 Welcome. I am calling the order of this meeting of the Arlington Select Board on Monday, February 27, 2023. I'm Select Board Chair Leonard Diggins coming to you perhaps for the last time from Select Board Chair Command Central. Because I plan on returning to the chambers next month's meeting, next meeting. And I'll now confirm that all members and persons, and since it's been on the agenda, a president can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Affirmative. Yes. Yes. Yes. Here. Here. Here. Tonight's meeting of the Arlington Select Board is being conducted in a hybrid format consistent with Chapter 107 of the Act of 2022, signed as a law on July 17, 2022, which further extends certain COVID-19 measures regarding remote participation until March 31, 2023. Before we begin, please note the following. First, this meeting is being conducted via Zoom, it's being recorded, and it's also being simultaneously broadcast on ACMI. Second, 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. Third, all participants are advised that people may be listening that do not provide comment, and those persons are not required to identify themselves. Both Zoom participants and persons watching on ACMI can follow the post-agenda materials also found on the town's website using the notes and gender platforms. And finally, each vote tonight will be taken by roll call. It's a packed agenda, but we're going to do our best to get it all done by 11 o'clock because we have agreed to end our meetings by that hour. The first item on the agenda is an update on the town manager search process. So can we bring in Mr. Lynch? Good evening. So, colleagues, I think you have gotten a memo from Bernie, and so Bernie's just going to give a quick little summary of it, and then we'll ask the town council to give us some further words. Mr. Lynch. Okay. Well, thank you for, thank you for having me. I wish I could be there with you tonight. But I have, the reasons we are all doing this by Zoom has affected me now, so I'm here isolated. But I did want to give you an update based off on the work of the screening committee over the last couple of months regarding the town manager search. Just to give an update to the board and to the public that's watching exactly how this process has proceeded. You know, you may recall that was back in late November that we actually went out into the market. We've been working with the board and with the department heads and members of the community, leading up to that to try to identify the qualities that we were looking for in a town manager and the issues that are faced in the town of Arlington. With all of that in hand, we developed a position statement, a position profile that we utilize to go out and find candidates for the town. The board approved that and we began the real process at the beginning of December. And in my letter, I indicate the process that we use to go out and find those candidates. Honestly, we posted a number of different locations that people that are interested in being a town manager would look to the Massachusetts Municipal Association, the International City and County Management Association, which covers the entire nation. We have a leading government organization, which is a relatively new component in the municipal world, but one that hopefully be successful in bringing more women into the municipal management market. The Boston chapter of the National Forum for Black Public Administrators, engaging local government leaders and again a relatively new organization of younger, more diverse individuals interested in working in local government. We heard from the board and we heard from members of the community to asking us to look beyond the traditional candidates. We did post the position in the Massachusetts nonprofit network. We also reached out to various public administration programs across the Commonwealth, which again represent not just people interested in working in local government but people that have had an interest in working in local forms of government or other levels of government, as well as the nonprofit sector. In addition to that, we utilize a contact database of over 300 individuals that we're familiar with, most of members of the Massachusetts Municipal Management Association, the town managers, town administrators, and assistants across the Commonwealth. We provided them with notice of this position through contact through our database, as well as another number of other people that have signed on to be notified of this type of position as they become available here in the Commonwealth. By doing that, we did active recruiting. We went out, we talked to about two dozen people that we thought would be good candidates. A number of those people did in fact make the decision to apply for the position, of course a number of them chose not to as well for a variety of reasons. But at the end of it all, we felt that we had a good pool. We had 20 people that actually applied for the position, which is about consistent with what we were seeing most of these searches that we've been doing over the last several months. Obviously, we've been doing this for about eight years now, searching for town managers, town administrators across the state. But I pulled up some numbers in preparation for tonight's meeting looking to see exactly what we had in other communities that are nearby that we've done within the last few months. And Arlington's numbers are relatively similar to what those other communities had found. I thought we had a strong pool. I think the screening committee felt that we had a good pool of candidates. I had identified up to 12 individuals that might be considered good candidates for interviews. There were a number of those candidates that had backgrounds that the committee was very interested in. And there were some others that they were less interested in with additional discussion and research. But we moved forward. We interviewed six candidates for the position. And the interviews took place over two days. In the letter that I've sent you, I've provided you with a little summary of the types of issues that we discussed with the candidates regarding their style, regarding their specific skills, regarding their ability to build relationships within the community and outside of the community and how they would work with the board. And we put all of the candidates through an exercise where they provided us with a presentation, both written form as well as an oral presentation as to how they would move forward on a development of a strategic plan to deal with the development issues facing the town of Arlington. I think the committee, and I know I felt good about the candidates that we had to bring forward to you. We'd identified four candidates for advancement to the board. And, you know, giving them notice that they had been selected and that we were moving forward to bring their name to the board tonight, actually, we had anticipated that this would be the night. Over the course of a period of time, three of those members, three of the candidates that we had selected, for one reason or another, made the decision to actually withdraw from the process. It stayed, it's for a variety of reasons that they have given me. And, but generally it's, they just didn't feel that this was the right time for them to be looking at the Arlington position, given their current, their current positions in local government. And so the situation that we now find ourselves in is that we have one candidate remaining that, and this questions as to how that should be handled, given the open meeting law and the manner in which the screening committee operates under that open meeting law. And, you know, we need to decide or the board needs to decide how they want to proceed. And I've had some discussions with council, and I know that council is prepared to discuss this matter with you tonight. And we can look at, look at these options. Thank you, Mr Lynch. And so I'll turn it over now. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just to reiterate one piece of this, the process is sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, the screening committee is required to recommend more than one candidate, but on the other, the privacy interests of candidates who wish to withdraw from consideration are well protected in the law. In short, the screening committee did its job developing four recommended candidates, but it cannot publicly identify three of them, leaving us with only one public recommendation. This office did reach out to the division of open government, which does not have a precedent for this exact situation, and our options are essentially twofold. One option is to reopen the search in a different manner without the screening committee. There's a number of different permutations for how you can do that, but a screening committee isn't required. And obviously, some information has been gleaned from the efforts, the fantastic efforts of the screening committee to date. That would help potentially steer it in a different direction without the screening committee. A second is to formally write the division of open government, describing our circumstance and seeking any comment or concern that they have such that the board can proceed with confidence that it's done everything it can before utilizing a single public recommendation of the screening committee. That might involve a disclosure for in-camera review of the folks who were recommended, such that the public and the division of open government can have confidence that those recommendations were in fact made and that it's beyond our control that folks withdrew from consideration. But again, I want to make one thing clear. I can't promise an outcome from that particular process because I have not seen nor is the division of open government presently aware of an exact precedent for that circumstance. Thank you, Simon. I just want to make it clear. I'm not expecting a decision tonight. I know this is a lot. So we can discuss. We don't have to make a decision one way or another tonight. We'll just have it on the agenda for our next meeting and we can discuss the next meeting and decide to make a decision or not in that next meeting. So at this point, I will look forward to questions, comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lynch and Attorney Heim for the background information. And as I understand it, from the memo and from the presentation tonight, in understanding the law, Attorney Heim has laid out to us previously, the search committee had the four individuals accepted going forward. At the moment the search committee selected their four candidates, their job was essentially done. And at that point they handed the names over to Mr. Lynch to contact the candidates. Is that accurate? Yes. Okay. All right. And I understand the need for confidentiality and I did have a brief discussion today with Attorney Heim about some different scenarios. Clearly, had there been only one name that came out of the process, there would be a problem. I view it and I've been looking forward to hearing from my colleagues, but where there was four names selected and there's an opportunity to see comment from the division of open government. I'd almost be inclined to do that because we laid out this process. There was an interview process. There was a selection process. And now we're at that point where you're balancing the privacy rights of the individuals, whether or not they want to go forward or not, with the need to conduct final interviews in open session. And it just seems to me that where the committee had done their work and at that point they had made their selections. I'm comfortable with the work that they did. We entrusted them to do that work and I'd look for a comment from the division of open government because the one thing that does concern me is if we just simply went forward and then we were ordered later to release the three other names that might be unfortunate if there was some sort of violation. But I think, to me, I would, we can think about this, but I'd be inclined to seek that comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with my colleague, Mr. DeCorsi, on everything that he stated in terms of the process and how he got here and where we are. I just have a couple of questions. And since this really hasn't been done before, at least not in my memory, we've been in a situation, a position like this. So if I could, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Town Council, if possible, recognizing we've never had to do this before so we don't have any anecdotal history to fall back on. But if the board so chose, as Mr. DeCorsi stated, which I agree with, to contact the division of open government, do you have a guesstimate? If it's okay if you didn't, if you don't, in terms of once we get the necessary notification to the division of open government, what a sort of turnaround would be? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mohan. It's an excellent question, and unfortunately I don't. So if it was a complaint, there would be a more sort of structured timeline for our response and then to issue a decision. This would essentially be describing a situation to them, asking for any comment that they have on it so that we could try to be as transparent with both them and the public. My experience of the division of open government has been very good about being responsive to community's needs, but I couldn't promise the time. Okay. What I'd like to do, but I want to hear from all of my colleagues on the board, is I'd like to move forward with, unless there's something else that I'll agree to, right now, notifying the division of open government, outlining the process. I understand from town council's remarks, the other three candidates who are semi-finalists and we're going to be finalists will have their names not redacted, but in camera, meaning in chambers only. And we don't know if that situation, or do we know that that will be the case moving forward, or because this hasn't been done before, we may have to unredact those names and make them public. If I could ask Attorney Hymn that. I'll give it some thought, Mr. Mohan, but I think what my initial instinct would be would be to provide redacted versions, identifying them as candidates one, two, three and four. And then if the division seeks that information, just so they're not carrying the burden of having that information, having to redact it themselves or something like that. If they seek that information saying, I'll give you the identities of these folks, but I would want to proceed with the utmost caution with trying to make sure that we protect the privacy interests as outlined in the law of persons who are seeking the job. But trying to make it clear, like, here's the recommendations, here were the votes, here's the process and how they came to these four folks so that it's not, so there's no question that four folks were presented. I'm not sure that they actually necessarily care exactly who those four folks were, if that makes sense. So I'll probably try that way first and then say, if you'd like further information, thank you for translating that for their internal review only. I think it would be appropriate to provide it to a government agency charged with making sure that local government is transparent. Okay, and I appreciate that because I want to, as we all do, treat everybody fairly in terms of whatever their reasons, and I don't know what they are. And if I need to know in the future, I will, but I'm not asking. I also want to respect the fact that they're professionals from either another municipality or perhaps a village or, I'm saying for people outside of Massachusetts, you know, it's called village or something else. So, but I'd like to hear from Mr. Hurd and Mr. Halmuth and then the chair, I guess sort of as a wrap up, but I'd like to proceed forward that we notify the division of open government. And then hopefully after that get some response back from them and then move forward with the remaining finalist, conduct the interview and then decide if that's going to be our next town manager or not. