwin to outline the clean, healthy Arlington proposal. It's actually the quiet, healthy Arlington proposal. Our proposal is based partly on the Lexington measure that just passed and partly on Brookline's bylaws. We are proposing a seasonal ban beginning June 2022. So this summer, a roughly two year transition period completing the transition to electric by March 30th, 2024. March 30th, 2024. We've looked at hours of operation and some ideas about enforcement. So beginning in 2022, gas powered leaf blowers may be operated only March 30th to May 31st and September 15th to December 15th. This schedule allows the spring and fall cleanups when gas powered leaf blowers are most heavily used. A summer ban, such as we're proposing, has been received as workable by landscaping companies and other towns since this is the time when those powerful gas leaf blowers are less critical. Next slide. As far as hours of operation goes, these nine to five weekday hours are really suggested thinking about the comfort of people in their homes and the safety of children walking to school. Possibly also to make enforcement more feasible if the enforcing body is one that operates on regular business hours. Monday through Saturday property owners would have a few extra hours to accommodate working schedule and electric blowers would have fewer restrictions on the month of the year, days of the week and hours, but they would still be restricted. As far as days of the week go, we suggest that Sunday should be a completely quiet day as well as legal holiday. Now we've heard from the DPW that these hours may be problematic and we are open to certain town exceptions around hours and even equipment to maintain the safety of certain town properties like the bike path and park walkways and for emergency use. Next slide, please. We wanna complete the transition to battery powered leaf blowers by spring 2024. We feel that this allows an adequate time to switch over the equipment and that a longer transition time will really only allow the health damage to workers and the public to be prolonged. Next slide. We have some ideas on the topic of licensing education and penalties. Commercial landscape companies would obtain a license to operate in the town. The license would require the registration of equipment and education about the bylaw. The license would be displayed either with a sticker or some kind of plaque in the dashboard of the vehicle and we're suggesting a cost of $25 a calendar year. We would need more conversation to determine the correct enforcement body and the means of reporting violations or enforcing the penalties. We're suggesting a written warning to both the property owner or property manager and the landscaping company for the first violation, $100 for the second and $200 for any after that. Next slide, please. As we mentioned before, this is a regional, local and national trend around our area, Brookline, Cambridge, Lexington, Lincoln and Newton have already passed bylaws and currently Belmont and Winchester have certain laws, similar laws under consideration. In the East Coast, Washington DC, Larchmont, New York and Chevy Chase, Maryland have all entirely banned gas leaf blowers and California has banned them statewide. Next slide, please. So this is even mentioned in the Massachusetts Constitution which says the people shall have a right to clean air and water and freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise and the natural scenic historic and aesthetic qualities of their environment. Last slide, please. The transition to a cleaner, quiet, oh, blah, blah, blah, we think this proposal is a win all around. Arlington residents will get relief from the stressful, unhealthy noise and pollution landscape workers will get much better working conditions. Landscape companies will be relieved from creating an annoyance. The town will be in step with our surrounding town and we will continue to live our community values around sustainability and our responsibility to public health. We envision a quieter, healthier Arlington. Thank you so much for your attention. Thank you for your presentation. Anybody wish to start? Mr. Diggins? Okay, thank you for your presentation. Very interesting. So a few questions, I'm going to go forward on the environmental issues or benefits that we get from the pollution and the use of lots of fuel. But the noise thing as much as I would prefer not to hear them, I mean, there's so many of the voices in town that I was like it's going to be one thing or another and it's kind of the price. I feel that I'm willing to pay for living in a quasi-urban environment. Do you feel that the industry is moving in this direction anyways? Yes? So we're trying to get us there in two years. I mean, if we didn't do this, how soon do you think we would get there just with industry momentum? I don't know. I haven't really considered that question because it wouldn't be soon enough if we just waited for the industry to manage itself. Yeah, so then you say it would be more than two years, but you don't know how much longer than two years. Okay, gotcha. All right, so as you know, we had the floor, the article of that pass, and then it was the... Nine years ago. What was that? Nine years ago. Yeah, so it seems like, from what I read from the council's comments, it doesn't seem like we would run into a similar issue with this. Right, we certainly have not. Things that I think one of the concerns was that the technology had not gotten to a far enough along, and now we feel that it certainly has. We also have a lot of surrounding towns who are moving in this direction. That was not the case nine years ago. What else am I forgetting, Ann? You're muted. Another problem, another change is that we are all so much more aware of climate change. Now, in the use of fossil fuels, the town has declared climate emergency. We have a net zero action group. So really the town has moved along its path of addressing climate much further. Gotcha, you know, so I noticed that you said, at least California is not a statewide, had another state been a statewide? I believe that's the only one, right? Right, I think New York is working on it. Massachusetts is not working on it? Yes, Massachusetts is actually working on, I can't remember the name of the bill, but it's going to be a while yet. Excellent, that's good to know. And then, I guess there is also the issue of just not getting rid of those leaves to start with, so I like the education aspect of this. So I hope we also consider educating people that leaves don't necessarily have to go away, they might even be kind of good, being left in place, you know. And so this is a question to the town manager, through the chair, when it comes to enforcement, will this be enforceable, you know, and how do you imagine us dealing with the enforcement element of it? Mr. Chuckler? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to Mr. Deans. So historically, since the existing restrictions were enacted some years ago, this restrictions on gas plow, any leak flows really have been enforced either by the Board of Health and their agents or the police department. The challenge of enforcement in the existing paradigm and to some degree could still occur under a new paradigm that could be adopted if the Board of Town Meeting acted favorably on what's before the Board tonight is that given the small lot size in Arlington, any given visit by a landscaper takes 20 minutes or a half an hour and then they're onto their next site and dispatching either a Board of Health agent or an Arlington police officer to a non-emergency call like this, they sometimes aren't there in time, actually often aren't there in time to actually witness the violation. So enforcement is a challenge. I don't wanna say it's impossible, but I also don't want to present a utopia that this can be very easily enforced. I in fact think a policy or a bylaw like is being discussed tonight, we would do much better focusing on education than enforcement to be effective. I don't think we can ignore enforcement, but I think we have to use education. So thank you, thank you, Mr. Manager, for being in and so yeah, I mean, education and maybe figuring out some way to give carrots mean or ways to incent people to use the businesses mean that are doing the battery powered enough. So that's it, I mean, I'm leaning towards it, I mean, I'm gonna listen to it by colleagues have to say or the questions they have and in the hearing, but I'm leaning towards you. So thank you, thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you. I was wondering in terms of property owners, I don't feel very comfortable telling them that they have until March of 24 and then they have to go out and purchase an electric powered leaf blower only because they are more expensive and generally I think what we're looking at in terms of the most noisy offenders aren't your neighbor, it's landscaping companies and I'm thinking of somebody that, if you say something you bought one to four years ago, you have two years to purchase something new that could be double or more the price for your own private property use. I was wondering if you know of or have given any thought to having a sort of a grandfather clause so that by March 2024, from there going forward and again for discussion, I'm really sort of uncomfortable with the board telling property owners what they can own and what they have to purchase and how they can take care of their own private property. So sorry, I'm making this a long road. How strongly tied are you to that part of it because that's really given me a lot of cause to pause. Well, yeah, this question came up before it's a good question because certainly the interests of property owners and the use of these things by property owners is a little different than that commercial landscapers just kind of in the sheer volume of it. The possibility of a longer off-ramp for property owners would be another way to deal with that to say that the property owners have two more years to phase it out because this equipment would last longer for an individual property owner than a commercial landscaper. Yeah, perhaps not buying a new one, a new gas powered leaf blower at this point. I think it would be interesting to compare the costs of sort of residential grade electric leaf blowers and see what those are. I'm not sure that they're really that much more expensive. But it's okay. Anybody else have a question? Mr. Helmuth. Thank you, thank you for your work on this and I appreciate our meeting we had yesterday going into a lot of these details as well. I have actually a question on one element of this that you raised the possibility of a licensing program for landscapers. And I think this is through the chair, probably to the town manager, perhaps to the town council if the manager approves. But just if you could give us a sense for what the standard is and what the feasibility is for a new kind of licensure, can we even license this industry? And if we can, what are your thoughts about the practicality of the system that was conceptualized by the proponents? Mr. Taff-Tuller. Thank you, Mr. Helmuth. So I'll start, I'm sure the town council may add. I did talk to deputy town manager, Jim Feeney, a little bit about this, who I know has been cooperating with the article proponents. And I think we have some practical concerns about how to enact a licensing strategy for a couple of reasons. One, there is no brick and mortar necessarily for all of these firms. So we can't directly tie or even be certain who's coming in and out of town. I think there's a lot of, there's a few big ones that we all know, we see the trucks around town, but there's a lot of smaller operations. So it's hard to know for certain where they all are. Additionally, there's no state licensure for landscapers. So there's no database we can go to to figure out who people are and make sure they're licensed. So it's not impossible, but I can't sit here tonight with 100% confidence and say that we'd be able to successfully enact it. Yeah, that's fair. Thank you. I think, I'll hold off on a motion until we hear from the public. I think in general, I'm pretty positive on this. I think that a lot has changed in nine years with respect to what is possible for replacement equipment. And I think with respect to landscaping companies, I shared the reservations, I think, about with homeowners. And if there might be a way to give them a longer off-ramp, I think that the backpack blowers, which are really, really loud, and those are a commercial application. I think we don't need an off-ramp for those. But for a smaller home-based gas-powered blower, I think there might be something to that as a transitional piece. I also had a conversation with Mr. Feeney and asked him about the town's facilities. And he's talked with DPW in the schools. Per him, they really don't have any concerns. They've already started this transition. They are finding that there are some advantages they didn't expect. You can store electric leaf blowers in any space you want. You don't have to worry about if it's fuel, gas, safe. Because it's quieter, they're already able to schedule this work where there's a leaf blower or tremors right around schools. It's just that the noise is so much less. So there's some really nice other advantages that the town is finding. And it's already planning with its contracts to require this anyway. And I think that's all to the good. And I think that really speaks for that with the other communities that are already doing this. And the state of California, that the industry is there in a place where it wasn't nine years ago. So I think the other question I have, I don't want to clarify this with the town manager if I could through you, Mr. Chair, is Mr. Feeney mentioned that we want to be careful that we define this carefully enough so that we can do things like clear the bikeway, which has other public health and public safety benefits. I think there's a piece of equipment that maybe is a large walk behind unit that not clear if in two years there's going to be an electric replacement for that. Do you have any particular thoughts on that? Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, similarly, I followed up with Mr. Feeney and he described just that. He actually believes it's an attachment that goes on a vehicle that is gas powered that allows for clearing leaves from the bike path as well as potentially in some of the larger parking lots in town. So we would like some type of exception for, either an exception for such devices or make it clear that these are for handheld and or backpack leaf blowers as opposed to something that's mounted and powered in that regard. Yeah, that makes sense. And then one final question. Any of the proposed operating hours create issues with town personnel with respect to union hours or other work arrangements that you would want to look at? Mr. Chairman, thank you. So Mr. Helmuth has now asked the three questions that I wanted to speak to if I had one to ask. Oh, sorry, I stole your thunder, Mr. Chaplin. So again, in cooperating with Mr. Feeney, he did suggest that since our staff starts at 6.45, basically having two hours and 15 minutes in some of these summertime spring, summertime fall hours to do this work would be challenging and limiting. So I think working with the board and with the article proponents to have some type of exception or a discussion around the hours, I think would be necessary. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Chaplin, thank you. Mr. Helmuth, Mr. Herb? I have no questions. I'll have some comments, but I'll wait till after public comment. Okay. Yeah, I'll reserve my comments until after public comment as well. I don't know if there are any members of the public who wish to be heard on this. There is one, two, three. Some hands raised. Do we want me to start calling on them? Yeah, why don't you just go in the order that they should come in? Paul Schlittman will be the first person to speak. Good evening, Mr. Schuchman. Thank you. I just want to make a very fast point in that with the adoption of the Lexington bylaw that was approved through their referendum, many of the landscaping companies that work in Arlington also work in Lexington, and I would hope that our regulations would be aligned to Lexington's, otherwise we're going to have landscapers who may use electric blowers in Lexington but break out the old gas ones in Arlington. So I don't want to have an incentive for companies who are working in both communities to treat us less well than they're treating Lexington. So as a town meeting member, I'm looking forward to supporting this article. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schlittman. Schlittman, sorry. The next hand raised was Beth Milovchuk. Good evening, Ms. Milovchuk. Good evening, Beth Milovchuk, precinct nine, Russell Street, town meeting member. I wholeheartedly and 1,000 many, many times percent support this long-awaited warrant article. I think it's fabulous. I hope that as a town that has a clean energy futures committee and a net zero plan that the, that town hall and all you wonderful people will also support it. I think knowing how highly polluting these gas and oil powered leaf blowers are, it is essential for us to seek their obsolescence. I also, to counter some of the arguments and questions asked, would like to know how a gas powered leaf blower compares to the gas ovens and stoves in town that some people would like to see achieve their own obsolescence. And I just think in terms of public health, in terms of children's health walking to school and the noise is just unbearable. I live in Arlington Center and my neighbors don't coordinate and have their long cruise to come on the same day. That obviously would be impossible. So we are exposed to these highly invasive, annoying, stress inducing and polluting machines many days during the week, on weekends and early in the morning. I go out, I photograph them. I call different offices at different times. I called even years ago before it was the health department in the past year. I called the health department. The complaint process is unsatisfactory. I do go out, I take photographs, I write down the details. But I don't think it should be incumbent upon me. If I played music at the volume that these leaf blowers have the decibel level at the times that they're using them, I'd have the police officer on my front porch. So I think that it's high time for this. I thank you ladies very much. I look forward to learning more about a quite healthy Arlington. I would ask the admin person if they could please show the final slide rather up on the screen so we could jot down some of that information. And if Ms. Goodwin and Ms. Russell can please tell us how we can get a copy of the slideshow. I'd be very appreciative. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Van Luffer. Did the slideshow is gonna be part of our agenda? I love that this is an institution. Yeah. Okay, thank you. I can't look, I couldn't find it, but I love that we're supporting the Massachusetts Constitution. Really believe in constitution. They're reasonable essential documents. Thank you. Thank you. The next hand raised is Adam Oster. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'm Adam Oster, I live at Ten Cottage Avenue in East Arlington. I just wanna say that this is a perennial issue. It's one that really hasn't been addressed well by the last attempt that we tried to do it nine years ago. And this proposal strikes me as a very sort of moderate, modest, and straight forward. Well, it's got complications. But that would make things better if not, you know. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Thank you, Mr. Oster. And the last hand raised is Elizabeth Dre. Good evening, Mr. Dre. Good evening, Elizabeth Dre. Tom A. Member, 36 and 10 on the J.J. Street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am extremely excited about this morning article. I support it. I do do. Personally, this is, I have my lawn do a fog every year, and they have a traditional use electric, I'm sorry, gas blowers, and it wasn't until someone taught me, I don't quite know, that about the insects that burrow in my soil, and specifically the lightning bugs, and that I was lost to some of the smell of greens with my gas powered lower, lower. So I think the integration piece is really important to get people to support this. I have one question I wasn't sure if I understood that the penalty would be to both the homeowner and the landscape, or whether, and so I'm wondering about the intricacies of that, and the land, the homeowner doesn't know what's happening, because there are workers that just, you know, want to pay some attention to that, and my biggest concern is enforcement, and I really do not want people to be calling the police to enforce this article. I'm keeping in mind that many of the workers are immigrants, I just think that that's, so I'm wondering what Lexington or other communities who have passed this, what they have chosen to do for their enforcement, but overall I think this is fantastic, I really appreciate the importance of bringing it forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ray. And Mr. Ray, before you leave, you are affected by what I said on the meeting nights. You had asked me about this Wednesday, your warrant article is gonna go forward to next Monday. Yes, thank you so much. Okay, sure. Yeah, sure, and I'm looking, the Lexington bylaw was provided to us, and I don't think it speaks specifically to who's doing the enforcing, but maybe we can follow up on that for you. Okay, any other members of the public? There are no other hands raised. Okay, any other members of the board have any comments, Mr. Heard? Thank you, and I want to thank the proponents for bringing this forward and bringing up the issues that you did. I, like Mr. Diggins mentioned, I'm not particularly moved by the sound issue. There are restrictions already in place as to when these leaf blowers can be used and there's similar restrictions for when many other type of apparatus that various contractors and businesses and residents use in the daily basis and when they can operate them. And I don't know that when you live in a town like Arlington that you're entitled to complete silence at all points in the day, certainly at night in the early mornings and in the overnight periods, but I don't think that to me, and maybe I live in a part of town that just doesn't have a lot of landscapers who do their work, but it's not something that I notice or I'm bothered by or as a particular impact on my life, not to say it isn't for others, but it's not something that I notice in an overbearing manner that these gas-powered leaf blowers are out there. I do have actually one of my neighbors across the street does own for his private use one of the backpack leaf blowers. He has a big yard and that's what he uses. And it's on a seasonal basis, as was mentioned, it's more in the summer, it's more in the fall. And it's one of many different types of devices that they use. We have snow blowers, lawn mowers, and it all falls into some of the similar categories that we've heard as to the reasons to ban these leaf blowers. And to me, I think when you pick out one particular device and leave many other devices in, I mean, there's got electric, I bought an electric lawn mower and it's wonderful, it works for me. I think it's more of a global conversation as to where we go with all of our devices as we transition towards electric. But I think as in the response to an outright prohibition, I think I would love to see some sort of incentive program where the town through either state, federal funds, town funds can put together a pool where people can sort of like a buyback where they trade in their gas power leaf blowers, they get a rebate or some sort of incentive in order to absorb the cost of transitioning to electric. I would also be open to shrinking the hours at which gas-powered leaf blowers could be used. Whereas if we said that gas-powered leaf blowers could be used from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. that incentivizes contractors and residents who want to work after 2 p.m. to make sure that they're starting to buy electric leaf blowers. And just, there's been a number of issues regarding enforcement that one or two to three or four have come up at this meeting particular. And I think once we go into the implementation of a bylaw such as this, a whole other slew of possible needed exceptions would come to surface. And I just, as far as the burden on town resources to enforce it in questions that even Mr. Wright just brought up regarding the enforcement creates questions as to whether or not we need to spend a little more time to flush out the bylaw and to see if it's exact, the particular bylaw that works for the town. So I'm, as I sit here not inclined to move favorable action, like I said, I appreciate the presentation. I appreciate the issues regarding emissions that have come up. And I think it is very important. I had a gas power leaf blower, it was a nightmare, so I got an electric leaf blower. But that also creates issues that where if you're operating a business, my electric leaf blower tends to run out and I go inside and have a coffee while it charges. And then I go finish my work after. That's not a feasible option for people that are in the landscaping business that need to continue to work through the day. So to me, I think if we take what's been said here and we come to a consensus as to a goal that we want to achieve as a town where we wanna transition to all electric leaf blowers by a certain point, and then we implement incentive programs. And again, like I said, without an outright prohibition on the use of gas power leaf blowers, we shrink the hours and further incentivize contractors who wanna work a full day's work to purchase the leaf blowers that they need to do the work in the timeframe that they're required. I think that that's a better option. And so that's where I am on this one. Okay, thank you, Mr. Art. I'm gonna offer a few comments. I hadn't said anything earlier. And clearly the trend in the industry is going to be to go to battery-powered or electric leaf blowers. And in talking to the proponents, they had met with me ahead of time. I am concerned about the date in 2024. And Mr. Schlickman had talked about aligning Arlington with Lexington. Well, Lexington, what they're doing is effective March 15th, 2025. Commercial landscapers can't use gas-powered leaf blowers. Effective March 15th, 2026. Gas-powered leaf blowers by residents are outlawed. Now, I think if we could agree on some sort of consensus on a time period for this, that for me personally, I think needs to go past March 30th, 2024, I could support this. But I also think it's important to try to work with landscapers and say, this is gonna be phased out over a time period. We need to work together. And after the Lexington vote, and you referenced the landscapers that are using battery-powered equipment. There was one that was quoted in an article in the Globe not long after the Lexington vote, who came right out and said, it's important that we, all as landscapers and citizens, work together as a team on this, and we don't make something that's adversarial. I think if we're all of the understanding, we need to phase this out over a time period. And for me, I could live with what is being done in Lexington, I think we're too early here in 2024. But I think we should have some feedback, and we have some time to do this, even before town meeting. I'd like to get some feedback on it with the understanding that there will be a phase out over time. I just think your time period's a little too aggressive given investments that are made now, and for homeowners to Mrs. Mahan's point, people who have the gas-powered leaf blower, I think the average life of a leaf, gas-powered leaf blower is 1,000 hours. And that's not something that's gonna turn over in a year and a half or two years. So I think it should be a little longer. Maybe in the meantime, the state is going to step up. The experience in California is a statewide emissions standard that is going to dictate that gas-powered leaf blowers are banned. It's not a municipal city by city, although I think there are some communities out there, but the state is doing that through their ability to regulate emissions. And for me, emissions are the biggest concern with these two cycle engines even beyond the noise because you can try to regulate the noise a little bit. We have tried to do it in our bylaw, probably unsuccessful in terms of what the decibel levels are that are listed. But if there is a way, I think we probably can't do it tonight, but if there's a way to reach some sort of compromise and to get some feedback on a timeframe, I could go along with this. And Mrs. Martin? Just sort of some historical perspective. Nine years ago, when it was actually probably 10 years ago when the town, Carol Van