 Thank you everybody and welcome to the Arlington Select Board meeting for Monday, April 11, 2022. I am Select Board Chair Leonard Diggins. Permit me to confirm that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Ms. Mahan, I can't hear you. Sorry, here. I'm on muted now. Sorry. Okay. Hear you now. I mean, I'm Mr. Hard. Yeah. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. So, of course, he will not rejoin us tonight. Saf, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Mr. Taftalane. Yes. Mr. Heim. Yes. And so, Like Board Administrator Ashley Meyer is participating, but not as a panelist. Tonight's meeting of the Arlington Select Board is being conducted remotely consistent with an act signed into law of February 15, 2022 that extends certain COVID-19 measures. That includes an extension until July 15, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. The Governor's order, which is for reference with agenda 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 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. It 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 you 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. Zoom participants and persons watching ACMI can follow the posted agenda materials, also found on the town's website using the Novus agenda platform. And finally, each vote tonight will be taken by roll call. So without short agenda, I'm confident we'll get all the town's business done tonight, and I'll now turn to the next item on the agenda, which is item two, land acknowledgment. I would like to read the land acknowledgment that the Board supported last spring in town meeting approved through resolution, which is also contained on the town's website. We acknowledge that the town of Arlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous people from whom the colony province and Commonwealth had taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. And I'll turn to item three on tonight's agenda, and that is a consent agenda. So I will start with Mr. Helmuth for a motion and or comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I move approval. And Mr. Herd? Second, just for people watching, you might want to just read what's on the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Herd. I appreciate that. So on the consent agenda, we have the minutes from from three meetings, March 21st, March 28th and April 4th. So so now that we know, Mr. Herd, you seconded, right? Thank you. This is behind. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And no questions or comments from me. So we'll ask Mr. Heim to take roll call. Mr. Herd. Yes, Mr. Helmuth. Yes, Mrs. Mahan. Yeah, Mr. Diggins. Yes, the four zero. OK, and next on the agenda. You pull it up. So we have discussion and approval of the draft select board report to town meeting in and for that, we turn to Mr. Heim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What's before you is a draft select report that reflects the votes and comments that you've already entered. We got into the practice of doing this, just as providing one final opportunity for the board to review its votes and comments before they get submitted to town meeting this year. It's a little bit more straightforward because we don't have any change in members of the board for any reason, which are all happy about. I do want to draw your attention to one vote that we received some feedback on and one vote and comment that wasn't finalized in previous versions. So if you'll turn your attention to Article 16, by law amendment to noise by law regarding gas powered leaf blowers after your vote and your approval of the vote in common, Deputy Council Cunningham and I received a little bit of feedback and input from the resident petitioners who were hoping that something could be clarified. Neither Mr. Cunningham or I thought Attorney Cunningham or I thought was a substantive change. If you if you allow it, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give Mr. Cunningham an opportunity since he's here with us to explain what's highlighted in yellow. You'll basically see two very similar versions of the same paragraph under the changes to Section 3D daytime only proposed in the vote. And I'll let Attorney Cunningham explain what the sort of issue was as the resident petitioners saw it. We think it's consistent with your previous vote, but we want to make sure. Obviously, if you want to stay with the language that we had originally proved, that's fine. But it's something that they felt was clearer with some relatively modest modifications. So Mr. Chair, I can turn it over to Deputy Council Cunningham. That'd be terrific. Yes, please do. Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, to his attorney, I'm outlined. We had a conversation with the group, the components of this article. And in particular, if you look at Section Article 16, number two, I put the proposed new text in yellow, which is directly below the original text that was last before this board. Essentially, the change amounts to a difference between for commercial users, they would be allowed to use the gas-powered leaf blowers during the transition phase from May 31st, as you can see there, instead of June 15th. And then there's also some clarification in the next paragraph on the following page that I think was just consistent with what the board approved previously, but it's a little bit more clear, I think. In my view, I think the changes regarding the dates for commercial users during the phase out period are not substantive changes and are consistent with the board's direction to this office regarding what you wanted to see. So but I would defer to any questions or concerns about those changes. I don't I don't think that they changed what you voted on the last time I was here talking about this issue, but I'll leave that to the board to decide. Thank you, Mr. Hanukka, let's sorry. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. Anything else, Mr. Heim? Yes. So in addition to that, I just wanted to note that you'll see highlighted in your draft report the revolving funds. I just needed the updated numbers for the revolving funds. I will update those along with the board office. They're highlighted just to show what it looks like in the select board vote, but I haven't yet received the updated table. So as soon as I get the updated table, I will make sure that the figures for the balance ending in 2021 is reflected. And then finally, Article 77, you may recall, was the last part of a sort of trio of measures that the board approved with respect to Rodenticides in Arlington. I tried to take the proponents warrant articles and some of the materials they'd submitted to me previously and translate it into a resolution. It's fairly straightforward. It essentially urges the town to continue to develop its current work and to develop and implement an integrated pest management policy wherever possible for town owned properties as the board is aware. There are a bunch of different entities that own or manage town properties while most of the town properties are managed by the town manager. This resolution is essentially encouraging all Arlington municipal landowners, the school department, the town manager, conservation, parks and rec to use integrated pest management and not to use second generation anti-colleging. Rodenticides, which to my understanding, we are not using or not using unless it's absolutely the last resort as of now anyway. So if the board would like to vote to approve what we've put in front of you, that would cover Article 77, depending on how the board feels about it. The changes that we talked about to Article 16 and you should just know that will include some of the appendix materials that are referenced and update those revolving front tables. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Heim. And so do you recommend that we vote once, meaning on the whole report or that we vote three times based on the changes that you've made? I would say once in the well, the board can make whatever motion wants, but but I would say that voting once is is is sufficient for our purposes. And obviously, if there's any other tweaks or changes that members of the board would like to see made to the report, that's part of why we provided it to you to make sure that it reflects accurately to all the votes and comments that we previously submitted. Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. I just figured I'd help out, Mr. Mr. Heard, to whom I'm going to turn now for the motion and our comments. Mr. Heard. So just looking at this leaf below a language and I just again, I mean, I think we went through this last time and the language that's so now I'm reading this language that says during the transition period, May 31st to of twenty twenty two commercial users cannot use gas power leaf blowers during certain portions of the year. Is that what it's saying now? Because we've gone through this the last meeting and my understanding was until during the transition period, there's really no change in when they can use the gas power leaf blowers. Is that is that what the language is still saying? Mr. Chair, may I respond? Yes, please. Yeah, Mr. Mr. Heard, I believe there's a prohibition period with the restrictions that are outlined in Section A. So during the phase out, they would be permitted to use the gas power leaf blowers but subject to the restrictions that are listed in Section 2A. I think the big change that the proponents were asking us to make, which I don't think is a huge change, but it was regarding the the prohibition from May 31st to June 15th that that day change was the that's really the crux of what we changed there. So during the so say in twenty twenty two, once this gets enacted after June 15th, they cannot use the leaf blowers like in July, they can't use the leaf blowers. This is correct. So this is I mean, that's the part of the discussion that we had in the last meeting. And I was assured that that until twenty twenty five that there were no restrictions on the months. I just I mean, I have to change my vote on this one because I think that's too quick to as of June 15th. They have to figure out how to rework their businesses for the summer months. My understanding based on the discussion that we had at our last meeting was that during the phase out period that they could use the leaf blowers at any point. There weren't any blackout months. And I thought that's what was confirmed. And this seems to be pretty dramatically different than my understanding. So I mean, I'll listen to what my colleagues have to say. But I'm just saying that the language that I see here is pretty dramatically different than what I was understanding it from before. And maybe I was just misunderstanding. But that was the point of what I was trying to get out. And the last meeting when we discussed this was that I thought at the time was represented that there were no blackout months for the use of these. And that's what my original concern was that with the language that was originally proposed by the proponents. It was, you know, we're months away from landscapers having to to readjust how they do their work. And I mean, I just don't agree with it with the idea that they don't use them in the summer or they don't need them in the summer. They only use them during spring and fall cleanups. So this is I'm just saying this is pretty dramatically different from what I had understood this just at all last meeting. OK, thank you, Sir. Ms. Mohan. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You can hear me, right? Yes, thank you. Sorry, it doesn't say on my phone if I'm muted or not. I agree, Mr. Hart, it was my understanding at the last meeting. It was talking about transition and dates and commercial use. And it was 2023. Then it was agreed that it would run parallel to the Lexington proposal, which is 2025. And that is Mr. Hurd stated that that would give enough time for commercial landscapers or any commercial business that's using them time to transition. So if I could, through you, Mr. Chair, ask attorney Cunningham if we choose not to adopt the proposed language, which means that defaults back to what is before us in my correct that that's what the case would be. The date of 2023 gets changed to 2025 and commercial landscapers have until then. Mr. Cunningham. Hey, Mr. Chair, thank you, Ms. Mohan. I think that the original, my understanding of what the original discussion was from the proponents and what was before this board previously was that the dates of prohibition were designed to allow commercial users and residents, but commercial users on one last year to use gas powered leaf blowers during spring and fall cleanup. So that's what the May 31st stage versus June 15th. Originally, what I understood before the board with the board vote on originally was that they were going to prohibit the use of gas powered leaf blowers essentially during the summer season when commercial users and most people don't use them anyway. But that they would allow for during the transition phase for commercial users to use them up through June 15th was what we originally talked about. And then the proponents were the ones who reached out and asked to they thought they felt it was within the spirit with the board voted to move that back to May 31st. So commercial user, for instance, right now could continue to use a gas powered leaf blower up through May 31st to do their spring cleanup. And then again, after September 15th to conduct their fall cleanup. But if the board thinks that's if I didn't properly explain that I apologize last time or if that was unclear and that's my fault, we'll deal with that as the board sees fit. Thank you, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, please. I saw Mr. Heim's hand up, but I will. No, I'll go to Tony Heim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No problem. Thank you, Mr. Heim. I just wanted to make clear that when we if you look at the there's two paragraph twos so you can see what the original language and amendment proposed to the board would look like the use of gas powered leaf blowers prohibited between June 15th and September 15th, except in accordance with the transition in phase out schedule as set forth below. And then the phase out schedule is set forth below, which basically talks about commercial and municipal users transition period, and it highlights that during the transition period from May 31st, 2022 through March 15th to 2025, gas powered leaf blowers may be operated by commercial landscape companies and the town during the following times. So that was what we originally proposed to you. The major thing that was sort of changed is there was a little bit more detail put in basically a single bullet point. So just so you can compare and contrast the revised language with the original proposed amendment. So I just want to be clear that those two things are there for you to compare if it's useful. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Heim. Is it behind? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess with that understanding, I would my preference would be to not adopt the amendment by the proponents, which further limits the time out timeline posed in the bylaw. From June back to May, I'd like to stick with the original language and I'd be interested to hear from all my colleagues, including Mr. Heard, and I'd like to just state on the record, what I'm hearing is that commercial landscapers have until 2025 to ultimately be in conformance with the bylaw, but that the original language, and I'm just doing this from memory because I tried to print and I couldn't. Basically, the difference between the language and time of hours is that for homeowner residents, there are some Sunday hours and we are a little more gracious with residents by perhaps about two hours versus commercial landscapers. So I guess where I am right now is I'd like to stick with the original language with the understanding that the landscapers have until 2025 for the pental permit date for the transition. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. behind. So Mr. Helmuth. Yeah, thank you. Mr. Chair, through you, I'd like to ask if any of my colleagues, either of our legal counsel, are aware of the Lexington bylaw, which was not only passed, but affirmed by by the public and referendum. Did it also contain an immediate prohibition of gas-powered leaf blowers during the summer months outside of the cleanup season? So, well, one of our attorneys raised their hands for this one of Mr. Honeyham. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Chair, I couldn't unmute myself. I don't have it in front of me, Mr. Helmuth, but I believe it did. I think this is substantially similar to the language contained in the Lexington bylaw that was passed last fall and approved by their voters this spring. Thank you. Yeah, that's my recollection as well. And I thought that was my understanding of what we were doing. I think the ambiguity is just in stating the prohibition and then saying that there are exceptions. And I think maybe there's just some understandable confusion. It's good that we're having this discussion now, obviously, so that we know our own minds that there is a phase-out period in the transition period. But the transition period is really, if I'm understanding this correctly, from being able to use gaspider leaf blowers, but only outside the cleanup time, which I think the intent of that was when they're really most needed and used. And that they would need to use, if they used blowers at all in the summer months, that they would need to use electric ones. Is that kind of currently, whether or not we go with the amended language, the amended date, I should say? That's kind of what was originally before us in the last couple versions of this we saw for the last version. That's only just one version. Excuse me, was that a question? Yeah, yeah, I guess it's just kind of confirming my understanding that that's correct, that the change in the date being proposed now and the highlight doesn't really change the substance of this. Mr. Cunningham, they asked us a better way. I'm sorry, I mean, I used to be back in Zoom already. The other highlight that we have on the date change, is that adding a prohibition of gaspider leaf blowers during the summer months? Or was that already there? And what's the question? Is the date? So I think that was addressed to Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Chairman? Yes. Yes, that's correct, Mr. Helmut. That essentially sets back the clock two weeks, which I think the original language that the board saw did prohibit the use of gaspower leaf blowers during the summer months, but just had the summer starting on June 15th, instead of May 31st. Okay, you think that's helpful. That was much better than I tried to formulate it earlier on. Yeah, so I think that was my understanding as well. I think we may need to have a discussion about whether all of us are still there or not. I'm still, I think, basically comfortable with that, just because in the summer months the need for these devices is not as severe. And I think also my interest in this was making this as parallel with what is going to, what will be in effect in Lexington imminently upon AG review, because I think that has an industry-wide effect, many, not all, but there's certainly overlap in the contractors. And also know that the town of Arlington itself is requiring use of electric equipment anyway. So I guess I'm somewhat less concerned because of all that, but certainly respectful of my colleagues for the views. And Mr. Chair, I think right now we're discussing leaf blowers. I just wanted to, if we're going to do this kind of all in one vote, and that may change, I had one small addition to another article. I just want to kind of bookmark. I can either do that one now or we'll kind of hold off if we want to kind of keep talking about this one. Yeah. So if we could hold off, Mr. you know, I'd appreciate that. And I saw Mr. Himes and go out and do it. Do you still want to say something, Mr. Himes? Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify. And again, I think that this is a healthy thing, obviously the way that we had envisioned the vote created some competing interpretations of it. So that's part of I think why the proponents wanted us to come back with a different language. And I think it's part of why members of the board are expressing some concern about what was voted on. But I do want to make it clear and we don't, Arlington certainly doesn't have to do what Lexington does at all. But what Lexington did has already been approved by the Attorney General's office. And it essentially restricts use of gas power leaf blowers from March 15th to May 31st. And again, from September 15th to December 30th. And that is effective May 31st, 2022. So that is the Lexington, I think, I think where there's a little bit of disconnect is that there may be some disconnect on whether or not Arlington was following the Lexington model or not. So obviously this is up to the board. And I apologize for having it be a little bit ambiguous as to what was being captured by the first vote in common. Thank you. Mr. Chair, may I? Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Attorney, that's very helpful. I think, did you mean to say for Lexington, and I realized that you were town council for Arlington and not Lexington? So that their prohibition starts in March or in May for the front of that season. Their prohibition starts, goes from March 15th to May 31st and September 15th to December 30th, is my understanding. And it's effective May 31st, which is a rule. Okay, I see. So it means that this summer it would not apply. It would also be true for any action. Arlington has to take because obviously the Attorney General's office won't render a decision until September. So the summer prohibition were to stand in a town meeting were to approve that. It couldn't apply this summer anyway. So there would be at least be a year if for a company that wanted to use this during the summer period, they would have at least a year to provide for that equipment. Correct. Because of the cycle. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, may I? Yes, just please. Correct. It would not apply until it was approved by the Attorney General's office. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's all my comments and questions on this article. So if we can have a chance to return to the other instead, it would be great. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Helmuth. So back to you, Mr. Heard. I mean, I guess I'll apologize for just not understanding the language. I thought my question was clear at the last meeting, but apparently I wasn't. And my question was is that it was to confirm that there was no blackout months until the 2025. And I must not have asked it correctly because we got an affirmative answer at that time. So it is what it is. We already voted on it. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel over it. I think having this, regardless of the Attorney General's timeframe, I think if Tom Meading passes this, it's going to be a nightmare for the Arlington Police Department who are going to get a lot of calls over the summer because which residents really know when the Attorney General approves a bylaw amendment. I think a lot of residents are going to be calling on contractors because they know that it was passed at Tom Meading. So it's my fault for not understanding. I'll take the heat for that and move on, I guess. I just mean just for the sake of thoroughness, I want to circle back to Mrs. Mohan. You haven't raised your hand. Do you want to add any more? No, thank you, Mr. Jed. Just that I think ultimately when we get to Tom Meading, I'm guessing there's going to be a few substitute motions that speak to different possibilities. So I agree with Mr. Herb's comments, but I also agree with my colleagues' sentiments to get this before Tom Meading and have the very active and lively discussion and debate that we'll have and see what we end up with in the end. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mrs. Mohan. So in continuing our discussion about the draft final report, Mr. Herb, I'm sorry. I got off to a bad start in the last meeting. I think this might persist. I consider that an honor and an upgrade personally, referred to as Mr. Herb, one of our more thoughtful and collegial members. I just want to say on the last item, I think the confusion is just baked right in. It's not our attorney's fault at all. I think that the complicated way of approaching this engenders that confusion. I agree with Mrs. Mohan. Ultimately, this is for Tom Meading to sort out and I'm also comfortable. I mean, I want my colleagues to feel like they know what they're running on and everything, but I think if we have consensus to get this done and let Tom Meading sort it out, and I agree that there's probably going to be some suggestions for some changes and tweaks to this, let the action be there. These are really small things, but on the resolution for the IPM strategy and thank you very much to our attorneys for writing that up and all the other work. They had a lot of writing to do this year, much more than usual and they did a fine job. Because IPM integrated pest management is not really the same as organic pest control or farming, which is something I know more of myself, I might suggest striking the word organic and I might further suggest striking the word natural, simply because it doesn't have any legal meaning as far as I'm concerned in agriculture and in these practices and that because IPM has a defined meaning by standards in industry, I think that might stand on its own, just fine to just go with that. The other thing and that's just a suggestion is back on article 19 on the proposal for Maliazzi Boulevard and I cleared this with Mr. Herd privately. I'd like to request the addition of the minority viewpoint on the boat just as follows after the majority's position is explained saying the minority believes that the novel nature of this proposal warrants a variance from past practice. So I'd like to suggest that if my colleagues are comfortable with that. So then I will see what was the rotation here. I'll go to Mr. Herd, you know, see how you feel about Mr. Helmets. Well, he consulted. I guess you're fine with it. I'm all good with everything Mr. Helmets said. Okay. All right. Ms. Mohan. I must have bad reception. I have to keep getting 650 times. I guess I'll agree with both my colleagues, Herd, I mean Helmets, and fine with that. And I guess on article 16, the leaf blower for an article, my, if I made a motion, well, I'd like to make a motion and then have my colleagues discuss it. Excuse me. Move approval subject to the amendments by our council, Mr. Helmets. Probably Mr. Helmets now making him an attorney. There we go. As well as an article 16, just because it seems like every time you change it, there's more confusion. I'd like to stick with the original language that we discussed. Again, recognize and it'll probably get changed to town meeting. So I'd like to move approval of the 2022 select board report to town meeting as amended by attorney Heim and Cunningham with the exception of article 16. I'm not adopting that language right now, to keep it the way it was that we discussed last week. As well as the amendment by Mr. Helmets, and or I would be over to if our chair or anyone else has some changes, but I'd like to put that motion on the table. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Mohan. Second. Thank you, Mr. Herd. Any comments, Mr. Helmets? Sounds good to me. Thank you very much. Yes, well, you know, the great part about this one is that my colleagues have pretty much set everything. And so I've taken it all in. I really have nothing to add to the discussion. I see where everyone is coming from, with the discussion on the leaf brawlers and with the recommended amendment to the resolution regarding striking organic, meaning natural. I'm blanking out on the last one. Mr. Helmets, what was that? That was adding the minority point of view on the article 19. Yeah, definitely, definitely. We definitely favor that. So with the motion by Mrs. Mohan, and the second by Mr. Herd. Mr. Heim, can you take the roll call? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to members of the board for your patience and understanding as we try to cultivate these votes together. Mr. Herd. Yes. Mr. Helmets. Yes. This is Mohan. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Dickens. Yes. It's a four zero. Thank you. Thank you. And now we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. Item number five, which is the discussion in pension vote authorization of virtual town meeting. We will hear from town moderator, Mr. Cristiana. Hi, Mr. Chair and select board. Thanks for having me here tonight. Greg Cristiana, town moderator. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak with the select board tonight and my capacity as town moderator. I'd like to summarize how I arrived at my decision to request a remote meeting. I'm then happy to take any questions that you might have. Last week I consulted with the town manager, town council and the director of health and human services and others about our options for how to convene town meeting this year. Some options that we discussed included town hall, other large indoor venues like one of the gyms at the Arlington High School, the Arlington High School football field, and remote participation using the virtual town meeting platform that we've used twice during the pandemic. Town council can speak to the legal criterion for me as moderator to make a request to the select board for town meeting to be held remotely, but to summarize, I would have to determine that it's not possible to safely assemble in person for town meeting. And that's my determination based on the conversations that I had last week based on increasing COVID cases locally and leading indicators that are trending in the wrong direction, lack of indoor spaces large enough to allow sufficient distancing and poor ventilation at town hall, which is difficult to remedy. I've asked Ms. Bonjorno, the director of health and human services to attend tonight to weigh in on the input that she gave me in our meetings last week so that you can hear her insights unfiltered. I ask that you approve my request so that we can continue planning for virtual town meeting to provide a safe venue for all participants in this very fluid and unpredictable situation. I'm happy to take any questions that you might have. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Moderator. So are you saying that you would like for us to hear from Ms. Bonjorno now or just if we have questions? That's up to you. Okay. Well, I would say if we have questions and then we will bring her in. If she wants to speak, maybe she can signal that in the chat and the town manager can let us know if that's the case. We'll be happy to bring her in. So I will start with Ms. Mohan. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could, I would like to ask the health and human services director to provide an explanation of what she also explained to our town moderator and that am I correct that while we considered alternate sites such as the gymnasiums at the high school, that's really not available to us for the special and regular town meeting. And then my second question would be through the chair, either through the chair, through the chair, either to the town moderator and or town council, just because I've gotten some questions on it. There has been discussion that did the board vote with the moderator, which I am going to do for the 2022 regular and special town meeting if there is one to be conducted remotely. There has been discussion that the first night of town meeting, that town meeting members would need to take a vote whether to support with that, agree with that. And if they choose not to, then how do we proceed from there? So I'd like to hear from Ms. Van Journal. I'd like everybody else to ruminate on my question. A, is that something that town meeting members will take up as the first order of business? If so, if there is a vote not to do this remotely, how we proceed from there, is there a default that even if there is a vote to come back to town hall since it's not safe to do that, does that mean the default is we still have to be remote anyway? So I guess maybe if it's okay with you, Mr. Chair, to hear from Ms. Van Journal and then whomever you want to direct that second part of question to, and I apologize if it's confusing, so because I'm a little confused and I'd like to get clarity. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Van Journal. Sure, thank you. So I met with the new town moderator, the town manager and town council last week to inform them that the cases that we're seeing here in town, both the documented cases that we're seeing, the lab reported cases through the state as well as the sewage data that we review daily shows that there's an increase in cases in this region. So we are seeing an increase in COVID. So I think that's the information I did provide to the town moderator to help inform his decision on whether or not to move forward with the in-person versus remote town meeting. So that's really all I wanted to, I don't know if Adam wanted to expand on that. So Mr. Manager, Mr. Chapterley, does your hand go up? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to be responsive to the other part of Ms. Mahan's question about the red gym and we did inquire about both the gym and what would be the new auditorium. The new auditorium's audio visual equipment won't be ready in time for town meeting and the red gym unfortunately has a series of volleyball games that conflicted with town meeting dates. The athletic director and the superintendent were willing to think about rescheduling one game or two, but rescheduling a whole series of games was too far a bridge to cross to be able to access the red gym. Thank you, Mr. Manager. So Mr. Heim, did you want to refer to the question regarding what happens in if town meeting members do not want to vote not to do a BTM? Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a good question, an important question. So if the board were to agree with the moderator that town meeting should be conducted virtually or remotely, the first order of business that would happen. And by the way, there are other procedure requirements. The board would issue a notice, there are certain things the town clerk would do. We have to make sure that it's people within members of the public who are not town meeting members who want to watch town meeting. They send a note to the moderator 48 hours before town meeting begins. We have to be able to make sure we give them access to follow along. We always make sure that it's broadcast on ACMI, all that kind of stuff. But the first order of business at the town meeting will be to take a vote of those members present about whether or not they will essentially agree to conduct town meeting virtually if they do agree that the meeting proceeds. They don't agree there are really two options. One option is to reconvene town meeting in a physical location, which is to say that because the warrant was initially noticed and we did this with intent to make sure that town meeting had maximum flexibility, because the warrant does provide a location, and the town meeting could vote to essentially begin its deliberations at town hall despite the risks that have been stated by the moderator and presumably the select board if we're getting to this point. The other option is essentially to dissolve town meeting and to post town meeting at a new location. The most likely scenario in that event, if it doesn't seem safe to proceed with town meeting, would be a version of town meeting that's somewhat similar to what we did in 2020, which is essentially a town meeting that's highly compact and condensed on the football field and takes care of the essential business that needs to be concluded before June 30. So those are the two options. One would be to sort of forge ahead despite the assessment of risk being apprised to town meeting members. And the other option would essentially be to dissolve the town meeting and re-notice it for some location like the football field for what would probably have to be a highly truncated version of town meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Heim. So, Mr. Heim, are you satisfied? Yes, I am. And I'd like to make a motion to move approval of the request of town moderator to conduct the regular and special 2022 town meeting through VTM virtually. Thank you, Mr. Mohan. Mr. Heim? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Oh, boy, here. No, it's my turn. Perhaps that was deserved, if unintentional. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations, Mr. Moderator, on your election. And welcome to the big chair. This is where it gets real. I'd like to second the motion from a colleague, Mrs. Mohan. This is a hard decision. I don't think it's a decision anyone takes any pleasure in making. I like town meeting in person a lot. And I think that the reason I support this is just from the information that our Health and Human Services Chair just provided. And then that is in the moderator that the trends are going up. And, you know, I think that just you don't have to be a scientist to just notice and observe that when the wastewater data, when the seven-day weighted average of positivity rises and the case reports rise and all those things are happening right now, that those have preceded surges. And we know from other parts of the world and other parts, you know, cities, Philadelphia, just reinstated its mask main date that it seems to me, it's a guessing game. None of us know for sure what will happen, including the experts, but that it seems likely that in two or three weeks, it's going to be more clear that this was a good call. You know, we don't know. We could find in two or three weeks that things are about the same. And then, you know, I think our problem is that we have to make a decision now because there's preparations to make it. It's going to be tight as it is, so we don't have the luxury of waiting to find out. And my concern is participation. I think even though we're very fortunate that we have more treatments for COVID and that many infections are not serious, that people still have to quarantine. So if we have, you know, a number of town meeting members, even a modest number who can't attend in person because they're quarantined, even if they're not in any serious danger, I have concerns about that just from a democratic participation point of view. When we have the option, when the state legislature has provided us the option to meet remotely while we can. So, you know, I wouldn't say my agreement is reluctant, I think only with regard to the circumstances. I want to make it clear that I don't love this idea. I'm not sure anybody on the screen does. So that's just kind of my thinking and, you know, I just urge all of the town meeting members will absolutely have the voice. There's a legal reason why they need to make this decision. But whatever the decision they do, you know, I hope that we can unite around our moderator and each other and, you know, get through this hopefully for the last time as best we can and get it back to a more even keel if the pandemic receives once again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Helmets. Mr. Heim, I'm sorry, Angela. I don't want to interrupt members of the board first. I just wanted to note that if the board was warm to it, there was a second piece that I was hoping I could recommend respectfully that we add on to the motion regarding a notice to be issued by the board. Okay. All right. I understand. So it seems kind of, what seems like it's just a detail that doesn't really affect me, the tenor of the conversation. So we'll come back to that. So Mr. Heard. Well, so I won't talk too long, I guess, because I can see where the board's voting, but I mean, I'm just, I'm hard on voting to approve the remote town meeting. I think the past couple of years it's just been a nightmare. I think a lot of people have left town meeting because of the experience they've had. I think it takes longer. And I mean, I'm never going to be the one that tells someone not to, if they are, have a fear of the virus, not to tell them that they're wrong or kind of push them in somewhere that they're not comfortable with. But I think we're two years into this. I think, you know, at the beginning we always said follow the science. And when we see an uptake, unless I'm misreading these figures that I'm getting online, the uptake is about just under 2% of positivity rate to now. It's 3% of positivity rates or 3% of people tested and tested positive. There's 240 hospitalizations, which right now, which I calculated to be .00036 of the population. I mean, I just think around us people are getting back to life. I've been to Bruins games. I've been to high school hockey games. The kids, there was similar arguments when we're taking the mass off the kids and I haven't seen any. As far as I know from my kids school and people that I know that there hasn't been any outbreaks. For me, I would just much prefer the human interaction of being in person with somebody. And I think we can figure out a way to make people comfortable. People can, they can be areas of town meeting where people are comfortable that they can sit closer to each other than the seats for people that have more fear or more hesitation about being in a public place near each other. People can wear a mask if they want to. So I mean, for me, I just, the idea of enduring another full town meeting through the virtual platform is just too overwhelming for me to vote to support it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Heard. So, Mr. Heim, I think now it's time to entertain that detail modification amendment to the motion. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Diggins. It's not an amendment. It's as much as a, if the board is inclined to move towards authorizing remote, meaning that the board would also approve that its office in consultation with the legal department would issue a notice regarding the change of venue from in person to a virtual town meeting consistent with Chapter 22, the acts of 2022. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So it doesn't affect the motion. So this is just a point of knowledge, a point of information. I'm just asking that the board, if the board approves, then it also authorize and direct your office to send a notice to all town meeting members that basically it's attested to by the clerk and includes the moderator's letter. Thank you, sir. Gotcha. I understand. Thank you. Thanks for the repetition of it. Well, I guess since Mr. Helm has said everyone here would prefer in person, I feel that I need to come out and say, not me. So if I let that sit, then people go, yeah, when we also wanted it to be in person because that's preference. I can make arguments for what I think BTM is better. One of them is the fact that we have more attendance regardless of how people feel about it, at least they're there and they're voting 20% more. And I hesitate to talk about the science, but it's not really clear that we are getting good numbers on the infection rate. And so I'm a little hesitant to say that things aren't worse than they looked from the numbers. But as Mr. Helm has said though, if people test positive, then they're out. They're not going to be allowed in the meeting. And if the meeting is only in person, then they're out of town meeting. And given that we do have an alternative meeting that will allow them to participate fully in the process, that'll be the reason that I'll vote for it in regards to how I feel personally about town meeting. Because I will defer me to the way the majority wants to meet as I will on this board to meet up. And so I'm not going to dictate me and how we meet. It's really going to be a matter of how most of us want to meet. But if there's a safety issue involved, as I said repeatedly, I'm going to be conservative about that. So that's it for me. And I see Mr. Chritianna's hand back up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to add that there are plenty of reasons for preferring in person, plenty of reasons for preferring remote, for convenience, like you mentioned. I just wanted to be clear that my decision was based on satisfying the legal criteria and answering that question as far as being able to safely assemble. But there's plenty of other reasons to prefer one format versus the other. But that did not really factor into my decision here. Thank you for making that clear. I appreciate that. Mr. Helmeth? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to offer my apology for my rhetorical excess. It is dangerous to say nobody in this room sees this differently because of course people do. And I should have realized that and I did not mean to try to box you in, Mr. Chair. I respect your points of view and your preferences. And in fact, something I want to say is I was an early aider and a better to virtual town meeting, as most of you know, and I think the platform does work. And I think it is democratic. And I like the participation that we've seen. It is long and it's hard. Somehow it's long and hard to sit in your own chair than it is the same amount of time at town meeting, it just is. Some of us like the social connection. But it's not bad. And I think that we've seen that being town meeting members, even those for whom the technology is not native and comfortable, have been able to participate and have a full voice. So I want the residents in town to understand, I don't think this is the second best thing. I mean, it's not my personal preference. And I think I hear that from some of my colleagues that it's more enjoyable and a better experience for some people, for many people in person. I think that the virtual town meeting environment as it's set up, we're better at it now, we're practiced at it. And I have confidence having started working kind of in a preliminary fashion with our moderator and understanding the system that he will guide us and lead us in a way to have a good experience. And it won't be as happy as experiences for many people, including some of my colleagues. But I think that we can get it done. And I just wanted to add those thoughts and my appreciation to all of you for a good discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Helmets. I mean, so I think, well, Mr. Christiana, hand back up. Sorry, just very briefly, I just wanted to point out to Mr. Helmets point that in discussions about planning for this year's time meeting, because obviously we've had to get started with the planning for virtual already, because there wouldn't be time to wait for the decision side by the select board. So we speculate they have been moving forward with planning. And I've been looking to make changes to some of how we're conducting a virtual time meeting to give a better feel than we might have gotten in past years, based on kind of the experience that we've had with the last two virtual town meetings. For instance, being able to have participants who are able to show their videos if they choose to opt into that so we could actually see people as their participants, like time meeting members, as they're speaking, as opposed to just like the, you know, a static image of them. So hopefully those sorts of effort will help also optimizations in kind of transitions between speakers and how things like the Consent Agenda are handled. So it has been pretty bumpy the last two times because we're doing it new. And so we have a lot of material to learn from. And I've been spending a lot of time studying how things have gone, kind of doing like my own sort of postmortem on the last two virtual time meetings to try to learn from those so we can kind of smooth out a lot of rough edges, which hopefully helped out with the experience. I hope that's effective. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Christiana. Mr. Hyde. I'm sorry to keep interrupting the board's discourse. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to note just for the public's edification, it's in the moderator's letter. The proposal is to have the town meeting on a combination of the ZeePato platform. It's the same platform that we used last year alongside essentially the Zoom software. So it would be identical to the way that previous, I shouldn't say identical, should be very similar to the way that previous virtual town meetings were conducted. And it's just important to make that known for folks. It's in the moderator's letter. It'll be as part of the notice as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hyde. And so I'm not seeing any desire for any more discussion on emotion means to authorize a virtual town meeting made by Mrs. Mohan and seconded by Mr. Helmuth and Mr. Hyde. Can you take a vote? Take the roll call. Mr. Hurd. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. Mrs. Mohan. Yeah. Mr. Diggins. Yes. It's a 3-1 vote. Mr. DeCorsi was non-president. Thank you, Mr. Hyde. And once again, the psych board office will do as you suggested or are you directed being a few minutes ago. So thank you, Mr. Christiana. And I think at this point we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is discussion of a potential date for virtual town date. No, just out date. So Mr. Hurd. Yep, let me pull it up. I mean, this is really one of only two days that it can be. It's whatever the board prefers, but it is sort in September. It'll be Saturday. I'm sure I'm in the right spot here. All right. So again, it would either be the 17th or the 24th. My preference is the 17th just because it's the third Saturday in September, which I think is generally when we schedule town date. So I put that to the board to have town day on September 17, 2022. Hopefully this should be an easier discussion. I think so. So then you put that to the board as a motion? Um, I guess, yeah, I'll move that we have our town day, annual town day on September 17, 2022. All right. And Ms. Mahan. Can someone, these are the chair, Mr. Hurd, or someone else, just remind me when Rasha Shana and Yam Kapoor is? Well, Ms. Mahan, I don't know the dates, you know, exactly, but I do know that that those dates mean both dates are completely clear of that period because when we were having early discussions about this, I looked to see if there would be any conflict with either those dates or the range between those days. And there was no conflict between the 17th and the 24th. But I think in this time period, Mr. Chaffin Lane has gotten the answer. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rasha Shana begins on Monday, September 26. And I'm not seeing, and Yam Kapoor begins on Wednesday, October 5. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll second Mr. Hurd's motion. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mahan. Mr. Talbot. Thank you to Mr. Hurd for seizing the initiative and for your work. And happy to support this. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. And yeah, Mr. Hurd. And I was just going to say another reason to not do the 24th is I don't want to take the thunder away from your birthday, Mr. Helmuth. It's very kind of you, Mr. Hurd. Well, what would be better than having talent day on your birthday? I can think of some things that would be better than that. Oh, man. I mean, well, not this talent day. I mean, this talent day is going to be something else. So you want to see it. We don't know what that something else is going to be, but it's going to be worth seeing. So yeah, I'm looking forward to it. It is going to be something else. Even Mr. Hurd and I will figure it out. And yeah, let's see what world we're in being come the end of September. Man, I mean, things just have a way of changing almost like every 30 days here in a different world. So so so I am yeah, I'll be happy to support this. I mean, so on a motion to have Town Day on September 17 by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Han, Mr. Han. Mr. Hurd. Yes, Mr. Helmuth. Yes, Mrs. Mohan. Yes, thank you. Mr. DeCorsi. I mean, Jesus, Mr. Diggins. Sorry. No problem. So now I'm not I'm wiser. Yes, definitely. Pages. So so I think we're we're moving on to item number seven, correspondence received. And that would be petition, the petition signatures in support of the Mass Ave Vision Zero campaign in Arlington. It was a letter submitted by Phil Goff, Mr. Goff and Mr. Gibson, co-chairs of everywhere Arlington, liberal streets coalition. And so I will recommend that that be taken up by the town manager. And I would like to work with him in consulting with the petitioners. And anyone else that is interested in the issue, the issues are raised. Hoover, refer this to the town manager. Second that. Thank you. And so I don't need to take a vote on this, right? I do. Okay, thank you. So so so I was moved by by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Helmuth. Mr. Han. Mr. Hurd. Yes, Mr. Helmuth. Yes. Mr. Han. Yeah, Mr. Diggins. Yes. Thank you. So I think this is going to be it for the meeting because I didn't put new business on the agenda. Can we can we do that anyways, Mr. Mr. Han? Yes, as long as there's not a deliberation taking place. All right. So so great. So then let's start with Mr. Helmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No new business. Mr. Hurd. No new business. This is behind. Yes, very briefly. And it'll save myself a call to the manager. Could I through you, Mr. Chair, or make the request to you to oversee if the town manager, I think at the last meeting or the meeting before that under new business. So briefly about Congresswoman Clark's visit to I guess to Arlington, as well as the designation of some federal opera funds. And I believe he stated that the town of Arlington would sort of be the overseer auditor of those funds. So my request would be if the board could be provided with a couple of paragraphs of exactly all the information we need to know because I do see that one of our colleagues in Lexington has submitted a request on behalf of I believe it might, but it might not apply to the money that the Congresswoman has gotten for federal opera funding for their lease flowing. That may be something separate. So I'd like an explanation so that we all know what these funds are. I just want to register that I think it was a major oversight. I had spoken with the Congresswoman's office that I did let them know the board was not aware that Congresswoman Clark was coming to Arlington. So it wasn't a collect board sort of snub. And I'd like to make sure that that doesn't happen in the future. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Mahan. So potential new business is that we, I know that the previous chair had brought up that we might look at some articles made that the development board wanted us to chime in on me. And so that wasn't on today's agenda, but I am considering putting that on the agenda for for the 20th. And then we will make it won't be in our report me, but we will somehow communicate in what we determine, you know, at that meeting to tell meeting. So that's at this point I see Mr. Heim not in his head approving approving. So, okay, you know, so yeah, Mr. Mr. Helmets. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm at the chair discretion. Oftentimes when new business we invite the Tom Adger if he hasn't has any new business to offer. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Helmets. No, I don't have any new business tonight, but thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you. And so I think we're ready for a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Mr. Herd, second. Mr. Helmets. Thank you, Mr. Helmets. So Mr. Heim. Mr. Herd. Yes. Mr. Helmets. Yes. This is Von. Yeah. Mr. Diggins. Yes. Mr. Adams. Good night. Thanks, everybody. Thank you.