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Halmuth? I'm sorry, Mr. Hurd. What happened is my, I lost my screen. So, if it was Mr. Hurd that went next, Mr. Hurd. I guess I should just say ditto to previous comments, but I mean I think we went through a process and we put people we trust on the screening committee and they selected four people and it's not any of their doing that three of them decided to withdraw their name from consideration. And at the end of the day, if we don't like the candidate they put forward, then we can at that point go back to the drawing board. We don't have to choose the person that the screening committee is putting forward or the leftover person that the screening committee is putting forward. So, I would like to proceed as Ms. Mohan and Mr. DeGorce said. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question, Mr. Chair, of you or Mr. Lynch who could speak for the sense of the screening committee. Sure. Is it your opinion that of the four individuals that were recommended to become finalists, all of them were strong candidates who were well qualified and met the brief that you felt confident in putting them forward? Yes. I would agree with the chair that yes, the all these candidates were identified and the committee was very clear on that in their discussions that these were really the only four that these were the four that they wanted. They interviewed two others, but these were the four that they wanted to be considered. Thank you. That's very helpful. I think it's really important that that be clear that all of us the town, the public understand that this was a good process. This was a robust and strong process, process to be proud of and I'm very grateful for your work on the screening committee and Mr. Lynch because where we are has nothing to do with any weakness or defect in that process. I think that I'm satisfied that it was a good one as good as it could have been. And it's good to know that the remaining candidate is one that has the full confidence of the group as being an equally strong and viable candidate. And I don't want to penalize that person or the town honestly by declaring that that process has somehow failed because it really hasn't. Circumstances are just what they are. I do have a question for attorney high. If we refer this to the divisive local government and they were to say they were issued an opinion that we could not proceed with with the remaining single finalist. Are we any worse off? Does that close off any of the options that we presently have or does it other than time? Obviously in a delay. I want to see what the division government's base for concern is. Obviously the biggest concern for all of us is that no one wants to make an appointment and have that appointment later invalidated or found that there was something wanting the process. I think you've well outlined that from the screening committee's perspective and from the board's perspective, the screening committee was tasked with identifying four finalists. They did that in the intervening time between the identification of four finalists and reporting those back to you. Three of them have withdrawn and that's an unfortunate circumstance that shouldn't prejudice the town or anybody else. I think that it does not alter your choices with respect to deciding to use a different process, something that's not utilizing the screening committee's recommendations. I obviously think that there would be things we really have to seriously do if you wanted to move ahead despite the division government's concern or comment saying please don't do that. But I'll be curious to see what their opinion is on it and I do think it's important for us to recognize that we're kind of dealing with two competing legal principles. One being privacy of candidates and the other being like, hey, we want to have transparency in the way this decision was made. I understood. That's very helpful. Thank you. I would just further say I also support the idea of firing that question off to DLG. I was initially thinking when I first heard this that maybe we should just take a breath of weight, that it occurs to me that we can do both. That we can ask them for their opinion and that's going to take some number of days. We don't know how many and that we have another meeting soon and we can reflect upon that while they're doing their reflection. So I would certainly support that and suggest my colleagues are on board that we consider voting to make that referral tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Sal. Well, we have a consensus here and I'll just add that it really was a pleasure working with the screening committee and everyone in there worked hard. We had three meetings, two long interview sessions and then we had an extra meeting and everyone spoke their minds and did a good job of defending their points of view. And there was a lot of respect for everyone and everyone's opinion in the group. So from that perspective, it was definitely a successful screening committee meeting and so the outcome is what it is. There's no fault of the screening committee and we are at a consensus. I don't think we have to wait another week to contact DOG if everyone's on board. It seems like we are. So I guess we just need a motion. I'd like to make a motion to authorize the chair and or town council to submit or contact the division of open government regarding the town manager search process. I second that motion. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Any other comments, questions? Okay. Any other motions? And let us know if you have any answers by Mr. Mohan in a second by Mr. Helmets. Mr. Heim. Mr. Heim. Yes. Mr. DeCorsi. Yes. Mr. Helmets. Yes. Mrs. Mohan. Yes, thank you. Mr. DeGens. Yes. Mr. Adams. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. It's been a pleasure working with you and Sharon Flarrie, Vietnam. And so thank you for all your work really and all the uncomfortable calls with me and text messages with me. You respond very quickly, Vietnam. So it's very, very much appreciated. So thank you. Well, thank you. And I look forward to continuing to work with the town as we work our way through this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Take care. Now on to the consent agenda. Number three, the Comptroller. I'm sorry. That's right. Thank you. So the second quarter finish report by Mr. Cooler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would turn this over to the town Comptroller Iida Cody if I may. And I know in the past, we've presented this in writing and the members have added questions. I don't know if we have a presentation. No, I guess we're going to do the same format. So I'm Iida Cody, the Comptroller. You received the year today budget report for the second quarter. Everything is where it's supposed to be at 50% borderline boring because there are just very few exceptions that I know that in the narrative part. So if you have any questions, I would say that the very first question is I would say that the very first statement under the expenses isn't inaccurate because at the time I wrote the report, we didn't have a board administrator and now we do have one. Congratulations. Other than that, expenses and revenues are at 50% for general fund as well as the 105 enterprise funds. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Cody. In this case, boring is good. Good. Move receipt. Oh, yeah. Move receipt. Okay. Second, and maybe a question. Yes. I see in here regarding investments, which seem very, very robust in terms of revenues. Is that just sort of a blip anomaly or is that something you see continuing? The investments is it. Well, we had a very conservative estimate. It was only $200,000. Also, this depends on how much cash we have in the bank. We didn't expect the rates to go up so quickly, so high. And that determined the spike in the investments. But as we are building the high school and the DPWU, the cash is going to go down. So we don't expect that the same spike, the same large amounts in the future. That's why we didn't even increase it in 2024. Significantly. Okay. So with my just very limited knowledge of revenue and budgets, et cetera. One of the things that I have in the back of my mind is that, well, some may see something that 510% is, well, that's really great. That's really good. But in terms of budgeting and planning, that's not something we want to consistently experience. And I'm not saying this is a critique or a negative thing. And if I may correct, please correct me. So my, I guess question, and then I have an outside question from this report. My question would be, are we a bit too conservative when it comes to this particular revenue item? And if so, are we examining that? So that moving forward. And I'm not being disparaging in terms of the 510%. But just my basic core of budgets and finance, that's something you don't want to have consistently. Because that could be interpreted or misinterpreted that somebody isn't budgeting appropriately and could have followed down the line. So I don't know if Ms. Cody or the town manager actually got my question in there. I'll just make a small comment and then I'll let Sandy. This was a total anomaly. If you look in the past two years, we were right about a little bit higher than the estimate, but this year it was a lot more just because of what happened to the interest rates. I would agree with that. And we've looked back. I have a spreadsheet that looks back 15 years at what the history of this is. This is far and away the largest number. And I think as Edith said, you know, we borrowed $75 million for the high school. We borrowed, I forget what the last tranche was for the DPW. It means we're sitting on a lot of cash and interest rates going up. But in the future, that's really not going to be to those same extent. So I don't think we're going to see numbers this high. It would be my recommendation going forward for the town to keep the revenue estimate of $200,000. And I think in the future you'll see the actual numbers coming back down. I hope something slightly above that because we do want to be conservative. This is, I think, really a one-time excess amount of revenue. And I only raised that point moving forward. And I know perhaps tonight or future meeting, we will have conversations around override if it's needed, when it's needed. Just in terms of when we're doing that, just in case somebody kind of picks out this and says, you're not budgeting right? Or so that we all have the information that this really is an anomaly. The town manager, the comptroller, had looked back 15 years. We're not being super, super conservative. We're being appropriately conservative. Unless as you go through the budget process, you decide to move it a little. And I'm not the person to make that decision. I just wanted to, I don't want to say if and when. I want to say when we go for an override, we go out there and tell people that we looked in every nook and cranny and done what we can do to whatever that number is when we reach that. And then just an outside question, if I may, Mr. Chair. Just need a brief answer. I know at the Powers and Sullivan audit meeting, opera funding was discussed and the mechanism was described in terms of oversight of that and tracking and ensuring with the U.S. Treasury Department, federal government that the town through the comptroller and Powers and Sullivan is tracking and reporting the opera monies appropriately, taking aside the long-range planning of opera funding, which does have a time deadline. It's not going to go on forever. Besides the audit meeting, which traditionally just happens once a year, at the beginning of the year, what I would like is when the town manager and comptroller think is an appropriate time, it could be the end of the year, maybe not fiscal year, maybe calendar year, just sort of a reporting to the board and in terms of opera funding, and the reason I raise that is one of the things I'd like to see is if there are of the positions that opera is funding, that it's a position that when the money runs out, if we have to make a decision that that position runs out, which is sort of the guidance that we got from the federal government, don't use these monies for that particular category. But I do see a few positions in there. I'd just like to get some information on that. And then I'm just going to, along with my colleagues, keep beating this drum in terms of, I guess I would ask the town manager, could we have before or by June 30th a concrete decision regarding COVID for the retirees. I know representative Gobbley highlighted some monies that he got in addition to that sort of fall under that. And I know myself and my colleagues have had conversations with the former town manager and current town manager. I just feel like that's just been hanging out there for so long. I'd like to see that resolved. And to my understanding, they're really the only group that has not been compensated. And I'm talking about retirees who hadn't yet retired and were working for the town during COVID. I, to my queries, they're really the only group that didn't receive any reimbursement for working through COVID. All the unions, our management and schedule, et cetera have. So with that, that's my question. If I could, Mr. Chair, to the town manager. Yes, yes. I would be happy to put together a report. I, in fact, met with the comptroller and with several department heads last week to just review their spending to date to see how much they're on track and what their future spending requirements will be. And it is, has definitely been my intention before I leave to make a recommendation to the board about all the issues you've talked about. So, yes, I promised to give you a report and to make some recommendations. And today I will leave it at that, but I will follow up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to move receipt of the 2023 second quarter financial report. Second. Thank you. I guess. Yeah. I was about to say I thought that Mr. Hurd had made the motion. So we'll stick with Mr. Hurd making the motion. This behind is making a second. So that's fine. It's fine. It had been a while. I mean, that's okay. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Trust me. So anyone else want to say anything? I mean, so I have the second. So, okay, I'll just add me that I understand the question about the 510% increase in investment revenue. And I had a conversation with the manager, the town manager this morning about it. So that's why I don't have a question about it. My concern really was if it was all related to interest rates, I was concerned about the impact on debt. And so what? That might pretend in terms of impacting the budget when we have to issue more debt. But the town manager did explain that. I mean, we are sitting on a lot of cash related to the schools that kind of compounds this increase in revenue. And I hate to say it is only 200K, but it is easy when the denominator is that small to get a high percentage of increase. So I'm confident in the way that people are approaching that. So no more comments. Thank you for that final motion to move receipt of the report by Mr. Heard and a second by Mr. Mohan. Mr. Heard? Yes. Mr. Dacorsi? Yes. Mr. Helmut? Yes. Mr. Mohan? Thank you for that final motion, Mr. Heard. Yes. Mr. Dades? Yes. And thank you, Miss Cody. I know you were ready to go like a month ago. So I appreciate your patience on waiting to do this report. All right. Thank you. Take care. Good night. Thank you, Mr. Dades. Good night. Good night, everyone. I do want to thank the people here. I hope that our city can raise their hands. Good night. Mr. Helmut? Yes. Mr. Dades? Yes. Mr. Dades? Yes. Yes. Mr. Dades? Yes. Mr. Dades? No. Oh thank you so much. Yes. Mr. Dades? No. Mr. Dades? Yes. Mr. Dades? No. No. Mr. Dades? This is on March 25, 2023 at Robinson Memorial Town Hall for Beaks for Eats fundraiser, Andy Duane, Project Eats Executive Director, and number seven for approval, Boston Wednesday Market at Woodmore Park, Saturday June, sorry, Saturday, May 6th, and July 22nd at 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. This is Carol LaFretto, Directing Organizer at Boston Wednesday Market and DJ Borguy, our Economic Development Coordinator. So with that, Mr. Helmets. Thank you. I move approval subject to conditions, including the recommendation for details by the Public Safety Departments on the, I'm six and seven. Second. Okay. Is there any questions or comments? Okay. So on approval subject to the details that Mr. Helmets laid out, and second by Mr. Heard, Mr. Heun. That's right. Yes. Of course. Yes, Mr. Heun. Yes. Mr. Heun. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. Number eight, licenses and permits, so first we have for approval one and multiple licenses and common control license, Thai sticky rice, 1377 Mass Avenue, Naraman, and I'm gonna give this a try. Jin Kitsch. Jin Kitsch. Chara Incha? Not really. I did better when I was practicing on myself. So will you please tell me how to pronounce your last name and how you like to, how you like to refer to your colleague and trustees? Well. Can you hear me now? Yes. Hi. Good evening. My name is Daniel Briansky. I'm an attorney in Boston, and I represent the the potential licensee, Thai sticky rice, Inc. We're seeking a transfer of a beer and wine license for the premises located at 1377-1381. Massachusetts Avenue in Arlington. I thought I had this. What do you think? So I'll turn to my colleague, please. Any questions? No, thanks. I'll turn to my colleague, please. The, by the way, the manager, if I could interrupt for a second. The manager, the proposed liquor length manager is a gentleman named Christopher Raza Rizza, and he's had at least 10 years experience offering a restaurant and being a liquor license manager. Thank you. Thank you. Question for the applicant. Can you describe the policy and the plans for server training for alcohol license? People will be serving alcohol in the establishment. Yeah. Yeah. As I just alluded to, Christopher Rizza is the proposed liquor manager for the corporation. He's had 10 years experience. He's operated the predecessor of a licensee, JJSU Family Inc., and he's been doing this for 10 years. And to the best of my knowledge, the town has had no problems with him or the prior of our predecessor. Thank you. I think my question was specifically, will the licensee be utilizing the state-provided required server training for all employees who will be serving alcohol? Yes, we will do that. Yes. Oh, I would move approval subject to that and any other conditions contained in the memos? I'll second it with a question. That's my question. Is Mr. Rizza with us tonight that he could, I'd like to hear from the actual person that will be sort of overseas. I believe he is, or he's supposed to be. If you could just hang on one second and learn how to solve the issue. I hope he has me and he can come out. Okay, and my question would be, when we've had managers before us, when there has been an issue in terms of someone being served that shouldn't underage, it's usually been where we can get the standard boiler plate in terms of the manager's gonna oversee this, has 10, 15, 20 years experience in it, but then they get hit with the, especially in the current employment climate out there in terms of really trying to find enough people to work at any type of vocation, but especially in the restaurant business. And usually when there's a violation that occurs, it's when the manager's not there and the person who sort of, his or her right hand person also isn't there and it goes to a brand new employee who's had little or perhaps no training and that's where the violation occurs. So I'd like to hear from the manager how he would handle that scenario and besides himself, how many other potential servers are TIP certified in or any other training that he deems appropriate. Mr. Rissos? If that's okay. I'm here. Yes, sorry. I was trying to figure out how to talk on this, but while the question was going on, I know it's been me, my wife, who run the restaurant for the last 10 years. We've had a couple of employees while that we've trained. Basically, we went through the beer and wine license training through the, I think it's the TIPS program. There were a lot of great ideas in that and we've kept a book or a notebook on premise of any incidents. Luckily there have been none to report for the time we've been with the restaurant. And basically the same training that is provided by TIPS is the same training that we also provide to the other two waitresses that were there full time or are currently there full time. I did, if Mr. Helmets' motion has not been seconded, I will second it. I will second it, Mr. Helmets. Any other questions, Mr. Helmets? Okay, so I'm motioned to approve the license for Thai sticky rice being by Mr. Helmets and I second by Mr. Helmets, Mr. Helmets. Mr. Hurd? Yes. Yes, Mr. Helmets. Yes, Mr. Helmets. Yes. Mr. Hurd. Yes. Yes, Mr. Helmets. Thank you. Thank you for doing business with us. You know, it's a nice location in the Heights, being that I wish you all success and I look to checking it out soon. Take care. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you members of the board. So next we have another common virtual license in Boston Pizza and Giro, 1323, Mass Ave, Yusmeil Bayatsis. I don't see his name. If you would just raise your hand and see, I'm not seeing any hands raised. Mr. Chairman. All right, well, maybe they will come to our next meeting, you know. So we'll go on to number 10 and for approval a class two license, Boston Auto Exchange and Boston Auto Exchange, LLC 19 Park Avenue, Anthony Pizio. Hey, how's it going? Can you guys hear me? Hey, fine. So I hope I pronounced your last name correctly, but in any case, tell me how you want to be addressed. Yep, Anthony Vassili. I'm originally from Winchester. Grew up right down the street from the location. So I'm here seeking a class two license, a little background about me and our business. When I graduated college, I worked for my father in Boston, where we did auto repair and used car sales. And we were there for over 52 years. We left that location after our lease was terminated due to a development in that site. And we had the opportunity to purchase the piece of property at 19 Park Ave. And we are very grateful and hope to provide the same service that we did in Boston to Arrington. I like Boston so much. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move approval and sort of be redundant because I know the applicant, Mr. Bayatsis, and I apologize if I haven't said that correctly. It's certainly aware of, in terms of storing the vehicles, I think you've applied for up to six. Is that correct? Is it up to six? That is correct. That, and we're all familiar with the site. You certainly have the space there to do it. I know some neighbors in the past, sometimes have been concerned about if the sidewalk, the public sidewalk gets blocked. But I've been by that business quite a few times. You've certainly opened up the space and made available use of it. So I just wanted to note something that you're already aware of and you're already doing in terms of where those up to six vehicles, along with the vehicles that are in there for repair and or vehicles that are in or out. But you certainly, from the many times I've driven by, are managing that traffic and parking flow appropriately. So thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hartner? Second, the motion to, I think your predecessor was a well-loved guy in town, but I think everybody is brick, probably breathe the sigh of relief to drive by there and see that the area had been cleaned up and is a little less stressful, even I think to drive by. So it looks like you're doing a good job there and look forward to seeing you flourish in the town in the years to come. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? This is of course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just a quick question for the applicant on the materials that were provided to us from the town departments, the right of way was attached to that. And is there any issue with where you're gonna park cars with the right of way or is that not interfering with that? So we looked, we had a closer look with the plot plan done a couple of weeks ago and it shouldn't interfere with the right of way. If it was to, we wouldn't obviously put cars there. So we would do our best to keep that open. Great, thank you. And to echo Mr. Hartner's comments, I can buy the site recently and you've done a nice job since you've taken over. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Okay, so I have nothing to add to what's been said. So I think we're gonna be happy to give you approval as soon as we vote on the motion by Mr. Mahan, and the second by Mr. Hart to accept this. So Mr. Hartner. Mr. Hartner. Yes. Mr. Korsig. Yes. Mr. Hanna? Yes. Yes. Mr. Hanna, Ms. Wolfe? Thank you. Thank you. And thanks for your visit in Arlington. Good luck with everything. Thank you. Okay. All right. Moving on to traffic rules and order, number 11, we have a presentation of both Mass Ave's Appleton Street intersection redesign. So Mr. Korsig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Consistent with when this has come up previously before the board, I will be recusing myself from any discussion or vote tonight. Thank you Mr. Korsig. So we have Stand-Tact Consulting Services. Yes, good evening. My name's Ralph Dennis Cohen with Stand-Tact. And there should be a presentation. Would you like me to? Yeah, I'm good. Sure. Well, one second. All right, thank you very much. I'm Claire Ricker. I'm the director of planning and community development here. We're presenting an update to you guys tonight, to you folks about the work that we have done Mass Ave and Appleton Street following the 2020 fatality of Charlie Proctor on his bicycle by someone attempting to make a left turn on to Appleton Street. For years, the intersection had been recognized as a troubled one, an intersection of concern. As early as 2011 and probably before that, safety issues have been cited related to the intersection, including confusion about flashing yellows or flashing reds, wide expanse of pavement between Appleton Street and Appleton Place, sharp angle of the Appleton Street approach, busy student crossing during the Odyssey Middle School arrival and dismissive significant solar glare that is limited to visibility, especially during the afternoon, and high speeds by drivers and cyclists and transit through that corridor. The town retained the transportation consulting services of Green International to install temporary safety measures in 2021. The goals of those measures were to prioritize safety in concept design and element to control vehicle speed on Mass Ave, to slow down the left turn on to Appleton Street from Mass Ave, which at the time could be taken without slowing the vehicle, reduce the number of vehicle conflicts at Mass Ave, protect pedestrians and cyclists, increase their safety, focus on short term improvements that can be installed as soon as possible, and they were, and to reduce the impacts to on-street parking. So those temporary safety measures were installed. They have been in place since about a year after the fatality, but to make long range changes and improve safety in that area, the town contracted with STANTEC consulting services to provide design engineering and public engagement for the project. They were brought on about mid-April, May of 2022, and we have since been working on concept design, public engagement, and generally soliciting public comments related to permanent infrastructure changes to the intersection. We had two, three, four public meetings. The most recent one was on the 18th of October. This is one I attended. It was the first public meeting I attended in this role. And that night was to solicit public comment related to the corridor, related to suggested improvements, concepts that we had put out on tables. Folks could comment, folks could post its things like that. The same presentation was made the following day at the Otteson Middle School to the middle schoolers by STANTEC so that they could also see the development of the design of the intersection and really how this kind of planning and infrastructure work goes on. At the meeting on October 18th, we received the joyous news that we had been awarded a $307,000 MassWorks design grant to finish the design documents related to this project. They're bringing us from roughly 25% concept design to 100% biddable documents. So we received this grant and have been heartened by the interest of MassWorks in the project to the point where we would like to this spring apply for construction funding for the project. And we're looking for a letter of support from the select board so that we can apply for these funds. We are very, very hopeful that we will receive construction funding related to this project because we've already received design money related to this project. We do