first introduced this and what eventually happened at town meeting was that the town meeting established a committee which they appointed me to, which I'm not, I've already done my job. You're looking to repeat that? I'm not looking to repeat. But it was bringing landscapers and representatives of the town as well as, I believe, I believe Barbara Dosha was one of the citizens that was on there. And largely I saw that as an educational committee, not just to the committee members, but to the town of Allenton at Lodge, which I think made the initial program, which has worked up till these nine years and for revisiting and moving forward with climate change, you can say no. Sorry, that threw me off. Anyways, so I think maybe perhaps what might come out of this whether it's from this board or it's from town meeting, I'm sorry, I apologize. It's just when someone, usually when people are talking, I try not to jump in. So it's catching my eye. I don't know if this board wants to do it or wants to wait until town meeting. Cause I think that's the way to go about this is bringing everybody together. And I agree with the chairman that it's just too aggressive in terms of the dates and I definitely have strong feelings on property owners. The 2024 just doesn't do it for me. So. Okay, thank you. Mrs. Mohan. Is there a motion? And Mr. Holland? Yeah, I'd like to move favorable action. And I think, you know, let's see what we can do to get some consensus on this. One further observation I would make is neighboring towns are starting to do this. And I think that that is going to change the business model for landscapers even regardless of what we do. And I think there's some synchronicity there. I think Mr. DeCorsi's point about timing is a good one. That, and that, and also just to point out that that bylaw received broad support in town meeting but also really broad support at the general public vote on the referendum. And I think that maybe indicated that they got the timing right. So with respect to the specifics, I think that town meeting will weigh in on this. I remember nine years ago, we very much did. And that's as it should be but I think that we have an opportunity and maybe a responsibility to show if we have a consensus some leadership about where to start, a starting point. So I think my motion would incorporate favorable action to develop some vote language to come back to us very soon. That would incorporate Mr. DeCorsi's ideas about timelines and the town managers and his staff's concerns about equipment and about operating hours and any other conditions except as friendly amendments I think at this point if there's a consensus to support favorable action. So just so I understand Mr. Helmut, it would be a motion for favorable action for a phase out with specifics to be worked out. That's right, yeah, with specifics to be worked out, I think along the timelines that you had suggested consistent with Luxington's making sure that we have a discussion about necessary accommodations along the lines of what Mr. Chaplin discussed and see if we can get that. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second the motion. And I'll say, and again, I think we've talked about this many times with these warrant articles where whether or not we vote favorable action, we could, it's gonna be before town meeting. So I'll second the motion and I'll support Mr. Helmut's motion with the tenor that this could be one of these votes where we all vote in favor now and then when the final votes and comments we have a different vote. So the final vote, where I come down on the final votes and comments is gonna be what the language looks like when it comes before us, but I'll support Mr. Helmut's motion as it's before us now. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hurt. Any other comments or Mr. Diggins? Well, I was going to just, as you did Mr. Diggins, extend the timeline for residents being on and I just have a question being up to the components just, is that okay Mr. Chair? Sure. So the emissions, there was a stat on the emissions about one gas power leap forward emits as much as a car being over 1,000 miles. What is it that emits again? To either the components. Toyota Camry. It sets a statistic from the California Air Quality Board. Yeah. And our understanding is that it emits the same amount of pollutants that the Camry does. All right. But we can look at that a little more specifically. All right. Please, that's what I meant. Yeah. All right, so pollutants are bad. I mean, I was wondering if this is the same amount of greenhouse gas also. Once again, I just really want to get us in the mindset of using as little carbon-based fuels possible. That's why I'm a big supporter of this, and I think we can work things out for private homeowners. And once again, I'll say less lean as heavily as we can be on education. I like Mr. Hertz idea about the buyback. I would not have said that because I would be afraid of membership income being outside my door, but man, if we could get something like that going, you know, I'm all for it. So please ask me and I will be going to the paper live and thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. Any further comments? Okay. Mr. Helm. Just to aware that I did steal most of Mr. Tapterling's thunder, but was there anything else that you wanted to bring up for our consideration? No, those were the three issues. Okay. All right. Great. All right. So on a motion by Mr. Helmeth, seconded by Mr. Hertz, and hopefully your attorney Heimann is enough for you to begin working there on something. I'll turn it to you for the vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hertz. Yes. Mr. Diggins. Yes. Mr. Helmeth. Yes. Mrs. Mahan. Yes. Mr. Corsi. Yes. It's unanimous vote. And the details are what we need to work on. So thank you both for joining us this evening. Before I move on to the next item, we've had a couple of technical issues. I'm just wondering, I think it might be appropriate for a five minute break before we go on to the next item, just to try to clear a couple things up. So we'll take a five minute break, and then when we return, we'll come back with Article 11, which is the By-law Amendment for Domestic Partnerships. Okay, great. Okay, welcome back. And we will now go to our next Warren Article hearing, Article 11, By-law Amendment, Domestic Partnerships. If you could introduce yourself and tell us about the proposed changes to the By-law. Hello, my name's Amos Meeks. I'm a town meeting member from Precinct Three, and one of the main components of this article. So to give some background on this, basically an domestic partnership by-law that allowed for partnerships of more than two people was passed by town meeting last year, with 93% of town meeting members voting for favor, voting in favor. And then after the Attorney General's review, which came out favorably, the By-law has gone into effect, and several people, several groups of people, including myself, have registered domestic partnerships. So while functional, the original By-law template that was used for what was passed last year was written sort of specifically for only two person domestic partnerships in mind. And it was sort of administratively non-ideal for domestic partnerships of three or more people. So, and furthermore, the conditions required for domestic partnership are, in our opinion, unnecessarily restrictive, and the benefits are somewhat limited in scope. And so in consultation with the town clerk and the Rainbow Commission this year, I put together a proposed set of changes to try and fix these issues and also to bring our domestic partnership By-law more in line with the ordinances in neighboring cities of Somerville and Cambridge. So I sort of see the set of changes that I'm proposing in three. There are a lot of little changes throughout, but I see sort of three large areas of changes. The first is in the requirements to form a domestic partnership. And so basically we're proposing to remove current requirements two and three, the requirements that domestic partners reside together and intend to use so indefinitely, and that they share basic living expenses. And logic behind this is that these residency requirements basically clash with the needs of many people in multi-partner relationships. Members in such relationships may or may not share one household and whether they do or do not does not really diminish their commitment to each other and should not disqualify them from the benefits of having a recognized partnership. And furthermore, there are no requirements for co-residency or sharing living expenses in other legally recognized partnerships such as marriage. So it does not seem to me like there is a very strong reason that this should exist in this case. And then we're also proposing to take out of requirement number six, the requirement that domestic partners are not married to anyone. And this is similarly individuals maybe in relationships where they are both married to someone and in separate committed relationships and that there is not any significant reason that both relationships should not be able to be recognized at once. The second big area of changes is around registration, amendment and termination. And so I've been consulting with lawyers at the Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition as well as going back and forth with the town clerk and we've made substantial modifications in order to try and better serve the needs of domestic partnerships of more than two people. So for example, the current language is such that a withdrawal or death of a single partner would terminate the domestic partnership for all partners. So the proposed language essentially only terminate the domestic partnerships if the number of partners is reduced to one or zero. And meanwhile, the partners can be sort of added or removed individually without having an adverse effect on the overall partnership. And then we're also adding in a requirement for an affidavit of consent from all spouses or domestic partnerships of individuals who are forming or being added to a new domestic partnership. And that's just to kind of make sure with these sort of structures that everyone involved is fully informed. And then the final main area of changes is in benefits to town employees. Essentially explicitly extend the town employees in domestic partnerships, the same rights to bereavement, sick leave and parental leave that are currently provided in the town bylaw to married employees. And so the sort of history behind this is that in what was proposed last year, we, there was originally a section asking, they're saying that the term spouse used anywhere else in the bylaw would include domestic partners. We took that out sort of at the last minute out of sort of an abundance of caution with the attorney general's review. But what that meant is that bereavement, sick leave and parental leave are kind of spelled out in other parts of the bylaw and are provided for spouses of town employees. And so what we're doing is just sort of explicitly stating rather than potentially conflating marriage and spouses with domestic partnerships, we're just explicitly expanding these rights to people in domestic partnerships. That is sort of a quick summary of all of the changes. I am happy to try to answer questions. Thank you for the presentation. Board members, any questions or Mr. Hurd? I don't have any questions, but I'll move variable action. Okay, Mr. Helmick. Like to second that, and I just had a question about the rationale for, and I appreciate the work of the legal department in crafting this very detailed bylaw change on what it talks about the schools in section five C item three. I'm just curious as it looks like that some language was changed about whether the schools are owned and operated by the town. And I didn't bother me at all, but I just want to know what the rationale for that was in this case. And that might be through the chair that might be a question for the legal department to answer. Yeah, could you repeat again, Mr. Helmick? Yeah, and I think it's possible if the tongue council concerns Mr. Cunningham might be prepared to answer this question on. So it's section five rights to domestic partners, sections C access to children's school records and personnel and then item three there. And it struck the phrase provided that such are owned and operated by the town. And I'm just curious as to the rationale for that. And perhaps if the chair, please, Mr. Cunningham might be prepared to answer that. Mr. Chair, may I just say briefly, I just want to recognize that deputy town council, my Cunningham has provided the majority of the legal support and research on this particular issue. And I'm happy that he's here to answer the board's questions and discuss the article. Thank you, attorney. Thank you, attorney Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to Mr. Helmick. Yeah, I think Mr. Meeks could comment, perhaps if he wants to, I think that change was originally his. But I think there was some redundancy in section three that talked about the facilities owned and operated by the town up front in the beginning of that sentence. So I think you could eliminate the end of it and it still retains the meaning so that it would only apply to town-owned schools. Mr. Meeks, do you have anything to add to that? I think that's right. It's simply trying to clarify the language and remove the redundancy. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you. I think I seconded the motion. So, and glad to hear the public's comments as well. But I didn't want to, Mr. Chair, I didn't want to ask since the Rainbow Commission sponsored this, if they're representative, I believe we have a commissioner here wanting to add anything to the presentation. Ms. Ryan Vollmer. Thanks, Eric. Mr. Helmuth, no one is here to support, name of the speaker, we've had, Rainbow Commission has had a number of conversations about this issue. And of course, LGBTQIA plus people are well familiar with living outside the social construct. And obviously this is a no-brainer for us to support. Thank you, thank you for your work on the commission too. That note for the question. Okay, thank you, Mr. Helmuth. Anybody else? Mr. Diggins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you, and only you, Ms. Ryan Vollmer, I guess called Eric, all right? Here we are now, Mr. Helmuth, you know. But also, to either of you put that out there, I guess mainly to Mr. Mead. So, of course, I'm in favor of this, Mead, but one argument that was presented to me, or a question that's meant to be when we were considering the possibility of this or last time meeting, of the possibility of extending benefits, means that multiple partners is the affordability aspect of it, Mead, and so in thinking it through, I was, my response, my kind of superficial response was that, well, you can only have so many relationships. So even if you have me, Holly Amherst, Holly Amherst's relationships, it would be like, well, you could have me, multiple, single, well, double me, couples, or you could have me fewer Holly Amherst relationships, but that you would only have so many relationships, so that if we had the benefits extended to Holly Amherst's relationships, it would simply decrease me in the number of just me and a couple of relationships. Is that the right mathematical way to go about it? You know, and if not, you know, then does it become an affordability issue potentially? Can I respond? Sure. Are you referring specifically when you talk about benefits, like health care benefits? Yeah, in brief, Mead, because that's all time off, and it's so, so in terms of health care, just to be clear, the town is not allowed to extend health care to domestic partners, that's actually, that possibility has been ruled against at the state level and would require an active estate legislator to change, and Somerville has actually filed a home rule petition to try and get that to change, so we'll keep an eye on that, but so this does not include anything, does not impact health care at all. In terms of, you know, sick leave, bereavement leave, that sort of thing, this is something that I don't fully understand how this is handled currently, and I might be very curious to hear what Adam says, but my question is, is that, you know, something that is, you know, limited, is like employees get so many days of possible sick leave or bereavement leave, and thus, you know, having more partners would not necessarily increase the number of sick leave or bereavement leave days that would be taken. Mr. Chaffetz, I'll go, Attorney Cunningham. I'll give it my best, I'll try. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to you, to Mr. Meeks. So it would be, we'd have to look at both, I think, the existing bylaws as well as union by union contract. I believe the way we handle, mostly universally, is it's family member by family member that is allowed for bereavement leave. Sick leave is not specific to any family member. I'd have to verify whether or not the collective bargaining agreement is what term they use. I think they use the term spouse. I don't know that the word partners in the collective bargaining agreement, so I think I would have to review that more to have a clarified answer. Attorney Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think Mr. Meeks and the unissued benefits and the question was raised by Mr. Diggins, I do think that that specifically discussed in the Attorney General's opinion from last December regarding last year's bylaw. And I think that section six of the proposed amendment would draw particular attention from the Attorney General's office. And although it's not specifically referring to health insurance benefits, which I think he's talking about the Conrad Ver City of Boston case, if those constitute benefits in the eyes of the Attorney General's municipal law unit, that could subject this potential bylaw amendment to some scrutiny. Thank you. Mr. Diggins. Oh, thank you. Clearly I support this answer. Any further comments? I just have a question on the proposed section six addition on unemployment benefits. Just in terms of employees, I mean that is meant to refer to employees of the town, but I don't see employees defined anywhere else. And I'm just wondering if there's a reference somewhere that would be outside the bylaw or we need to add a definition on that. Because as written, it's almost like you could look at it to any employee. And I don't know if that's, Attorney Cunningham. Mr. Meeks, are other proponents could speak to the intent of the motion, but I could say just in terms of, from a legal perspective on clarification, that's a good suggestion. Thank you. Mr. Meeks, I think and just Attorney Cunningham brought up the Connors decision, which I believe was a, this was back in the late 90s and the Manito administration wanted to extend benefits to domestic partners and the Supreme Judicial Court said, you can't do that because that affects benefits and there was a preemption issue. So I think that is a potential issue here is Attorney Cunningham highlighted to us. But that was just one point on that. The second question, and maybe this is down the road, one of the things in the Attorney General's letter, a potential concern was the reciprocity clause. And I don't know if the Attorney General's concerns are addressed here. If that was your intent, Mr. Meeks, or there maybe perhaps has to be a further change to that. Yes, so to answer your question, I think the intent for this was to specifically refer to town employees. So I think the language can certainly be clarified there. I think it will be very interesting to see what the Attorney General says about the leave. And I would like to maybe talk to Adam or someone in his office outside of this and try to better understand the current state of this issue and what effect this may have. As for the reciprocity, so I think that we have clarified language and addressed her concern. We're basically proposing to take out the language in section eight of pursuant to similar laws enacted. I think her confusion was like similar laws is very vague language. So as it is, this just recognizes domestic partnerships filed in other municipalities. And I think that is the intent. And if those domestic partnerships include more than two people, then they are also recognized just as they are recognized as registered in Arlington. This is a public hearing. So I'll ask if any members of the public wish to be heard. As of right now, there are no hands raised. Okay, all right. So unless there are any further comments by board members, I think we're ready for a vote on a motion. And I don't think there are, Mr. Corsi. Any further comments or? Okay, Mr. Corsi, yes, turn your hand. I'm sorry, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The manager and I were just looking at the bylaws for a moment. And I presume the proponents would be amenable to this. But if the courts inclined towards favorable action, would it also be okay to include some sort of language that clarifies that where the bylaws use the word spouse with respect to benefits? That's what's being contemplated for domestic partners. Because that way, if there's a conflict, and for example, Raven Reeve says spouse, but this bylaw says benefits, we would be clear on exactly what we're doing. I think that's something we could all place premium on being as clear as possible. I don't know if the proponents have anything to say about that. But if you'd be amenable to that, that might be helpful. Okay, and if that's acceptable, Mr. Hurd and Mr. Helmuth. It would be amenable to that amendment as suggested by Attorney Helm. Okay, thank you. All right, so on a motion by Mr. Hurd, seconded by Mr. Helmuth, Attorney Helm. Mr. Hurd? Yes. Mr. Diggins? Yes. Mr. Helmuth? Yes. Mrs. Mahan? Yes. Mr. Corsi? Yes, I'll vote. Thank you. Thank you all. Have a great evening. You too. All right, next is Article 12, Bylaw Amendment, Single Use Plastic Water Bottle Regulations, looking around the room and making sure we're in compliance tonight, and if we could have the proponent on. Okay, so if the proponent could raise their hand, I believe it's Mr. Ballin, but... Judge Campbell? Jim Ballin. You mean Mr. Ballin? can you hear me? Yes, I'm sorry. I interrupted you. Could you introduce yourself again? Sure. I'm Jennifer Campbell, a member of Zero Ways to Arlington. Okay. Good evening, Ms. Campbell. And I'm here with Jim Baylin, who's also a member of our committee. And we have slides to present tonight. Should I share my screen or will you be presenting those? Ms. Maher, what do you think is... She can share. Okay. Yeah, we can share the screen. We'll give you that. If you want to go ahead and share your screen, that's fine. Okay. It says host is disabled participant screen sharing. Okay. Yeah, we're just trying to work that out here. Okay. Can you see the screen? Yes, we can. Okay. Just a moment. Okay. Thank you. So again, Jennifer Campbell from Zero Ways to Arlington. I'm here to discuss Article 12. So this is in response to increasing concerns that we all have about plastic pollution and its impact on the environment. The United Nations calls it a plastic crisis. Each year around 400 million tons of plastic is produced worldwide. And 40% of that is single use, meaning we use it once and then it's thrown away. We may not think about it after we discard that piece of plastic, but it's still there in our environment and very much having impact. All of that discarded plastic is destroying habitats and harming wildlife and contaminating food chain. So this is both a global issue and a local one. Plastics are made from fossil fuels in an energy intensive process, which emits greenhouse gases and hazardous chemicals. Plastic lasts virtually forever. As it degrades, it just breaks down into smaller and smaller microplastics, which remain in our environment. And plastic is very difficult to recycle. Recycling rates are low to begin with, and even when it does happen, every time plastic is recycled, its quality deteriorates. So either new plastic is added to extend its life or the recycled plastic is disposed of after a couple of recycling rounds. So the bottom line is we can't recycle our way out of the plastic crisis. We need to actually reduce our consumption. So this graphic shows the life cycle of a single use plastic bottle. And it just shows that there are environmental costs at every stage about life cycle from the resources that are used to extract the water for bottling to produce the product packaging to transport it by truck to stores to sell and at the end to manage the plastic trash. So how would article 12 address this. It would prohibit the sale of bottles of plastic bottles of non carbonated water in sizes of one liter or less. So this would apply to any business in Arlington that is selling bottled water, as well as to town owned buildings. So this would include schools. There are some exceptions. Carbonated and flavored water would not be regulated by this bylaw. So this would include containers larger than a liter. So for example, gallon jugs would still be allowed. And of course, if there's an emergency that requires bottled water, there would be an exemption for that. So the state estimates that only around 20% of beverage containers in Massachusetts get recycled. So that means that Massachusetts residents are throwing away 1 billion beverage containers every year. And those either end up as litter, or they end up in landfills or incinerators, which create toxic emissions and pollute our air and water. So even though the contents of the bottle are consumed in just a few minutes, the container itself is permanent. So as this photo shows the carbon footprint of bottled water is not just the bottle itself. It's also all the plastic packaging that goes with it. And it's the transportation of these heavy pellets of water to sell them in stores. So again, 75% of plastic bottles end up in the trash. And that's important because they're often consumed away from home where there may not be a convenient recycling option. And the rest end up as litter, as you can see in these local photographs. One factor here is that water bottles are made from PET plastic, which is thinner and lighter than other plastics. So it makes them even more likely to blow away and become litter. And all too often that plastic litter ends up in our waterways and ultimately in our oceans. And there's been a lot of media coverage around this. So I think we're aware that plastic is one of the leading threats to our marine ecosystem and to marine animals. This is also where a lot of degradation happens into microplastics, which get ingested by wildlife, causing them harm and ultimately getting incorporated into the food chain. There are 25 towns in Massachusetts that have passed similar regulations. And in fact, there are five communities that have actually gone step further, and that have included all single use plastic beverage bottles in their in their retail bands including carbonated and energy drinks. Sorry, I skipped a slide there and article 12 is really about bringing a culture shift. The best alternative to bottled water is tap water. So we're encouraging people to drink it in all forms to bring your own with a refillable water bottle to take advantage of refill stations and water fountains to drink the glass of tap water with your meal at a restaurant and sparkling and flavored water are still available for sale. We're very lucky here in eastern Massachusetts we got our water from the protected quality and what she says watersheds and reservoirs. So it is high quality and available and a free and local resource. And this is an example of a water refill station. Our committee is working with the town to map out availability of these water refill stations, but they are already present in most public schools in Arlington and several buildings, public buildings. And this article would be enforced by the town's Department of Health and Human Services, effective as of November 2022. So, clearly, our biggest concern with this bylaw is about the impact on small businesses. And there are large retailers that sell bottled water by the case in Arlington CVS wall brains stop and shop and whole foods. But those are large chains, much larger profit margins. So we're not overly concerned about them. We are reaching out to as many small businesses as possible to get their feedback about the impact that this would have on their revenue. We visited 20 businesses small businesses so far. We estimate that bottled water is sold by around 10 convenience stores and 25 takeout restaurants, average sales of around 100 to 200 bottles a month. So clearly, there are two businesses that reported higher numbers. One said 400 bottles a month, and the other which is the Augustinos estimated 1,500 bottles a month. So clearly that's on the high end, the Augustinos is a deli with a lot of prepared foods. So they are a bit of an outlier compared to the average convenience store. But it is a concern for all of them. So we're looking for ways that we can support businesses during this transition. So we think that most consumers who go into a store to purchase bottled water will buy an alternative if one is provided to them and stores can still sell carbonated and flavored water as well as other beverages. So, in conclusion, there are a lot of good reasons to reduce our use of single use plastics, including bottled water. This is an article that will reduce litter, it'll help reduce our towns carbon footprint, protect our waterways and show the towns environmental leadership. So, that's article 12 and Jim Balan and I are happy to answer questions. Thank you for the stop sharing my screen. Thank you for the presentation. Turn to the board and questions. Okay. This is a public hearing. Would like to speak on this. As of right now, there are no hands raised. Okay. One hand raised. I'm going to promote that. Good evening. Ms. Malofchuk again. Hi, I'm back. Bad penny. Beth Malofchuk precinct nine Russell Street town meeting member. I wholeheartedly support this initiative. I it's it's way past due and the impact in terms of pollution. We see all around us in all of our water bodies and all of our parks and green spaces. And yesterday I picked up a bag of garbage. Only a block length of the bike trail right near my home. I do this several times a week. And it's plastic waste and, you know, people's paper recycling. But I, I want to thank Ms. Campbell and Mr. Balin for bringing this forward and for working on this. I want to thank him for encouraging the environmental leadership. I forget what the phrase was in the last slide, but of the town, because we see with the initiatives in town that are progressive, that are well thought out, well researched. And I want to thank all of you. I just want to thank you. Timely all of these initiatives are timely. We only need to look at the front page of the newspaper each and every day to read about a, you know, some dire environmental. Event. That's befalling us because we didn't do this 30 years ago. So I respectfully ask. To welcome. Mr. Balin to the opportunity as a community. To contribute to this very necessary initiative. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. The next person I will promote is Amy spear. Good evening this fear. Good evening. Thank you. on Ridge Street. I strongly support this article and just wanted to make a few points about it. As Jennifer mentioned, recycling isn't the problem here and it's not the answer either. The root problem is the quantity of single-use plastics coming into our community. A lot of people forget that plastics come from fossil fuels and from extraction to waste management plastics have an incredible environmental cost at every single stage in the life cycle and bottled water alone has its own and Arnold's hidden environmental costs, as Jennifer mentioned. In the perfect world, corporations will be doing something about this. The producers, they change their packaging and their marketing and reduce the use of single-use plastics, but unfortunately we don't live in that perfect world and it's up to the citizens to take more of this responsibility on ourselves. So we are really fortunate to be in Arlington, which is an incredibly environmentally conscious community and we're a leader in combating climate change. We've successfully implemented bans on plastic bags and polystyrene and now it's time to do single-use plastic bottles, water bottles. Change is hard and we all know we need to make some of these hard decisions in order to make an impact, but I do have confidence that our local businesses and the residents will adapt to this positive step for the overall just health and well-being of our community. Thank you and I hope you support the article. Thank you, Ms. Speer. The vote is Elizabeth Drey. Good evening, Elizabeth Drey, Jason Street, tell me a member in precinct 10. I'll keep it brief because Amy said a lot of the things I was gonna say. I support this warn article goal. I think that there may be some initial grumbling and griping, but I also had the analogy to when we got rid of plastic bags that that was, you know, it was hard, a hard lift at first, but now we all bring our, it's like our reusable bags to the grocery store and we don't think twice about it. So I think that we can make this shift also and that we need to make this shift. So that's it. I support it and I hope that you will too this evening. Thank you. Thank you. The next is Sarah McKinnon. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Sarah McKinnon. I'm a 10 meeting member from precinct 20 and I live on Kill Scythe Road. Everyone who's spoken before me has spoken so eloquently and so with so much information, I was particularly surprised and struck by the, what I think I heard was that one of the businesses in town has a thousand bottles of water a month, which means that this kind of legislation would mean 12,000 bottles less are out in Arlington from one place. It just seemed like so much. And so it seems like such a small step, but I think that each small step we take gets us closer to what we want long-term as a community. I know my children in particular, I have a 12 year old and a nine year old, are very strong proponents of us never buying single use bottled water. I think I'm probably not the only parent who hears this from our children. And I think that they would want this too. So in part, I'm speaking on my behalf, but I'm also speaking on their behalf as to people who can't vote, but if they could, would definitely urge you to please support this one. Thank you. Thank you. And there's one last hand raised. And it's prior, I'm sorry, if I said your name wrong. Okay, yeah. Why don't we promote, yeah. Good evening. This is Priya Sankalya. I am town meeting member from precinct 13 and also the chair of Zero Waste Arlington. I'm just here again to support Jennifer and Jim and Jennifer's excellent presentation and hope this like what will support us on this. Zero Waste Arlington's mission is to educate the residents of Arlington in all these issues. And we really try to do a lot of outreach and understand that it's going to have to be an attitude change that's going to be required of a lot of us. And every little step we take towards that will help in our goals. So thank you very much for allowing us to bring this article to a town meeting and hope you'll support it. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. There's one more. Okay. Larry Slotnik. Good evening, Mr. Slotnik. Thank you. Good evening, Larry Slotnik. I'm also co-chair of Zero Waste Arlington. I live in precinct seven as a town meeting member. I just wanted to add some detail because the panelist prior to Priya sort of referenced the numbers we provided for Dagestinos which I verified myself today after a prior person had visited them and they are indeed correct. I don't think what we've mentioned today or tonight is that the seven large retailers that sell mostly cases of bottled water and these would be the two CVSs as Walgreens plus Whole Foods Trader Joe's and Stop and Shop sell an estimated combined about 500,000 bottles a year 12 ounce uncarbonated water. So they can bear the loss of that revenue possibly better than some small retailers have can particularly maybe the small convenience stores. But yes, elimination of those bottles from our community with the very small recycling rate I had estimated closer to only 15% than the 20 that Jennifer mentioned. This does mean that more than 400,000 probably close to 450,000 of these bottles are not going into the blue bins around Arlington. They're mostly consumed out of the home. As we know, in places where recycling just doesn't exist and there's not the incentive of the 5 cent deposit that there is on carbonated beverages. So it really wouldn't make a big difference in our community and I urge your support. Thank you. That's it. Okay. Mr. Hurd. Yep. Thank you all for the presentation. And I think this is a certain article that we had anticipated coming forward for the past few years. And I look forward to the debate on it. Again, like one of the previous articles that we talked about, I think this is an article that is definitely going to be debated by and voted on by town meeting regardless of how we vote on this article tonight. So I will move favorable action to pass this on to town meeting and let that learned body debate this and come to a conclusion as to whether or not this is right for the town. I mean, I do have a few concerns in mainly, so in looking at the towns that have adopted this doesn't look like any of the towns that border Arlington have adopted this. So there is some one of a concern for the major retailers that people will go elsewhere. But I think in reality, practical reality, people buy the groceries wherever is convenient and don't tend to drive too far for groceries. And I think the major retailers can absorb any losses that are incurred as a result of imposing this on the major retailers. I do have some reservations about small sub shops, small retailers and the impact that this can have. And particularly the idea with small restaurants and I don't know how this could be flushed out in the language, but I would like to see an exemption for sort of fast food, takeout type restaurants where if you're going to go and have a sub you're going to have a drink with it. And just from a practical health perspective, the variety that they can offer isn't the variety that a stop and shop can offer as to an alternative. And if you don't have a bottle of water, you have a Coke or something that some sugary beverage that just doesn't have the same health benefits as water. No, I understand that not everybody is, most people don't drink Coke and someone might tend to bring their water or bring their food elsewhere where they have a water bottle with them. But it is a concern and the impact that this might have on those small businesses. And again, I'm moving favorable action and I'm going to vote for my motion for favorable action. But there are concerns that I have and if I am reelected to town meeting, I'll bring my concerns at that point. But I think that the tenor of the article is good. I think this is the direction that the town is moving in and the town around it has always been at the forefront of leading against climate change and working towards a much cleaner lifestyle, which I'm all for. It's just whether or not we can get the language tailored so it works practically and ideally for the town of Arlington. Thank you, Mr. Heard. I do have Mr. Helmuth. Yeah, I heavily second that. And I think that this probably bears some additional research, but I follow the Concord experience somewhat over the last few years. They first did their ban in 2013 and recently read a WGBH news story from 2018, five years later evaluating the ban and the progress. And I think the general picture was that there was a lot of adaptation and that stores were actually still selling single servings of water, but not in PET plastic bottles. The milk bottle and the milk containers. So, you know, I think for myself I might, I think that Tommy and he absolutely will need to have a healthy debate on this as we have other things. I don't know if we're going to need some of the exceptions that had been mentioned, but I think it's, we need to have that discussion. You know, I think the retailers may have some options for still making water sales that conform with this bylaw. So I think that would be a good fruitful line of inquiry as we put our heads together, but I certainly support it. All right, any other comments? I have a couple of comments and I will support this as well. One, I spoke with Mr. Baylon. One of my concerns or maybe just comment is it seems to me that this should be done at the state level and then I'll support it. But, and I know there's a bill pending in the House, at House 869 that Representative Rogers and Representative Garberly are cosponsors, which would outlaw single-use plastic water sales a year after passage. But I don't know, it doesn't seem like that bill is going very far. And it also deals with plastic bags, which we've already addressed here as a community, but to the changing the industry and changing the way water is sold, it seems like it would really affect change more if it was done on the state level. And I would hope if we do pass this, if we could put something in there that we encourage our state delegation to support this on a statewide level. Because I just feel we're blip, as Mr. Hurd said, there's no other community really around us. Conker's probably the closest community that has done this. Brookline I think has some sort of ban as well. And it really should be done in the state level. And I hope that takes place because that's a concern I have. I will go along with this, but I do have a concern for the businesses here as opposed to, you know, if you're up the heights and there's businesses in Lexington, you'll just go over the line or somewhere. And if it's done on a statewide basis, I think there'll be more of a change. Just a quick question. I don't think this will affect it much, but how do you, I know that there is an enhanced bottle bill that's pending as well that would include water sales, but I think it still doesn't address the issues that you talked about with just plastic bottles not being recycled. Is that accurate? Mr. Chair, if I can respond to that. Sure. And also I wanted to just quickly respond to one of Mr. Hurd's comments. First of all, there is an expanded bottle bill that's been proposed. It's now currently in the Senate Ways and Means. CWA is very supportive of that being passed. It would certainly have a beneficial effect on increasing recycling rates, which would be a good thing of course. We don't necessarily think that it would drastically reduce the amount of single use bottles that are used and produced. And so to that extent, we still feel like this warrant article is important. I don't think the other bill, as far as I know, has much chance of passage. I think the expanded bottle bill may have a better chance. We're still waiting for a statewide plastic bag ban to go into effect, even though so many communities in the state already have one. The state still hasn't done that. So we don't really want to wait for that for either of those bills to pass, but of course we would support that. And just quickly to one of Mr. Hurd's comments, certainly we were encouraged restaurants, we're gonna make quite a bit of outreach effort to restaurants to offer tap water to their customers. That's really what we're after here is a culture shift to get people to drink tap water, which is just a great, healthy resource in Arlington. So people don't have to drink a sugary drink when they go to a restaurant, if there's no bottled water. They'll always be tap water. And we're gonna highly encourage and even promote restaurants that offer that. And aside from that, there will always be other options for people that are not sweetened beverages. As Jennifer mentioned, this does not include vitamin drinks, other unsweetened beverages, seltzers, carbonated water, things like that. So we don't think there's much evidence that this is gonna encourage people to switch over to more unhealthy drinks. And again, we really wanna encourage a culture shift towards more drinking of tap water and avoiding the very wasteful bottled water. Thank you. Thank you. Any other, Mr. Diggins? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I was pleased to hear from Mr. Helmets that there are other containers in which you can sing, can sell single serves of water. Because I was also kind of a little bit concerned about the possibility of a perverse unintentional effect, to shift the pushing people towards being less or unhealthy drinks being in. So I was gonna ask if there were any studies about what had happened when these bans had gone into place elsewhere. I'm just saying, I'm gonna ask a few questions, but I'll just say from the outset, me and I support this, I support this strongly. And then I'll say at the very end quickly why. A question about, do we have sense of the profit margin of these single use sales? If you know what they're selling for, they're selling for, sorry, go ahead. Well, just the profit margin, because I think a lot of times we're thinking, you know, they're gonna lose me all the, like the full sale price of it. But it's only the profit margin that we're concerned about because if they're not selling it, they're just not selling it, but then, but it's the margin, the profit that they're losing or not gaining. So do we have a sense of profit margin on these? I don't know, Barry or Jim, do you wanna speak to that? I don't think we have the data on the actual profit margins. I think we do know for single individual water bottles, there's obviously a fairly significant profit margin for the bulk packaging, the profit margin is certainly much smaller. And I don't think we have the specific numbers. All right, just get a sense of what the hit might be to any given business that's selling them. Okay, great, thanks. And so what was the genesis of this article now? Either of you. You mean, how did we decide to bring it forward? Yeah, yeah, what, what, yeah, what, what caused? Well, it's a discussion that, you know, the committee had been having and a town meeting member, Lynette Culverhouse, actually came to us and said, she was very interested in this and that kind of gave us the incentive to start discussing it. And we decided that it was, you know, we wanted to move it forward. This committee was involved in the past in the effort for the polystyrene ban and the simple use plastic bag ban. So, you know, this is another step towards reducing unnecessary plastic waste and addressing the plastic pollution and climate crisis. Great, well, I was wondering if that might be the case because Ms. Culverhouse reached out to me and I had suggested that she check out you all because I felt that you all were doing good work, me then, and that me, I felt that this was the home meeting for that kind of article. So I'm really happy to see that you worked with her, you took her idea and then have brought it, you know, to us, I mean, I'm in a form of what I think is a really good article and I'm voting for it because I was happy to hear one of you say that me, or maybe another speaker say that, I mean, their kids mean do not want, mean to use, mean liquids in plastics, mean, and I think the next generation gets it, and so we need to make it easier for them to continue doing what it is that they want to do. And we just have to shift the mindset, mean towards uses, practices that are just beneficial to the planet in the long term, mean, well, there are lots of things that we do that help us in the short term, but do damage in the long term and it's gonna cost us to make the shift, but in the short term, in the long term, it's gonna pay off, mean, so every chance I get, I hope that I will make these kinds of decisions and yes, I may have to have a conversation with Mr. Tacostino about this, but that's okay, you know, because I think in the long run, it really is in the right thing for us to do, so thank you for bringing this forward and I look forward to voting positive action on it here and in time meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. Any other comments from the board members? Okay, seeing none on a motion for favorable action by Mr. Herd, seconded by Mr. Helmuth, Attorney Hine. Mr. Herd? Yes. Mr. Diggins? Yes. Mr. Helmuth? Yes. Mrs. Mahan? Yes. Mr. Dacourse? Yes. It's an anonymous vote. Sorry. Thank you both. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next is Article 13, By-Law Amendment to prohibit the use of facial surveillance, face surveillance. Mr. Fisher? Hello, everyone. Hi, my name is Ezra Fisher and I'm a town meeting member from Precinct Four. Thank you for inviting me to speak tonight as a proponent of Article 13 of By-Law Amendment to prohibit the use of face surveillance. My hope is that this issue is fairly non-controversial. This by-law would ban all use of facial recognition technology by the town of Arlington, except that which is already provided for by state law. Boston, Somerville, Cambridge, and Brookline, as well as several municipalities in Western Mass have all passed similar by-laws or ordinances. Our own state representative, Dave Rogers, has been working on this topic at the state level and there are federal efforts in the House and Senate led by Iona Presley, Elizabeth Warren, and Ed Markey. I'd actually like to start by clarifying what this article is not about. So it will not ban the use of any existing security camera in the town of Arlington or restrict, sorry, that the town of Arlington operates or restrict buying or deploying new ones. In fact, since Arlington has never used facial recognition software, it will not change anything about the way we currently use video or still images. It also does not prevent the town from attempting to identify people based on an image of their face by current methods. This article would not prevent a private entity from using whatever software they wanted on a security camera on their own property. This article will not even prevent law enforcement from using facial recognition in certain limited scenarios. These parameters are established in a state law passed last year called an act relative to justice, equity, and accountability in law enforcement in the Commonwealth, referred to as the GIL Act. What the GIL Act says is that law enforcement can, with a court order or in the case of an emergency, submit a request with an unidentified image to the state police who are then able to take that image to the RMV and use their facial recognition capabilities to attempt to identify the person. As I know, you know, nothing we pass at the town level could supersede a state law, even if we tried. But in this case, the language of the proposed article is careful to preserve the state carve out so that we don't have any conflict. So what does this article achieve? First and foremost, it tries to fill two gaps that we see in the state law. The GIL Act, focused as it is on law enforcement, is entirely silent on the topic of any non-law enforcement use of facial recognition. Under state law, it would be entirely possible for another part of town government, say the fire department or the schools or even the select board, to use facial recognition software on the cameras that they operate. In order to understand the second gap in the state law, please bear with me as I describe two terms. The terms are defined in the suggested language for the article, as well as in state law, but I'll paraphrase here. So facial recognition or face surveillance is any kind of automated software that attempts to identify people based on their faces. A facial recognition search is a specific use of facial recognition software in which you take an image of an unidentified person and run it through a piece of software to get an identity based on facial recognition. The GIL Act defines both of these terms, facial recognition and facial recognition search, but then only legislate the use of facial recognition search. So this means that while the limited application of taking that unidentified image and using software to identify it is regulated, there's absolutely nothing to prevent any part of government from doing facial recognition in their day-to-day operation. Arlington is currently free to install facial recognition software on any or all of its 400 plus surveillance cameras. This software could be fed an image of a known person and asked to compile a record of that person's movements or passively build profiles of all of us as we move throughout our lives. In other words, while the state law defines how law enforcement may use responsive facial recognition, it fails to set up any guardrails on government's use of proactive or passive facial recognition. But these gaps I think are worth closing for any number of reasons. Here are just a few examples. Current facial recognition technology is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than just inaccurate because in addition to not being extremely good at recognizing any faces, it has been proven to be worse at identifying people of color and women and even worse at identifying women of color. There have already been multiple cases of false arrest based on the use of facial recognition leading to lawsuits against municipalities. Even if the technology were perfect, it would still be against our values. We don't have a surveillance state in this country. We don't believe government officials can walk up to us on a street corner and demand to CID. They can ask and most of us are happy to comply, but they can't compel us to. The rights to free speech and free assembly are among our most prized and would absolutely be negatively affected if the government were able to automatically identify everyone choosing to exercise those rights. And most of all, the people disproportionately harmed when government surveillance power expands are the segments of our population uniquely vulnerable to any kind of poorly wielded government power. LGBT plus homeless people, people with mental illnesses, people of color, and of course, the many people who embody more than one of those categories. As town council points out in his memo on this article, town bylaws are commonly used to define what people in Arlington can and can't do, not what the town government can and can't do. While this may be true, I don't think it needs to deter us. The attorney general's office has already approved a very similar bylaw in Brookline. More importantly, I think it should not deter us. While our current town manager and chief of police have said that they never have and never intend to use facial recognition, we can't always count on having like-minded leaders. As elected representatives, it's our responsibility to codify our expectations for how our town should be run, particularly on issues as important as the limits of government power. It's important to do this now while the technology is not in use because it's much easier to preemptively establish a limit than it is to take away something already in practice. Thank you for your time and attention on this issue. I'm looking forward to your questions. But before we get there, I do wanna introduce Cade Prokford, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts Technology for Liberty program, who has been instrumental in efforts to ban face surveillance at the state and local level, including Brookline. I'm really grateful to Cade for being willing to attend our town meetings tonight and help me answer your questions. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fish. Good evening, Cade. Good evening, how are you? Good, how are you? Good, thanks. I know it's very late, so I'm not gonna reiterate anything that Ezra said. I'm just happy to answer questions if anybody has them. Thanks. Thank you. All right, so I'll turn to board members first and then open up to the public. Before I do that, I do wanna say we had received memorandum from Attorney Hyman, Attorney Cunningham, about preemption issues with state law. And this in particular, a couple of other warrant articles before us raises the question, but as we go forward tonight, I'm in complete agreement that facial recognition shouldn't be used. It's not reliable. But at the same time with the Geolact specifically, the creation of the study commission, which has not issued any recommended findings yet, they're supposed to by December 31st and that date has passed. But there are a number of things that they're going to study. And within the Geolact law enforcement agencies, the definition includes municipal police forces as well in addition to the state and county. And so I wanna raise the issue of preemption as a potential bar to anything we're doing here. And I know Mr. Fitcher, you mentioned that Brookline passed a by-law and this copies that by-law. And that by-law was actually passed before the Geolact and it was in July of 2020 that the Attorney General said it's valid, but also said in the letter there are several bills pending in the state legislature pertaining to the use of face surveillance systems. The town needs to look at what the state does to see if the by-law is in compliance. So I just wonder if, I think there's some issues here whether the legislature through the passage of the Geolact has preempted the field here and whether it doesn't behoove us where we're not using facial recognition to see what comes out of that commission because there are specific areas regarding privacy of individuals that they are supposed to get back and report out on. And I usually don't go first as chair, but I wanted to raise this as it almost seems to me that you may be where there's, in the short term, there's no irreparable harm at the local level because we're not doing anything. Do we wait and see what comes out of this