think the state is interested in completion and so we are hoping that we can get the support and select board tonight to move forward with some concepts. So what you're going to see tonight is progress to concept level. We are having a public meeting on the 15th for more comment, obviously, and to go over the final two concepts that we've really sort of settled on and have been circling around for the last month or so. So without further ado, I'm going to hand it over to Stan and Ralph. Thank you very much. Thank you, Claire. I'll just note that we're joined remotely by two other members of our team, Erin Cameron and Elise Danofrio, who, depending on questions, may be available to answer specifics of where we are or anything about the design as it stands. I, Claire, did a great job of kind of giving you the background of where we were. We've been at this for a little bit under a year and I think we're at the point where we're presenting an advanced concept at the right term. I think very shortly after the public meeting, we'll take that to 25% design and then to final design and that's what's needed to apply for the MassWorks grant. And I'm going to say the deadline and I might get it wrong, but it's sometime in May. So we're really on the kind of fast track to get this to the next phases. If you can go to the next slide, this is just a graphic of what the recommendations for the short-term improvements were that were implemented. The town has made minor modifications to those even since these have been implemented kind of on an ongoing basis, just trying to respond to community concerns and adapting to the world as it exists kind of at the moment. But when we were brought on, the town very rightly, I think, took a much broader approach to what should happen at the intersection, not just at the intersection of MassApp and Appleton, but to extend the study area, west to, I think it's Richardson about where the Dunkin Donuts is, the east past forest or block or two to Quinn. So you can really look at not just this one block, not just this one place, but the whole corridor and how it operates within that much larger study area. One of the very first things we did was we took all new traffic counts, pedestrian counts, bicycle counts, really good understanding of the activity in the area. I hesitate to say post-COVID, but it was done in the spring of 2022. So things were sort of back to normal. And what you see outlined here is just an example, is not an example, but that boundary is essentially the study area that we looked at. And that study area is not just an area of influence. We have design recommendations for everything within that boundary. So it's not just that we're making improvements or proposing improvements through this process at the corner of Appleton, but really along that entire stretch. I'll walk you through some very brief planning and then I'll get to the design if we go to the next slide. Again, that process, as Claire had said, we've had a number of public meetings where we kind of took a step back and not just asked about, what do you like about the interim design, but really what do you want this place to be? What are the things that it needs to accommodate, help us as a design team understand all the things that happen here, all the things that want to happen here, and how do we compile those into something that is reflective of the community's desires. We translated that into goals, which are really the things that we're designing for. In other words, a successful design, a design will be successful to the extent it does these things. These were all vetted through the community. They were reflected back through that process. Not just at the public meetings, but through online. And even in person, I think we posted things at the library and had people a chance to comment. And very much what you see here, I'm not going to read them all, is it's about balancing all of the various activities that happen in this stretch and doing it in a way that, let's just say previously was much more auto-centered here. It's about designing a place that everybody in every aspect knows where and how they're supposed to be and how they're supposed to interact. Can you have a question on that slide? Sure, if I could, Mr. Chair. Could you just very briefly explain under the fourth category, the last one, what is enhanced placemaking? So what we really mean by enhanced placemaking is essentially giving this place an identity, right? So through the design, through the areas that'll be created, through materials, the look, the feel of how the area would work, that it would feel more like a place than it does today. And you may say, hopefully, that'll come across a little bit as we show you a little bit about what the design's starting to look like. One thing we haven't done yet because this happens after the events concept, we have ideas about, I'll call it landscaping and things like that. Those will be fleshed out in the just next phase. In fact, we'll present some ideas about that at the public meeting on the 15th because you really have to set, you have to set the curb lines. You have to know the space that you're doing when you do that. And throughout this process, we've reserved the opportunities to create that. I hope that's a good explanation. I think what I'm hearing is as you move forward, you're gonna actually point to something that is a tangible, just because it says use green infrastructure for enhanced placemaking, the select board person to me wants to know when church, school, and businesses in that area come up and say, well, what does that mean for parking? What does that mean? We'll talk about parking as well. I'll stop there. I just saw enhanced placemaking. I had a lot of good jokes about it, but I'm gonna say it. Go keep going. Sorry. Thank you. No problem at all. So one thing that really became evident in just looking at the design and understanding how it functions and understanding how the area works, it's really that this stretch of the corridor, the middle section focused on Appleton Street, can feel a little disjointed. It's at the bend on Mass App from both directions. Mass App's fairly wide as you approach it. There's not so much traffic, so that cars tend to speed as they're approaching the area. And all of a sudden you turn that little corner and you're entering a place that feels different. You've got businesses, you've got the schools, you've got residences, you've got a kind of a crossroads of activity here. And you don't realize that until you're too late. So you're approaching it in that way. So I think this speaks very well to the town's idea of picking a larger study area and wanting to look at it more broadly because what we're trying to do, I'll use more landscape terms, like announce the fact at the edges that you're entering a different area and that it's visible. So that as you're driving westbound on Mass App and at that stretch that you see at the bottom right of the screen, you will see in front of you that there's this marker, let's call that advanced place making, that starts to show you when you get there, you're gonna have to behave differently. The street's going to work a little bit differently because there's more activity happening over there. And it's the same in the other direction. Sorry. No, that's okay. And some other things as we went through the community process, both that we've identified and certainly that folks in the community that they've represented are just some of the challenges in the area. There's poor sight lines at many of the intersections. They hit at weird angles. That leads to accidents. It leads to near misses. I mean near crashes. There's very few crossings across Mass App which means people are crossing probably illegally. We've got some numbers on that from when we did our counts. And the short-term design while it did a lot didn't really fully address. I think the full scope of what folks' concerns were. So we took a very broad and detailed look at this entire stretch, tried to understand all the various activities that are happening here and find a way to accommodate them as best as possible. You can go to the next slide. And I'll just talk to a few of them. If you just think about the one block, the kind of core block between Ableton and Forest, folks wanted parking, dedicated bicycle facilities, a left turn lane in each direction. And all of those things require trade-offs because the space just wasn't there to fit all of those things within the existing. And certainly not in a way that you could do it with just paint and sort of interim improvements like were done previously. We did a full survey of the entire area. We have to in order to move to 100% design. And one of the things that we were able to do was look at if you could repurpose some of the sidewalk space on the north side of the street, you're able to gain some space back that allows you to make fewer of those trade-offs. So tried to put as much as we could of the things that people wanted within the right of way without really sacrificing anything that was kind of absolutely critical. We still need to meet minimums. We still need to be safe. We still needed to do all of those things. So by repurposing part of that sidewalk space, we're able to create separated bicycle facilities on both sides of the street, retain parking where really it was most critical, which is on the north side, on the business side, to allow for left turn lanes and retain street trees. In fact, add new ones in certain places and still maintain really more than adequate sidewalks. For this area. So that's part of what we came. I just talked about preserving important parking. There's some loss of parking that comes with the trade-off of what's happening here, but we worked very closely to make sure that we were preserving it in the places where it was most important, where it was most used or is in front of the most active uses. So we did that kind of throughout the corridor. We can go to the next slide. And then this is the final concept. And again, some slightly modified version of this will get slightly better. We're continuing to tweak it. It will be what we present on March 15th. And this is working from West to East. So that's Richardson Avenue. By the junk and donuts there, you see where Lowell Street comes in. One of the things that's being proposed here is really I'm calling it teeing off Lowell Street, whereas today it kind of hits at a very oblique angle. It's a lot of asphalt and it's wide open. Kind of turn it a little bit at the edge of the foot of the rocks and create some plaza space. You actually get some more space at the foot of the rocks there. When you do that, I won't read all the little notations there just for the sake of clarity and time. You can go into anything that you need to. But it shows you what some of those improvements are. You'll see again, bicycle facilities, a sidewalk level on both sides of the street there. Driveways are being preserved, parking, in this case in front of the apartment building there, along this stretch, some additional crosswalks, some bump outs, which both help pedestrian crossings to help with sight lines, help with safety, to help with reducing speed, kind of in and around each of these streets. The next slide just takes us further east and here you see where Appleton Street comes in. The alignment of Appleton Street doesn't change much here. There's some minor tweaks to it. We're adding a signal with the left turn lane. This will be a full operational signal, not just the blinking facility that you have there today. The left turn lane from Mass Av Westbound onto Appleton Street. And what you may notice here is what we're proposing is essentially closing off Appleton Place to general traffic. They would still be accessible for emergency vehicles. We've worked with the fire department, police department and others to go through this. We'll obviously keep working with them through the design. They'd preserve emergency access, but you'd eliminate kind of just general vehicular traffic at this stretch. And just to your question earlier, you can see some of that added space are opportunities for placemaking. In fact, the church is actually excited about the idea that the area around this could be, hesitate to use the word like more iconic, but you can create more of a plaza feel. You can create a different kind of sense of what that feels like at that location. And if you can go further east, I'm gonna go through this. Just some examples of kind of what that might look like, call them precedent images, things that have been done in other places that are similar to what we're trying to achieve here. I'm sorry if you can go to the next slide. And then when you get to Forest and Burton, this intersection would also be signalized. Far Street has as much, if not more, depending on the movement, traffic as Appleton Street does. The left turns from Mass Ave onto Forest Street can be pretty heavy. One thing this actually does as well, solves a lot of problems that folks in the neighborhood to the south of Mass Ave have said is it's very difficult to get out of their neighborhood and having a signal at Burton Street. So now at Burton Street, if you come out, out of traffic signal, you get a green light to be able to turn right or left, whereas now you're coming out of kind of a blind angle and you're trying to forge your way in to make those turns. So I think that's a real amenity for folks. Again, you can see where some of these bump outs are. If you can imagine that those would be visible much further back, it really changes that your perception as a driver about how you're approaching the area and that this is a place you're going to need to pay much more attention to all the details of. And then again, it extends out to Quinn Road where you transition back to essentially what the rest of Mass Ave looks like at this location. So that's the concept is again, we're moving pretty fast now. It's taken a while to take some of the more key decisions here. We'll present this back to the community in a couple of weeks. And then the hope is to go to 25, 75% and then to apply for that Mass Works grant and hopefully achieve the funding so that this can move into the construction phase. I think maybe there's like a, no, that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Questions? Mr. Hartman. How'd you publicize the public forums? Because this was a shock to me. I didn't know we had any public forums on this. I didn't even know we had a design that was a process. I mean, we've done them in a number of ways. Clarence, I know we've worked with the town's public information folks. I forget what the terminology is. We've kept lists of the folks who've attended the meetings before. We've posted it at the library. I believe it's been posted online. So I mean, I, this is all kinds of good stuff here, but to be honest with you, I find this infuriating. We went through this process and I mean, this is before you're involved, this is before Ms. Ricker was with the town, but we had multiple