commission before we enact a by-law and run the risk of having it be declared inconsistent with state law? I don't know if either one of you have thoughts on that. I know, Kate, you had read an article in the New York Times where you were referenced as a person who had a lot to do with the success of the Geolact at the local level. And Massachusetts was pointed out as one of the few states that seemed to pass an act, but also to continue to study things. And so I don't know if you have any comments on what I just said on that and whether, not that personally I'm opposed to what you're trying to do here, but I think it feels to me that maybe we need to wait for the state a little bit of time here. Sure, Chair, yeah, I can address that. I appreciate the question, it's a good question. I actually serve on the commission, the special legislative commission to study governmental use of facial recognition. And I can tell you that the report is gonna come out very soon. So you'll be able to read it very, very soon. The report, though, won't change the law, obviously. The report will go to the legislature and will make recommendations about what the legislature ought to do, if anything, to change the existing law on this topic. Whether the legislature takes the commission up on those recommendations is a separate matter, obviously. We at the ACLU hope that they will and that they'll strengthen the law. We have some concerns that are similar to Ezra's about the existing statute. We have other concerns as well. But on the question of preemption, my understanding is that the warrant article that's currently before the town of Arlington explicitly addresses that preemption issue by stating clearly that the police department, which is the only entity that would be touched, that is touched by that state regulation, can use facial recognition in compliance with state law. So we don't see there being a preemption issue here. We've looked at it pretty closely. There are also, as you know, and as Ezra said, eight other municipalities throughout the Commonwealth that have these municipal prohibitions on the books. And we believe, after doing a legal review, that the portions of those municipal laws that deal with non-police entities remain intact. And that the only area where state law preempts those municipal prohibitions has to do with section 26 of the police reform bill, which only regulates a very narrow area of law enforcement use of facial recognition technology. So, you know, it's our view that the town could go forward. But, you know, certainly if you think it's prudent to wait, that's obviously your call in that line. Thanks. Okay, thank you. And Mr. Hurt. Thank you. The presentation and the information, this is certainly a complicated issue. And I think you've brought up a lot of very specific and very good instances where this law can be beneficial and the passage of a bylaw such as this would help town residents or visitors to the town or anyone in the town of Arlington. I am, in addition to the preemption issues that the chair referenced, I am concerned a little bit about unintended consequences as this is just an area that I've done a little bit of research in anticipation of this warrant article, but I'm certainly not there as to call myself an expert or I'm not able to say I know all the instances where facial recognition is used. And I'm concerned that as we a board of non-experts on facial recognition support a bylaw banning the use of such facial recognition technology that we are, there are unintended consequences where we're banning useful uses. The technology exists and to some extent, I'm sure there's instances where it's beneficial. And I just, this feels like one of the issues that I really would love to defer to the experts at the state level who are looking at this and determining, and I know it's a very specific area of the law that the commission's dealing with, but I think this needs a little bit more of a global discussion of persons who have a little more information than this board has at this time. And I'm just speaking for myself and maybe my four colleagues know a lot more about facial recognition than I do, but I do have a concern with this that we're, if we pass this article, there are some forms of facial recognition that are useful that can no longer be used. Thank you, Mr. Heller. Any other comments from board members? Mr. Heller? I think I'm really on board with the intent of this. And I'd like for Arlington to get there. I think to Mr. Heard's point, I think we could do this within the scope of favorable action perhaps, but and I'm not sure what form that would take or what form town meeting would want to do. Town meeting may decide they want to study this, for instance, instead of proceed with the bylaw. I think as part of that process, I too would want to understand with clear vision, what we would be potentially excluding depending on the wording and depending on the implementation. I don't think, you know, I think that it's our role as policymakers and town meetings role as a legislative body, you know, to know what the town's policy is, but I think that I would want to rely on town staff, personnel, to help us understand the implications, you know, so that we don't have unintended consequences. I don't know how quickly that can be done. And you know, and I agree that I think preemptively addressing this before government uses it is a good approach if we have really concerns about technology. I have no concerns about our current town administrations misuse use of this, which would constitute misuse because it's bad tech, but I think there can be a clear rationale if we know clearly what we're doing to put to codify a preemption, so that future iterations of the government are not tempted to do the wrong thing. So I'm not sure where that leaves us. I think I do want to move favorable action if for no other reason that I think that I want, if depending on my colleagues support me, to express support for this in principle with the objective of getting there. And you know, it may come down to town meetings to decide whether this is a study or whether this is where they were ready for a bylaw now. I'm honestly not sure. So I remain open to the rest of my colleagues as well. Thoughts on that. Okay, Mr. Diggins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I had some really good conversation with Mr. Ron Fisher about this article. I mean, this is what makes, I think, this gig a lot of very enjoyable to me because I get to learn a lot, think about a lot of things. And so one of the parts of the discussion was that, well, right now, me, the non-organic machines aren't very good at the facial recognition, but that may not be the case for very long, you know? And so at some point they may be better than us at doing recognition. And then me, is it that we want them to do it or they do it when we tell them to, and only when we tell them to, because ultimately the issue is, what do you do with the information? How do you use it? Because if humans had the ability to just remember everything, then we would almost always be under surveillance by our fellow human beings. And so then what do we allow them to do with that information? I think we have to really come to terms with that eventually, and so, because essentially we just want to have privacy. So anyone can know whatever it is that they know about you, but they can't really use it against you. I think it's really the law that we want to eventually get at. And so I see this as, I don't know if it's really a stepping stone towards that or even, or maybe like a sidestep, but I just put that out there as I think what we ultimately want to aim for. The issue that I have really comes down to the town manager act and what the town council said about maybe the collision with that. And I understand that right now we have a good town manager, and chances are we'll have another good one, and we won't have to worry about the deployment of technology appropriately. But it seems, with the deals that the town manager answers to the select board, I know that we generally don't micromanage the town manager, but I think it would be acceptable for us to say, be as a policy, this isn't something the town doesn't do, and we expect our town manager not to allow the police force to do that. Am I right about that, maybe the Mr. Chair or Mr. Town Manager or Mr. Town Council? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. I do think that this is something that's important for the board to consider, not just in this specific matter, but with respect to a lot of matters. I'm not the expert that a lot of folks who are discussing these matters about facial recognition technology and some of the important issues in technology and the law. But with respect to the town's form of government, the town's elected through its town meeting to have a town manager form of government invests substantial discretion in the day-to-day management and operations, including setting forth the policies of the town. Part of the question here is not about facial recognition technology. It's, if you pass a bylaw of this nature, is there any realistic limit to what you put in the bylaws with respect to anything that the town does? Will the bylaws be a forum for very specific decisions about how each department operates? I do think that the board generally supervises the manager and that the manager is responsive to the board. The board ultimately has the ability to terminate the manager if they're not satisfied with the manager's performance. Not to be too flip about it, but as the manager has noted to me several times, the manager knows how to count votes on the board. So with respect to setting policy, I think it's important to recognize that our act vests most of the town's policy and day-to-day administration supervision of departments in the manager and this board's job is to supervise the manager. So it's foolhardy for a manager to not recognize a policy that the board is urging that manager to take. But I have a lot of respect for what we're talking about and the expert that's here with us tonight Mr. Fisher, who has done a tremendous amount of homework on this, I've really enjoyed our conversations, by the way, Isra. I do think that the fundamental question here is how do we account for this decision by the town government in years past to have a strong town manager? Is that what we want to have? Is it not? So I'm sorry that I don't have a super clean answer other than to say that the manager supervises, I mean that the manager supervises departments and the board supervises the manager. It's not as bright line as it always could be, but that's, I think, the best articulation. Yeah, that was a good example. And the board being the residents, the voters, determined the members of the select board being, and so ultimately the power is in being the hands of the residents. So for me, what, if we were to put something in the bylaws, what that would get is easy visibility as to what the town's policy is regarding facial recognition, you know, and now it would just be a matter of us being not colliding with the powers given to the town manager, by the town manager act, so if there's a way to, it's almost as if I'm asking for a resolution, trust me, I'm not doing that, you know. So the alternative would be, how could we make the policy me that the board has towards this and anything else easily visible to the public and knowable easily by the town manager? Me so that it'd be, okay, well, here's what we want. Here's our policy, everyone, this is it. Me, you can help us keep the town manager accountable as easily as we can. Me by saying, well, I'm watching what he or she does, you know, and if they don't, I'm gonna use they, because it's just easier. Me, they don't do what the policy says, we'll report, me and you as the board, he should correct what the town manager does, because if you don't, we'll see you in some April, you know, so it seems to me that we can get it, me and that way if we had some way of making the policy more visible, you know, so I'm not sure where I'm at with this, you know, and I'm gonna stop talking and listen to folks, me and then we'll do another round and it'll be after 11 o'clock, that'll decide something. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. Mr. Chair, can I jump in and answer a few or provide some comment there? Why don't we do this answer? Why don't we, we still haven't heard from the public yet on this and what I think we, and I don't really want to do it, but I said we would stop at 10.45. I'd like to hear from the public, but I also, and I'm surprised to hear myself say this, but Mr. Diggins, not that I'm looking for a resolution, but I think there's a way to make a statement and wait and see what comes out of the commission and sort of get a point across, but also, you know, hear from this legislative commission and hear from the legislature in the next year and maybe accomplish both without running potentially a file of a review by the attorney general, but before we do that, why don't we see if there's any members of the public who want to speak and what I think we may do, we're running late. I want to hear from the public and then I think that's going to be it for tonight. I think we have a lot to think about too. We may not be ready for the specific vote and I appreciate both of you reaching out to us as individuals and maybe there can be some more discussion between now and the next meeting as well. Okay. The first number is Jeffrey Pyle. Okay. And while we're waiting for Mr. Pyle, if unfortunately the other articles tonight will not be heard, so that's going to go to next week. So I apologize for that, but that's just the way it is with public hearings. I don't mean to sound plump. It's been a long night and it's, you know, we're just not going to get to everything. Okay, Mr. Pyle. Hi, I'm Jeffrey Pyle. I live on Gloucester Street in precinct eight. I'm also a First Amendment free speech lawyer and I joined the meeting today to express my support for this article. I believe as everybody agrees, seems to agree that this is an opportunity for our town to express the value that we don't want Arlington to become Jeremy Bentham's panopticon where the government can track our every move at all times. But I want to pick up specifically on Mr. Diggins point about transparency. It seems to me that it is, it ought to be well within the purview of our legislative body town leading to enact a general protection of civil liberties for this town and a general policy so that everybody knows that surveillance is not permissible for these non-law enforcement purposes, which, you know, this Warren article couldn't be clearer that this is referring to non-law enforcement purposes only. If the town desires to use it for some other non-law enforcement purpose, then I think it ought to be incumbent upon a future town manager to come before town meeting and request specific permission for that. And what that does is that it provides transparency and oversight for the public to know what the town's policy is and puts the burden where it ought to be on the party that could be violating civil liberties or violating people's reasonable expectations of the use of this policy, rather than putting the burden on the public to constantly wonder and suspect and check in on whether future government is using this technology for something that the Democratic elected officials in town meeting wouldn't approve of. And then as a First Amendment lawyer, I'd also just like to say many folks may not think twice about joining a political protest or standing in Arlington Center and holding a sign for whatever cause or political issue or what have you. But there are many populations within the town of Arlington that wouldn't feel so comfortable if they suspected that the town of Arlington was creating some kind of a database based on facial recognition technology that sent their names off to Washington to be put in a black and white folder like our Lou Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant. That can really affect undocumented populations and populations that are more vulnerable than people who look like me. So as you've heard, our other neighbors of ours have bylaws like this. I say if it's good enough for them, it ought to be good enough for us. And I would encourage you at the next meeting to vote favorable action on this article. And I want to thank the proponent of this article for an eloquent presentation. And thanks to Kate Crawford as well, who's a national expert on this issue. And we're very lucky to have her here to advise us. Thank you. The next speaker will be Anna Hengen. Hi, Anna Hengen, town meeting member for precinct six, Marianne Rowe. I also want to speak in support of this article. We as a town really don't need to be compiling profiles of where everyone is. You guys don't need to know where I go get like cookies every week. But on a more serious note, we really should see this as the extremely important civil liberties topic that it is. And it's important to put a really public really high burden of proof to have to implement any sort of facial recognition and tracking thing on the town. We really should have something that needs a vote that needs a presentation at town meeting in front of the public to be implemented. This is a really big deal. And I think that having this as a bylaw would be really important in making sure that that kind of really high bar for something this intense that has this high a potential for abuse really has to clear a super high bar to be undone. And putting something like this into our bylaws I think is a really good step for doing that. It makes sure that this is something we do with incredible intent and gravity. And right now this technology is so unreliable. It is bad. You can just some of the technologies for this are as heavy accuracy rating but it's as low as something like 30%. And they're much worse at identifying women, the elderly, children, people who have facial scars, anyone who is not white, particularly people who are black and Asian. And I don't have to tell you how historically biased and profiled those groups already are in our country. But you can also completely confuse this with makeup getting a black eye, weird glasses. So I mean, if you guys really want the youth of Arlington to start wearing kiss makeup I think we have easier ways to encourage that but this is not just like a moral hazard. This is I think also a safety hazard. There's an enormous amount of information that you would collect in having any sort of tracking with facial surveillance. And no cybersecurity is ever truly perfect. And if either there's a breach in trust or there's a breach in cybersecurity this is the kind of information if you're ever compiling this kind of profile that you do not want malicious actors to have whether that's advertisers tracking you around town or that's your stalker or your abusive ex-husband. Like this is the kind of information that really can damage people's safety. And it's also an enormous amount of information that has to get stored by the town in a large database that's very expensive. This is the kind of technology that's great. Okay, no, thank you. You're at three minutes, we have two more speakers but thank you very much. Fantastic, good night. The next speaker is David Erner. Okay, and we'll have one, I believe we have one more speaker after this and then we will conclude this part of the discussion. Mr. Chair, your speak limit is three minutes and do the public is aware? Is it? Yes, yeah, it's three minutes for members of the public. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, I am David Emmer. I would like to express my thanks to Select Board for the opportunity to speak on Article 13. I live at 37 Windsor Street. I have lived in Arlington with my wife for seven years. We now have a growing family that consists of two daughters. My oldest daughter is starting kindergarten at the Hardy School in September. For a living, I work as an attorney for the Massachusetts State Senate. Today, however, I am speaking in my individual capacity as an Arlington voter. This is my first time speaking for the Select Board. I urge the Select Board to wholeheartedly endorse Article 13, which bans facial recognition technology. Before I speak specifically about facial recognition, though, I want to provide some context for this warrant article with some uncomfortable truths. According to the 2020 federal census, Arlington's population is comprised of just 3% black people. On a percentage basis, Massachusetts has more than four times as many black people as Arlington. If you want to know why this is, I urge you to read The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein. The Color of Law explains how segregation was no accident. To the contrary, centuries of laws, zoning ordinances, restrictive covenants, and official government policies created segregated communities throughout America. With this warrant, we have an opportunity to show that we welcome black people and other people of color to Arlington. Hear me out for a moment on why that is. I am deeply concerned that the unintended consequences of not endorsing this warrant far outweigh the any possible unintended consequences of endorsing it. Facial recognition systems falsely identify black people and other people of color at higher rates than they do for white people. Stated differently, just being a black person means that you could become a suspect through a facial recognition system's false identification. These consequences are severe. They could lead to police questioning. For nearly a half decade before I joined the state Senate as a staff attorney, I was a trial attorney. In that role, I represented clients that were questioned by law enforcement. I can assure you that just being questioned, even if you are 100% innocent, is scary. Even worse, false identifications can lead to false arrests and jail time. Still worse, false identifications can lead to guilty verdicts and imprisonment of the innocent. An equally pernicious consequence of false identifications is that they lead to unjust plea agreements. These occur when an innocent person pleads guilty to avoid the risk of a more severe sentence after trial. There is a better path. It is the path of Black Lives Matter. Now, sometimes a phrase is repeated so often, we forget what the words mean. The clarion call is Black Lives Matter, not stop Black death. Merely preventing the murder of a person similarly situated to George Floyd or Breonna Taylor is a woefully insufficient response to achieve a racially just Arlington. To lead a fulfilling life, a person, white, black, brown, or any color must feel safe from arbitrary police questioning, arrest, and wrongful conviction. We must ban the use of facial recognition to make three promises to every person regardless of their skin. First, you are safe in Arlington. Second, you are welcome to move to Arlington. Third, if you do so, you will be treated with dignity and respect. Enacting a bylaw to ban facial recognition will not on its own desegregate Arlington. Let us not be naive. Welcoming Black people and all people of color to Arlington will be a lifelong challenge to those of us committed to racial justice everywhere, including here in Arlington. Yet passing this warrant article is one small step in the right direction. I respectfully urge the elected select board to endorse warrant article 13. Let's do it. Thank you. Thank you. The last speaker is Judith Garber. A town name member precinct for Mass Ave. Just gonna keep it short. I support this article. It's been interesting to hear the debate around what bylaws can and cannot do or what previously historically they have been used to do or to not do and the role of town manager versus town meeting. I would support this bylaw. I would also support a resolution or some other kind of solution in order to make the spirit of this bylaw within the town's policies or rules in some other way. Whatever would work for this, although I think Ezra's bylaw is very well-written. I support it. Thank you. Thank you very much. I just wanna say one thing because I think that the proponents of this article would agree with this statement. I think it's just important to be clear if we're gonna revisit this. One, my understanding is that this bylaw does apply to Arlington Police Department just not in a way that's inconsistent with the GLAC. So it's, yes, it applies to other town departments which the GLAC does not cover at all. Everybody's in agreement on that. But it does apply to the Arlington Police Department. It's just important with that. Second, I just want everybody to be on the same page in this, that town meeting is a legislative body but it is not a standing legislative body. Can't go to town meeting for permission to do something as the town manager. We can pass a bylaw and we can amend that bylaw. We can pass a special act. We can amend a special act. We can express the will of town meeting through a resolution but it's not as if the manager can go to town meeting and ask to do something. So I don't think that's what these folks, Mr. Fisher, or Miss, I'm sorry, is it, it's, Crockford, I apologize. Crockford, no worries. I don't think that's what they're proposing at all but I just want to be clear that as we think about this and talk about it, you know, that that's not really an option for us. We've got to have as the pass a bylaw or take some other action. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I think given the hour it's appropriate for, I think we have some work to do individually between meetings. I appreciate the presentation tonight and we will resume the discussion on March 28th. Do you need a motion to table, Mr. Fisher? Yes, yeah, if I could have a motion to table, second. Okay, so a motion to table by Mr. Heard, seconded by Mrs. Mahan, Attorney Heim. Mr. Heard. Yes. Mr. Diggins. Yes. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. Mrs. Mahan. Yes, thank you. Mr. DeCourcy. Yes. Jim, it's a vote to table. Thank you both. Thank you very much. Okay, so we have final votes. I think given the hour we can, if we could have a motion to table that, the discussion on the final vote to the second. The final votes, comments. Okay, a motion by Mrs. Mahan, seconded by Mr. Heard, Attorney Heim. Mr. Heard. Yes. Mr. Diggins. I think we lost Mr. Diggins. Mr. Diggins. He'll log back on. You know, I might have bumped him out by accident. I'm sorry. It's okay. All right, why don't we- He's back. Okay. Yes, she did. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's okay. What's the motion? That's all I need to know. To table. We're gonna table the discussion on final votes. Oh, yes, of course, please. Okay, so Mr. Diggins, Mr. Helmuth. Yes. Mrs. Mahan. Yes. Mr. DeCourcy. Yes. Okay, unanimous vote. Thank you, Attorney Heim. A new business. Mr. Mahan. Attorney Heim. No new business. Thank you. Mr. Chapter Link. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know it's a very quick share. Congresswoman Clark was in town this morning to announce that she was able to secure for Arlington and seven other communities a $750,000 federal earmark for a regional collaboration to reduce coastal flooding risk up the Mystic River. This will be used to plan substantial improvements to the Amelia Earhart Dam and potentially also the Charles River Dam. And Arlington will be the host fiscal agent due to the good work of both the Mystic River Watershed Association leading the effort but also the Department of Planning and Community Development being willing to step up and be the lead agency for this big earmark. Great, thank you, Mr. Chapter Link. Mr. Helmuth. No new business. Mrs. Mahan. No, thank you. Mr. Heller. The only thing that I was gonna bring in new business and I can just maybe table this for the next meeting was to try to form the board as to what me and Mr. Diggins had come up with for a date for a town day, which would either be the 16th or the 23rd of September, but we'll kind of go towards the next meeting to get thoughts on that. Okay, thank you, Mr. Heller. Mr. Diggins. Sure, just two quick things. There's a virtual town meeting that we can this night tomorrow, 7.30. So any of you running for town meeting, welcome to join that. And then on Wednesday, we get to watch our chair debate himself at the League of Women Voters in the night. I hope I get to go second on a couple of the questions. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. I have no new business given the hour, so I'll take a motion to adjourn. Second. Okay, motion made by Mrs. Mahan, seconded by Mr. Heller. I'm Mr. Helmuth. I'm Mr. Helmuth. Attorney Hyman. Just as good. I'm getting names wrong, left and right. So Mr. Heller. I second it, I just have no voice. Oh, sorry. Yes, Mr. Heller. Mr. Diggins. Yes. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. This is Mahan. Yes, thank you. Mr. DeCourts. Yes. Thank you, we're going. Good night. Good night, everybody.