meetings that talked about different design content on this board. Rejected, taking a whole stretch of parking from across these businesses. And I know that there's people in town that say, we say, well, we don't want to do this. And they say, oh yeah, but we want you to do this. And we say, well, we don't want to do this, but yeah, we want you to do this. But we had sort of a, sort of a bananas parking study that was done, we wanted a parking study that was done just for that specific stretch. And then there was a parking study that came to us for streets in front of my rack, for like side streets and just kind of spaces that weren't really feasible for the businesses that were there. We, this was all came to play in response to a fatal accident. And we had sent this and created the committee to create a design that would stop that and would prevent those fatal accidents from happening. And I think the design, we came up with, addressed the problems with the no left turn. And I think this design addresses that with the lights. And I think the lights are what are gonna present these fatal accidents and the real injuries from happening at this intersection. The, I think we need to go back to the drawing board here and just figure out how to, at the time, we had talked about the parking and originally we were presenting with a plan where the parking was taken out, we rejected that. And we reworked it to try to get the best of both worlds. And I had actually said, let's take some of the sidewalk because we have a big sidewalk there. And there was only so much feet that was presented to us at the time that said that we need this in order to get bike lanes on both sides. That was the concern is that they have bike lanes on both sides. That's why they want to take the parking out so we can get bike lanes on both sides. And I think if we take a certain percent of, a certain amount of the sidewalk, we can get that. I know some of the people that had spoke with us, I mean, just the businesses are not their concern and that's fine if they don't care about the businesses, but the business that we heard from the businesses pretty dramatically, even in the concept that we designed, that we adopted, that was a sort of compromise, I still heard from the businesses that they were gonna be negatively impacted. So it is kind of irritating to have this come back to us after we, this board said that really took up this issue before. And I mean, again, I like everything about this, but I think they need to rework the designs so they can have parking on both sides because there's a lot of businesses, there's a lot of restaurants. I use the restaurants and I park on that side of the street and otherwise I would have to figure out a way to loop around. And I mean, that's my two cents. I mean, I feel like we've already gone through this issue and to see it come back is just irritating to me. Should I respond? I mean, I can respond just about the design process. Sure. I think you reached the same conclusion we did about widening the sidewalk. I think we had the benefit of the survey and the more detailed information to allow that to happen. All of the choices that are reflected in this design were presented through that process. They were, we've done some coordination, the town's done additional coordination with the neighbors, with the businesses, about the trade-offs and the ability to fit parking on both sides, left turn lanes, adequate sidewalks, and dedicated bicycle facilities. Something's gotta give, right? Then in this block, something's gotta give and by cutting into the sidewalk, it's not even the right term, but by repurposing part of the sidewalk, what I think the design was able to do was balance all of those things in a way that I think reflected what the community's concerns that we've heard through this process were and to preserve the parking in the places where it's most impactful, right? And that's, this has been a long process for years, even before we got here, our charge was to think and work on a much, much bigger scale than what the previous process was. And I think we tried to apply that and I think the design, at least applies that in a way that we've heard through the process up and down the corridor. And even the parking sometimes goes on one side or the other side of the street, depending on where it might be most impactful. Yeah, I think, I mean, this public comment, which we certainly always take public comment and whatnot, but I mean, it's also this board's purview just that parking policy and this can't happen without a vote of the board. And we already, I think this is a key aspect that we talked about back then and the same board as it was at the time. So those are my comments. Mr. Almond? Thank you. Thank you for this work and for next one presentation. I have a question about the request of the board tonight's letter of support and the timing and the process. So I'm glad to know my colleagues' concerns about the parking. I think that's going to be a continuing discussion. I also don't want to lose the momentum to apply for the funding to do this because we clearly need it. And I think I appreciate Ms. Ricker's point that the fact that MassWorks has awarded a substantial amount for design funding is very strongly indicative of the potential to get the construction funding. And we certainly have consensus that we need to make improvements to that. One of the things I really like about this is that it doesn't just focus on the narrow question of how do we prevent that particular kind of bike car collision that happened, but how do we make it safer for pedestrians? I love it that you went to Audison because I know this intersection rather well as do my colleagues. We all live nearby. I know some of us live very nearby. And you go there at school dismissal time, it is a concern just seeing the kinds of street crossings, the lack of safe legal street crossings that you described and the traffic flow and the pattern into the intersection despite the presence of crossing guards is a concern. So I look at this much more broadly as a safety issue for the kids. And I don't want to, I hope there's a way that we can move forward with this process to keep the funding and design going and keep the discussion about the parking going without losing momentum. The final thing I really like about this is that it takes a neighborhood wide view. The placemaking is a term of art and I've worked with enough planners through my prior role before I started the board here to understand that that's actually a really affirming and energetic and positive way and it benefits businesses, benefits the institution, benefits the church, it benefits the neighborhood, benefits the residents because you start opening up a neighborhood to be a place that people want to go to a destination identity. At the same time, you do signal to the cars and to the pedestrians and to the cyclists that this is a place now. And so we do this place differently than we used to. So I think there's an awful lot to like here. But my guess going back to my question, this might be from Ms. Ricker or whoever knows, is if I were to move that we submit a letter supporting this at this phase, what does that mean with respect to questions like the parking? Do we have the option to change some of the parking visa being my colleague's concerns? Meaningfully as we go forward and can you kind of describe maybe conversely what the timeline is if we are not able to reach that consensus tonight with respect to preserving this path for the funding to get these good things done? Yes. I think you're all right. Okay. If you know, please do. I know somewhat at least... Yeah, I don't know if you can hear me. I can. Let me start at least and maybe you can answer a little bit further. You need to be at a certain level of design which is I'm going to say pretty close to final design and have the cost estimates in order to apply for the massworks funding. For construction. For construction. So some of the decisions, I think that would go along with that really need to be made as part of that application. At least can talk about the specifics a little bit better than I can. You know, I would probably venture to say that we're at the point where some of these decisions, how much you can leave open is dwindling as we approach that deadline. And I think the deadline is May. I think the first thing we need to do... June 2nd. June, so close, is apply for an expression of interest which is mid March. And that says that you shall be getting an application for the entire project by June 2nd. At least if I missed anything or there's any clarity you can add. No, I think Ralph is correct in saying that there is still room to obviously work through the design and any concerns that anyone has. I think that window is closing just in order to give us enough time to engineer this corridor to the place of being in a final design, bid ready with an accurate estimate. So that way massworks is able to review the application and understand what they are going to be funding. And then on that note, give the town the appropriate funds to proceed. The expression of interest that's due in mid March, it's something they've started in recent years and it allows you to put in, it's a couple page application, kind of as a, I'm going to call it a heads up to what's coming gives them an idea of the type of project, which they are already familiar with it, generally based on the application that was submitted last year. And I feel as though a letter of support for the expression of interest would be that this project is supported and improvements will be made and want to be made to this area, but the specifics of that could come into play and be described more thoughtfully in the actual application, which is due on June 2nd. And thank you. Will this board, if we were to vote that support tonight, will this board have another opportunity to approve the final design that submitted June 2nd that would finalize and lock in the parking? Would you come up to the microphone just so the people and Cable can hear you? God bless you. Thank you. Yes, we're still receiving comment on concept design through the public meeting on the 15th. I have made a lot of phone calls to St. Athanasius Church. I've been working with Nick Cricutos over there. I've also made some calls to the businesses. I know they are unhappy about any loss of parking. They are happy that we left the parking in on the north side of the street, which is the side obviously closest to the businesses. And on my end, I'm also dealing with folks that are the bike ped folks that are really looking for a treatment that is modern state of the art and really the best practice, which at this point is a sidewalk level bike lane separated from a sidewalk. That is the treatment right now that is understood to be the best practice in terms of building a complete street, making these kinds of transportation improvements. Now, I'm not going to disregard anybody's need for parking by any means, but we are balancing a lot of interest here. Certainly the bike ped community, the business owners over there, the kids at the school I have been, I saw that when all the kids coming out of the school and I was, it's a lot. There's a lot going on in that intersection, all different kinds of days for all different kinds of reasons. Yes, we would bring a final concept, or excuse me, a final concept to move forward with to get it to 100% design. But right now, if we don't get a letter of support, we couldn't, we can't do anything. We couldn't do a stoplight, we couldn't do any of it. So whether we scale it up, scale it down, scale it different, we would still need to seek construction funding for whatever it is we're looking to do. Thank you, that's really helpful. I'm going to move that we proceed, I'll make a motion that we do the letter of support. And the intent of my motion is to invite you to engage with any members of the board that really need to plug into this and the businesses because we don't have a lot of time between now and June 1st to resolve, to come to a final resolution before you come back to us for that final vote. My understanding is that you need that final vote in order to actually pull the trigger and apply. Then I don't see a reason to slow it down, whereas if we don't get moving by mid-March, which is coming up blindingly fast, I don't want to lose the opportunity to stay on the funding trend, frankly. So thank you for that. That is my motion and I look forward to hearing from the rest of the folks. Thank you. Do you have any other comments or questions? Mr. Mohan? Do you say Mr. Mohan? I'm sorry. Sorry, sometimes I hear you perfectly and sometimes I don't. No more. The question, the letter of support from the select board, is that for the March initial submission, the June final submission or both? The lead is just for the March submission at this point. Yes, I'll say yes. I would say if you were ready to give us one for both, we would gladly accept it, but if we are only ready to commit to the March deadline, then that is fine and we can continue working with everyone on this. I think I would be more comfortable with that. So that it would still give this board the opportunity instead of having the approval be March and June, to do March and then have a discussion in whatever amount of weeks about June. I clarify my motion to just treat the March, by the way. Is that okay? Yes. That's what I meant. Oh, okay. And only because I think I know Mr. Hertz' frustration in the sense that this board had a couple of very long public meetings, besides going out individually, not as a quorum. And I live right near there, right off of Quincy Street. So I could see the odyssey from my front side and hear it from all sides, as well as the Greek church and Greek school. And what was before us, that there was an awful lot of conversation about in terms of parking and businesses, as well as from residents. There was concerns about bicyclists in terms of, where I live so close to that, and I'm by that all the time, the speed of cars and the speed of bicyclists who totally ignore anything, that the minority that do that, not saying all bicyclists do that. They're just as dangerous, if you have a crash pedestrian bicycle, bicycle, bicycle. Absolutely, we already know bicycle motor vehicle. So after we had all those meetings, I know, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Herd and Mr. Amstutz, from the planning department, because the board kind of put on hold because we heard so many comments for parking, not just from the businesses, but in terms of residents in that area saying, it's like water, you just gotta move it off Mass Ave on that side into the neighborhood. We sort of came up with a compromise. I don't know if you can answer this, but is that, I thought that compromise that came up where there still was some loss of parking, but there wasn't the total. Not annihilation. I've been typing a thing today, everything's exoneration and all that, but that compromise that as a result of those public hearings that the board had, which there was some loss of business parking on the south side, but not the total elimination of it, is that, it was my understanding that that was okay, that's part of the plan and that's what we're designing around. And now I don't see that in there. I see we're back to the beginning, which is where this whole hamster wheel began. So is there any way we can get back to that? I don't wanna say Herd Amstutz. Compromise, but whatever you wanna call it. Well, I wanna clarify just what's in the design that we presented. It does preserve parking in several areas along the stretch of Mass Ave, typically on one side of the street, not on both. In the case of the area between Ableton and Forest, that parking is preserved on the north side in front of the businesses, but not on the south side. That varies as you go up and down the corridor as best we could to meet really, I think the concerns we heard and the activity that we've seen about where parking is perhaps most beneficial. So there is parking preserved. This does not remove all of the parking and preserves as much of it as could be preserved within the design and still achieving all the other things that we're trying to achieve. Everything gave a little bit in terms of all the things that we're trying to fit in here. Well, I guess my suggestion would be, if you're seeking a letter of support for the final June submission, if you could go back and look at that compromise, which it was my understanding because there was a lot of comments and meetings of this public meetings that this board had and efforts put into that. And I thought that issue was already dealt with and it seems like we're back to square one. So if there's any way we can get, if you could take a look at that compromise that Mr. Amstutz and Mr. Herd in the previous town manager came up with. I didn't realize and it wasn't presented to me that, well, this is just a temporary fix. But when we filed the final plans, we're going to go back to the first thing that had people, residents, students, and businesses coming to a meeting. I thought, so I think that's where some of the frustration is. And then, and now second, Mr. Helmets' motion for the letter of approval for the initial MassWorks grant in March, which is sort of giving them the, hey, we could expect something in June. And the only reason I brought up about the green infrastructure for enhanced place markings. I'm a court reporter, one of the places I cut my teeth on is land court. I know what can creep into that. Afterwards when people say, well, how the heck did this happen? It's usually that little isolation right there. And that's why I'd like a little more clarity on that and sort of some tangibles to what that, because we're going to face the music, not that you all aren't, but we're definitely going to face the music because ultimately we make that decision. So I mean, I'm not like a dummy dumb. And as you get to know me, you'll know, if I ask a question, I kind of know what the answer is and I want to make sure we're all on the same page. And then in terms of the, and I don't say that sarcastically or disparagingly, I'm just trying to, sometimes in my effort to be 100%, I always say to people, I'll never talk behind your back because I'll tell you first. And then you'll say, yeah, I do know that because she told me. But the other thing is, and I don't know if this is something that, it may be something that's too soon in the process, it's already been designed for and it isn't something I should worry about, but for that particular intersection, Mass and Appleton, Appleton Street Place, Mass and Forest in Burton, for the proposed signalized light signals that you have for those two areas. If there's any way, because of the, I don't know, the topography of that particular intersection, the only other place I experienced it and I think they did a terrible job, but it's there now is Mass and Stop and Shop Highland App. That morning's Solar Glare when everybody's crossing and that weekend's Solar Glare when everyone's going to Greek school and then Greek services as well as the children's place, Mr, the weekend thing, that Solar Glare is just outrageous and can we avoid what happened at Mass and Highland Ave? If you're, I know you're saying North and South, but when I think of Mass Ave, I think East and West. So when you're coming down East towards Cambridge, if you go for that Solar Glare, which is at its worst at that intersection, but even more worse at Mass, Burton, Forest, Mass, Appleton, Appleton Street Place, especially in the morning, it's legit blinding. The lights that are put in at Mass and Highland when you're going East down Mass Ave, you technically have, I'll say two and a half opportunities, but there's three lights when you're coming down East on Mass Ave with Solar Glare. And in the morning, you just can't, there's two green opportunity green lights and then there's the dedicated left turn into stop and shop. Even doing this in the morning, the way those, I don't know if it's the LED lights that are in the signal, I don't know if it's because the signals are all placed pretty much in the same area versus sort of staggering them, but one of my big fears would be is, which I definitely want, the light signalization of the two intersections that you cited, but can we somehow look into that accounting for that outrageous Solar Glare, especially in the morning? And then one of the other questions that I had was, and it doesn't have to be answered tonight, but in terms of the final submission, will the light signalization also include similar to what we did at Mass Ave in Route 60, Mass and Pleasant, not only do we have the green infrastructure for bicyclists, where they queue to wait until it's time to go, they also have their own dedicated signal, will there be any or can there be any similar signals for the, which is not going to solve 100% the issue, just like it doesn't solve pedestrians that jaywalk or goodness gracious a dog or cat that escapes from my LinkedIn animal clinic and runs across the street, do you plan on having any of those? There are a lot of really amazing questions in there. And the answer I think to most of them is yes. And if you'll just allow me, I'll try to elaborate a little bit. One, to the placemaking comments, I would expect that the next time this project is brought before you, some of those, some of, there'll be further thought on those decisions so we can show what that looks like. Two, I'm very aware of the solar glare issue. The next step is really to think about placement. In other words, exactly where did the signal poles go and where did the mast arms go and where did they, and how did they fit? It will be cognizant of solar glare and other factors in there. I think there's two other things I want to reiterate though, I think help address your larger concerns. One is very much the design that we're showing tells everybody where to be. If you're a pedestrian, here's where you should be. If you're a bicyclist, here's where you should be. If you're a driver, if you're a parker, if you're a walker, whatever you are, it's telling you and you'll have a dedicated space that'll be signalized and protected, right? So I think that helps a lot with telling bicyclists how to behave, pedestrians where to cross and by the way, we're gonna give you more crossings than you had before. There'll be bicycle indications, there'll be walk indications and all those things. We're talking about an exclusive phase for pedestrians, meaning everybody else is red when you're walking across the street. We're designing that in, we're working with town staff on that. But the last piece that I think addresses the solar glare issue a little bit is what I was saying earlier. The other example, as you mentioned, along Mass Ave, are on long straight stretches of street. So you, and I've done this, I drive down Mass Ave. You may be six blocks away and you can't really even see the light to know it's there or if it's red or green or anything else, you're trying to watch the cars in front of you. When I talk about on this stretch, designing the edges so that from farther away, you're recognizing because there's bump outs, because there's more landscaping, because it's treated more heavily, that you are entering a different kind of place. You will slow down as you approach it so that by the time you can see the light, you're going 20 miles an hour, not 35 miles an hour. That alone is going to make it easier to see. But that alone is going to change your perception as a driver of how you interact with the area. And you couple that with the really specific design features. And I think that increases, you know, it increases the safety, it increases the visibility of all, even those pedestrians, as I said, they'll be on little bump outs. So, you know, you're not seeing, you know, you're eight, 10, 12 feet closer to where the crossing is. You're more visible to everybody. All of that, all those design features help to change the behavior. And Elise, if I'm missing anything on the solar glare or the specifics of the design, please help me out here. I think, I think I've listened to you enough to get most of it. And you're doing great. Thank you. Somebody had, I think I heard, you're also proposing two additional crosswalks, one at Mass and Burton, and I forget the other one. So if someone could. One at Richardson, I think. And it should be in the deck that you have there as well. There are three new crosswalks. Actually, we're doing one at Richardson, another at Clark, and then one down by Quinn Road. So that we're able to provide enough crossings to get pedestrians across Mass out. And the only reason I raise that is, I know people have come in for a quest for crosswalks and we've been told by state law and the UPMAP, whatever that thing is, of road laws that we had to deny them because it's too close to another crosswalk. So obviously, maybe something has changed. I'm just saying once that happens, I'm gonna tell you all those other people gonna come back in, so I'm just gonna assume that maybe circumstances have changed because we've had to deny quite a few crosswalks because we say no because under state law and the U.S., it's like U.S. road, PC, I forget what the letter, that's it. That even if we wanted to, sometimes we've been inclined, we wanna put a crosswalk in, but we're told we're precluded from doing that because it's too close to another one. We paid attention to that factor in showing where the crosswalks are. In some cases, it's on this side of the street versus this side of the street for exactly that reason. Okay, thank you. And I apologize for all the questions. No, they're great questions. So, look at me, the frustrating part of the folks is the timing of this, maybe we are asked to make a decision in this meeting and no one really saw it coming at this meeting. And so, I understand that, and so I mean, I didn't know that this whole stretch was still under study, and that was made clear to me when we last voted, on that compromise of me, I just didn't know when we were going to be presented with something on which we needed to vote, and so I think we're gonna do the best we can here and vote more than that, the letter to the tent. We'll need to talk with people a lot more, probably a lot more people in order to get me in some sense of how to move forward next. I think it is a beautifully comprehensive plan and something that the community will be proud of if we pull it off, and so, but I just have a couple of questions about the mask grant, and so you said that that was a surprise, right? And so we found out about that in October last year, is that the deal? I can't answer, yes. So that is what kind of changed the trajectory of the timing of the community discussion or were we always aiming towards this time for making a decision? Thank you for the question. I think at the time, we did not know that we were going to receive the mask works grant, and we were using a combination of transportation funds, some capital funds, just different things sort of cobbled together to do the work that we've done so far, which is roughly another $300,000 worth of design between the temporary and then bringing the permanent to where we are right now. The 307,000 from the state will get us to biddable documents, and we found out, like I said, in October the award was made public in early November, and we're contracting with mask works now to finish the design, to bring it to the biddable documents. Had we not received the mask works funding, we would be right here where we are tonight, which is concept, let's talk, let's look for money, let's look for some additional design funds, et cetera. Because we got the award, now we're sort of moving into, hey, let's finish the design and let's look for some construction funding as well. Because it seems like a really positive option right now. Right, right, so that's what's making us, we have to make a pretty significant decision in near term, near frame, so this potential of getting a lot of money is a good problem to have. I mean, do we have a sense of how much project it's gonna cost? I'm gonna say, in our initial very conceptual estimates that we were putting together, we were between three and five million. Because that includes some of the utility pole relocations and some of those added costs that would come into play. Right, and the grant, I mean, if we'd get it funded, I mean, it would be for that entire amount? Correct. Right, and so my sense is for these kind, how competitive do you think is some? From what I know, Master X is very competitive. And I think Claire is right that there is some momentum right now with just having received a grant for design that it shows that they believe this is a good project that they would like to see through and see it through to construction, so. Are there elements in the grant that makes it more competitive, like more likely that you will get funding in order to do things that they're expecting? And then, are they like to see that would make it more appealing? I think the fact that the community has potential development opportunities coming in and the, I'll say the spectrum of those that were presented in the last application. And I think otherwise they want to be able to fund shovel-ready projects. So if this project had a lot of permitting, they would want to see that the permitting was completed. If there was a large right-of-way aspect, they would want to see that the land is all acquired. From that perspective, this project is a little simpler because it doesn't have some of those other elements to it. So I think the most important thing is to have an accurate cost estimate and a full set of plans that we can submit with it and say, this could go to a contractor now and put out to bit. Gotcha, so you said that you had done your own pedestrian parking study. Did I hear that correctly? Because I know that Dan did want me to submit it. So did you do one in addition to that? We did not do a separate parking study. We relied on the information from Dan. We took new counts, multimodal counts of vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. And Aaron will correct me, April or May of last year for 12 hours over a course of several days so we can capture all the different activity that happens here. Right, so did you find that the study that Dan did was you, did you think that the methodology and the conclusions, or first did the methodology was good and that the conclusions were correct? Yeah, and what he showed was the amount of parking that there was and where it was most used. And we very much took that into account and batched up with our own observations every time we've been out there to show where the parking was most important and tried to preserve that within the design. Dan's parking study identified four areas of interest that his study looked at in particular and looked at the utilization of those areas separate from the entire corridor. And we use the findings from that to determine where we would keep parking and where we've relocated to other locations. Yeah, we ask TAC to look at it for various reasons. It's been delayed in getting back to us with COVID being one of the issues. And so they may get back to us as soon as they're next meeting in March. So we may get a readout from that by mid-March. Look, I mean, so like I said, I understand the people are surprised by this, and they're surprised that it happened. I think that he, I don't know to what extent people are surprised that we are looking at that whole corridor. I wasn't, but then kind of keyed in to the stuff a lot more. But certainly I think people surprised me that we kind of re-litigated for lack of a better word, the south side parking. So when it was prevented to me, that we want to discuss this at this meeting, I said, I think we could if we really talked to all members of the board separately, but we ain't enough time for that. And so here we are. And I think we'll have more of those conversations, folks. I'll just toss out a couple of other things to me. I really like being the crosswalks at the foot of the rocks. I walked that stretch of Mass Ave, a fair amount. And I think that crosswalk, the alignment of it will be much better than what we currently have. And it'll fit in very nicely with the current thinking for the foot of the rocks development. I like the plaza area. And I think now the term art is making place instead of just placemaking. And then when they told me that there was the possibility of putting the bus stop in front of that so that the autism kids no longer have to cross the street, but a bus stop, that was a winning proposition for me. See. So, yeah, the bus stop, the bump, yeah, bump outs. Bump outs are the only thing that I sometimes cringe about because I think of their impact me on bike lanes and I also think of the impact if you do try to do a bus lane, but that's just it. And I understand the benefits of them. So I just like to say, I know that Dan kind of got the ball rolling on this and he's no longer here. I just really wanna thank him for getting the ball rolling on this and for the work that you all have done on this. Like I said, I think it's really beautiful. And like I said, I think if you can get most of it done and it is something that will make the town proud. I didn't see the protected bike lane using part of the sidewalk on the North side coming, and maybe because I just wasn't paying a close attention at the meetings, but I think that's great because I walked that area a lot once again and that part of the sidewalk really isn't used. In fact, it's kind of bad territory. You know, you don't really even wanna walk there. Me, so I think if you're kind of removing it and putting a substitute, a protected bike lane in there, it's really beautiful. And so I look at the thing and I say, let's see how much we can get done, meaning let's talk with people and listen with people and we'll go forward as much as we can. So are there any other, if someone in the room can talk, you know, just say something. Mr. Chair. Yeah, great, great, yeah. I said something, sorry. I believe Mr. Herg was entering your attention. Yeah, please, Mr. Herg. Yeah, so I wasn't even aware of the timing when I spoke before, so I was just reiterate that it's a little frustrating to get this and say, oh, but you gotta give us a letter of approval because we have to meet this timeline. But that being said, I mean, I think I've said my piece here, a letter of approval. I will support a letter that we want somebody else to pay for this project and I'll leave it at that. And that's about as much approval as I'll give it, but I'll leave it there. But again, I mean, you can go forward with public comment. I know you're collecting public comment, but I mean, Mr. Corsi, you have four members of the board which means you need three members of the board to vote on any changes to this street. So, I mean, I would kick it back to the designers now to, I think you're free to now with the fire to go and redesign this based on what you heard from two members of the board because without, you just don't have the majority, you can go through this whole process and if the board doesn't support it, then the board doesn't support it and we go back to the drawing board. So I would just leave that comment to you is I think you are now under the gun to make, come up with a plan that this board not only will get the funding that we want, but this board will approve the changes to the traffic rules and order. All right, so any other comments, questions? All right, so on a motion to send a letter of intent by Mr. Helmut in a second for that by Mr. Mohan, Mr. Han. Mr. Herb? Yes. Mr. Helmut? Yes. Mr. Mohan? Yes. Mr. Degas? Yes. It's a four zero vote with Mr. DeCoursey recusing himself. Well, thank you. Thank you everyone. Thank you for your presentation. You know, I'm sure we'll be talking soon. Well, Mr. Coursing comes in, I can pull up the next item on the agenda. Welcome back, Mr. Coursing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we're now on to item number 12, a presentation and approval on safety at Whitebrook Unit. I am going to ask Vice-Chair and Madam Vice-Chair, Mr. Mohan, to introduce this topic and the guests. I think I'll get first Mr. Helmut. Thank you. Mr. Helmut. Mr. Chair, I need to recuse myself from this due to the state conflict of interest law in my employment by the legislature. And my understanding is that this will ask the select board to petition the legislature. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mohan? I'm just going to wait until Mr. Helmut. Sure. Exits the room for clarity sake, not for anything else. Welcome back, Mr. Coursing. Thank you, Madam Vice-Chair. Did you hear what they said about? No, I didn't. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be very brief. I know that one of the co-chairs of Save the Allway, Brooke, submitted an email to all of us here on the board in terms of, in particular, why one of our colleagues had to recuse himself, seeking our possible support on some legislation as well as we received correspondence regarding the CSO process with the cities of Cambridge, Somerville, and MWRA, and public process. But I'll, what I'd like to do right now, if she's been promoted, is ask Kristen Anderson, one of the original proponents who requested this agenda item to speak and go from there. Thank you. Is that your session? Yes. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Good evening. Dear members of the Select Board, Town Council, Town Manager, thank you so much for giving Save the Allway, Brooke, the opportunity to be here this evening. David White, David Stoff, Gwen Speed are all here from Save the Allway, Brooke with me this evening. Save the Allway, Brooke is a grassroots environmental group with supporters in the communities along the Alewife, Brooke, and the Little River, including Arlington, Belmont, Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford. We formed our organization to raise awareness about the unsafe condition of the Brooke and to advocate for an end to untreated sewage discharges. We envision an Alewife, Brooke, that is safe to live near an environmentally healthy community resource. This evening, we asked for your support of new state legislation concerning combined sewer overflows. The legislation has been introduced by representatives Rogers and Madaro, and representative Bargley is a co-sponsor. There is a new Alewife, Brooke, long-term sewage control plan being developed at this time by Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Cambridge and Somerville, the three entities that dump untreated human and industrial waste mixed with stormwater into Alewife, Brooke, during rainstorms. This new long-term sewage control plan is meant to mitigate the problem of untreated sewage pollution in the Brooke. We believe that where there is political will, money plus time can solve problems. But along the Alewife, Brooke, political will is naturally splintered because the Brooke itself marks the boundary between four separate municipalities with four different local governments, Arlington, Belmont, Cambridge and Somerville, and the city of Medford is just yards away from where the Alewife meets the Mystic River. Further, MWRA bears responsibility for its CSO that dumps untreated human and industrial waste into Alewife, Brooke. Historically, polluters that have clutched up her strings close their eyes, held their noses and sent their pollution downstream where it becomes someone else's nightmare. That nightmare manifests itself as a serious health hazard during flood events in East Arlington's most diverse environmental justice population block. This is why the Alewife needs help from the state through legislation. The Commonwealth can greatly improve water quality by passing legislation to bring all untreated combined sewer overflows in the MWRA sewer system area to a 25 year level of control, meaning untreated sewage pollution would be discharged on average only once every 25 years. This is one standard that is currently applied to other CSOs in the Boston area, including on the beaches along the Bay. Polluters would be required to eliminate more frequent discharges or ensure that those that do occur are treated. This would be a big step towards addressing the problem while the cities continue to separate their antique combined sewer lines. And I think I sent a map along that I was hoping you could share. Terrific. Okay, so this is a map from MWRA and you can see the green dots are active and untreated CSO outfalls where hazardous sewage pollution is discharged during heavy storm events. There are six active CSO outfalls in the Alewife Brook and in 2021, 51 million gallons of untreated sewage pollution was discharged in Alewife Brook. The orange dots are CSOs that have a 25 year level of control. Note that there are four outfalls in the Bay that have 25 year level of control. This is what we seek from the state for all remaining untreated CSOs in the MWRA system. This legislation would bring the same level of CSO control to the Alewife as is afforded along the Bay which makes recreational swimming possible on Boston beaches as represented by orange dots on the map. This is something MWRA can do and this legislation gives them 10 years to accomplish this for the Alewife. This legislation exists because of the initiative of Gene Benson. Gene Benson is on the state of the Alewife Brook Steering Committee but cannot be here this evening because of a schedule conflict. He is an active member of the Arlington Redevelopment Board in their meeting at this time. Mr. Benson is a lawyer who worked at MWRA and he has served on the board of the Mystic River Watershed Association. He has written this legislation on behalf of saved Alewife Brook with input and support from the Mystic River Watershed Association. And again, if it passes, this law would eliminate untreated CSO discharges except in larger storm events meaning the 25-year storms are larger. It would be a huge improvement for Alewife Brook and the legislation allows the CSO permittees a decade to either reduce or eliminate CSO discharges or add treatment facilities. We ask for your support for this legislation tonight. Please vote in favor of it for a save for Alewife Brook. Thank you. Thank you. That's one of my colleagues, Mr. Hartman. I'd like to move approval of issuing the letter of support. And thank you for all your efforts and I know we talk about this from time to time, probably not enough, but as much as I think we do it, every time we do it baffle, I don't know why I get shocked over and over the thought of raw sewage being dumped into the L.Y. Brook and someone thinking that's okay, but I'm glad that the surrounding towns and the legislature is taking steps to prevent that. And again, thank you for all your work on this subject. And Mrs. Mahan is quite an advocate for this cause on this board, particularly. Oh, excuse me. Second, Mr. Herd's motion. And what I would do is ask if Ms. Anderson and or Mr. Benson could work with through the chair during this week with some verbiage. I'm blanking on it. If it's HR 1610, I can't remember what the actual citation of the legislation is, but just to make sure that we send a concise, but hit all the points letter to the legislative delegation. So if you could just either figure out how you're gonna work with the chair, select board office and attorney Hyme, and hopefully get that out within seven days or whenever you think is appropriate. If you think we have more time, that's fine too. And then I do have one other question on the agenda material, but Mr. Chair, should I wait and just deal with this first? Yeah, I guess this is on one of the, you know, is it related? It is, and I can make it real brief. Yeah, please. The agenda material attached to tonight's agenda has a copy of a correspondence, date of February 24th, 2023 to mass DEP regarding the ongoing discussions that the cities of Cambridge, Somerville, and MWR, Mass Water Resources Association are having. I do know that various employees of the town, including Attorney Hyme, have been attending those meetings, listening and taking the information, and sometimes also speaking at that. So my really brief question would be, but I also anticipate, and I don't know which department heads it would apply to besides Attorney Hyme, but I'm thinking our director of health and human services, Ms. Brunjerno, and Hume Morales, that when the town's submission to mass DEP is at that point where it's pretty much done in draft form, I would anticipate that the full board would see that to see if there's anything that they want to amend, delete, or add to it. So just seeing their submission to DEP triggered in me that I'd like to, when it's appropriate, see what it is, the town of Wellington. I know we have saved the All White Brook. I know Charles River Watershed Association is submitting theirs. I know Mystic River Watershed Association is submitting theirs, but I also know the town of Belmont is submitting from the town. I'd like to see what's coming from Arlington that in accordance with past practice, the select board also signs on to. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Sorry. Of course, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm also happy to support this. I want to thank Ms. Anderson for all her work and save the Yellow Life Brook, the other members as well. And Ms. is behind your work in getting this before the board and working with them. And it's House 3316. And I know Representative Garbel, I think, is also a co-sponsor of it. So yeah, that's all my comments. Thank you for the presentation, for the extensive notes that you provided to us as part of our agenda package. Thank you so much. So Ms. Anderson's being up. So did you seek other co-sponsors? We're working on it. We will be. We will be working on this heavily. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. How much do you think it will cost to take care of this problem? Um, I don't know. I don't know. I mean, do you mean for... To solve the problem? Well, there are a lot of problems. They're the one that you want to solve. And we... By this legislation. Oh, for this legislation, I don't know what this would cost the state. I'm not sure what would cost the state. So this hasn't been assigned to a committee yet, right? No. So then, I mean, normally what you want to do is send a letter, I mean, to the committee that gets it, right? Mm-hmm. That's going to be... To the extent the letter's effective, that would be probably the point of, which is most effective. So we'll probably want to wait until it's been assigned to a committee, and then find the chair of that committee, you know, or the members of that committee and then send letters to them. Because the deal is that you want to get it reported, a favorable report out of that committee, right? To the next step, right? Yeah. Okay, all right. So then we do have time. All right. Okay, all right. So yeah, because I think right now, I mean, we're going to send it to the folks who are already supporting it, being as in the representative Rogers, you know, and Gaborley, we were not really gaining anything. We want to reach the members of the committee to which the legislation on the bill is assigned, right? Sure. Okay, all right. Mr. Chairman, could I just add that it actually does help the legislators who are supporting this for them to have it initially, not to convince them for the support, but when they're moving forward towards the stakeholders that are on the committee that will be hearing this. The biggest thing is when you're in the state house, is if you're a show-and-go or fluff-and-puff or something like that, that legislation gets filed all the time. But when they have a letter of support from the municipality with the proponents that are proposing the legislation who are already on board, that's sort of a signal, not sort of. It is a signal that this wasn't filed for the sake of filing. This is something that is a serious request. So I would want to do the letter now just to follow that process, because it kind of is a tool that they use to say, this is something we really do want and the municipality really does want. And in terms of cost, I can tell you having started on this back in 1995, when I was advocating for the total elimination within 50 years back in 1995 of all CSOs, that at that point, the cities of Cambridge, Medford and MWRA knew what that would cost because Fred Lasky from MWRA threw that number back at me to say how cost-prohibitive it is, and it just can't be done. And I also know from attending currently the meetings that have been held by Cambridge, Summable, MWRA, O10 Reardon from the city of Cambridge, the consultant group from the city of Summable, and oh my Lord, I'm blanking on, it's not Fred Lasky, the gentleman from MWRA. Who's overseeing this. They already know what the number is if they were told whether through legislation or otherwise that they had to embark on something like this. So it's kind of a nebulous, quiet thing. A number is known and the state code is known about it. So thank you. Yeah, sort of, and I guess what I'm thinking about is the fact that when I came to this board, and I think in my first year, maybe my second year, because the group that I was working with the state, trying to pass enabling legislation for real estate transfer fee, the goal then was to get me as many select boards to show that they support this, and I came to you all and asked for that, and you gave it to me. And as I've said, I kind of regret doing that because I felt, well, it's not at all clear to me that it made a difference. And secondly, I feel that if a letter were going to be effective, it'd probably better coming from each member. And also I was thinking kind of more generally, I don't want to put the board in a situation where members are feeling that they need to sign onto it. And when it's not necessarily something that they wholeheartedly support, I mean, and so the board could be saying, well, we support me, the board could say, well, it's okay to, I guess, maybe put it on board letterhead or, but I don't know, I'm getting a little, hello, I'm losing the stock of guarantee. I really want it, we have a motion and it's been seconded. And I guess I would say any individual select board member that doesn't support this and doesn't want to sign on doesn't have to. So thank you. Okay, that's fine. So as long as that's the understanding. So, and my inclination is to sign, but I just don't want to put members in a situation where they feel that they have to. So as long as that's understanding, it's great. And so, okay, so with that, any other comments, questions? All right, so a motion to send a letter by Mr. Hearn and seconded by Ms. Mohan. Mr. Hearn. Mr. Hearn. Yes. Yes. Ms. Mohan. Yes. Mr. Diggs. Yes. It's a four zero vote with Mr. Hearn for accusing himself. Thank you so much. Thank you. You're welcome. Excuse me. Sure. So we'll go through this one next item quickly. And then if you want to take a break before we do the resolutions, we can. So, thanks for joining us, Mr. Hearn. So quickly on MBT assessments, you know, I know that there is continuing discussion or concern about these being and I have asked around about when the legislature is going to be take up being the MBT assessments and I'm not hearing anything. In fact, if anything, you know, people aren't even aware of it as an issue. And so I was under the strong impression that the legislature is going to have to look at assessments again when the South Coast Rail, the extension of the Cuban Rail came online. I mean, and the anticipation is that that would happen in this legislative session. I mean, so as I said, I got this from the executive director of the MBT advisory board. And so what I'm inclined to do now is ask Attorney Heim, I mean, if he could look into seeing when assessments have to be reopened, is it really linked to South Coast Rail? I mean, so I think a search through the legislation will give us something conclusive. I mean, and then once I know, I mean, whether or not that really has to happen, then I feel more confident in pursuing this by asking whomever I think is the best person to ask in the legislature, legislature. Also, depending on what comes out of this, especially if it's a yes, if you need to, I mean, I would like to ask Ms. Mohan to work with me to meet with the chair of the advisory board, that's Mayor Koch, being from Quincy, and representatives of Narbelie, to discuss me how to go about finding out the best way to calculate the assessments to me so that Arlington feels as if it's being treated equitably or fairly. So that's my comment on this. Any questions, comments, concerns? I'd be happy to work with you on that, and I'll commit whatever amount of time needed to have that conversation and go from there. I sort of have June 30th as a deadline in terms of under state law when assessments, under state law, the way I read it is they're supposed to be reassessed every year around that time, so that's sort of the end clock time working backwards, and if I could, Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask if the town manager could just share briefly with the board, I along with all of these have had conversations with the town manager regarding the MBTA assessments and had a conversation with the town manager about coming up with a draft letter for the board to consider to present the appropriate time by June regarding the new community's municipalities that are coming online, so we're requesting reevaluation, reassessment of our MBTA assessment, which is ridiculous, as well as the elimination of two bus routes, and it depends on who you talk to, 20 to 30% MBTA reduction, and I know that the town manager, if you could just share what you shared with me as well as, I think you said the town, yourself, or somebody else has already been having these conversations and or may have already spoken, I think it might have been you through MMA or something else, but if you could give the same briefs, update to my colleagues that you gave to me on that. Thank you. That's okay, Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Chair. Yes, so I spoke with the director of the MBTA advisory board about this process. I think I've also been trying to do this in conjunction with Chair Diggins because he is the town representative on that board, and so I think his efforts and my efforts have gone hand in hand in trying to determine the timeline for this, but the process is gonna be whether, in fact, there needs to be a reassessment and reconfiguration of those assessments, and one, whether those assessments are gonna be done under the law as was written years ago that prejudices, frankly, Arlington, or whether, because these new communities are gonna come in, they're gonna have to reassess that. So I think Chair Diggins and I have been trying to get that figured out. We at one point were gonna have a meeting with the chair of the advisory board. He had to cancel, so I think we're still working on trying to figure out the exact legal process. That's what he has Attorney Hyme to do, and then we will continue to go forward to figure out where we have the opportunity to have some input and what that input should be depending on what the legal constraints are or the legal situation is, and I hope I have answered the question the same way that I answered to you before. Yes, somebody's gonna write that friggin' letter, I don't care who, I'll write it. Okay, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Make that request, that's all I need. Okay, so I will turn it to you all to see how much you want to write before we go into resolutions. What is, I didn't hear, I heard turn to you. Does anyone want to break? I had a long break, and I have more to come. We're all set. We're all set? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, no problem. So, we will move on now into resolutions. So, what do you know? The first resolution is on a resolution to improve MBTA's artist, and I think that's... Mr. Schlickman, how are you all doing? I'm fine, how are you? Good, I've got a cat snoring next to me. If you hear snoring, it's the cat. Only that, we're in the chambers, you know? Oh, we got a cat person. Okay, great, lots of comments. Okay, so the first item before I have a pair of, articles I submitted, the first one really addresses the MBTA at this point because there has been a tremendous loss of service to the town of Arlington over the years, and it just keeps on getting worse and worse and worse. And we're now finding ourselves in a position where we're being asked to do some zoning changes because we have MBTA service, and we have a community that desires to be walkable and sustainable and availing itself of MBTA services while the service itself is being cut. And the irony of this is beyond all the other cuts we had is that at the moment the MBTA opened the new Green Line extension out to Tufts-Medford, two days later they cut the service on the 80 bus that is the only bus from Arlington that connects to the Green Line extension. So one of the reasons why the Green Line extension was put through all sorts of legal challenges to the state and the Big Dig was that it's a mitigation against the traffic being generated by the Big Dig and people using cars instead of transit. And for the extension to be terminated early rather than going all the way out to Mr. Valley Parkway, and to have no way to get to the Green Line extension for people in Arlington, all that's gonna do is encourage people to use cars through that area that has been requesting mitigation. So I put together a brief resolution, a draft that's in your packet of what we might present to town meeting because I think it's time for the town meeting and my friends on the select board to make a statement. I will also state that we have real concerns on the school side because we have relied on the MBTA for years and years and years for student transit for children in grades seven through 12 and the deterioration of services, wreaked havoc on kids getting to school on time to the point where we've had to look into yellow school buses where we didn't run them to get kids up to the odyssey. So, Mr. Helmick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for the odd being my discontinuity here. I also need to recuse myself for this items. I'm not gonna make any substantive comments and the following item because of special legislation and then the state flag and seal item as well. So, I'm gonna go off on another break. Okay, thank you. It's for the same reasons as before. Thank you. Mr. Huffman, of course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Schlichman, for the draft resolution. I have separate comments on your other warrant article, but we have all seen the reductions and have been disappointed by the reductions that are being proposed or that have been put in place. So, I would, we'll talk about this, but I would support some sort of resolution. My only concern in here, as drafted, and I realize that you've said that you've drafted a shelved resolution for us to consider and maybe add to, is just the inclusion of the comparison to Quincy. And I know that's a separate issue on the assessments, but we're disappointed in the service and what's happened. I'm not sure if that's the place to compare ourselves to Quincy, but everything else, I agree with you and I share your concerns and share the concerns of the school department and school committee on reductions in service to the 77 bus in the morning in particular. So, thank you for putting this before us. Second. Mr. Huffman, Parker. No, happy to support it. Oh, you know, I understand the desire here. I actually have put in the materials, I mean, actually for the previous item on the assessments, the faculty analysis, and in that, he kind of explains the rationale that he had for doing the bus network design, which is where the projected changes in service to system-wide bus-wide are coming from. I get into a bit of a state with these resolutions because there's a part of me, a big part of me that appreciates me, the engagement of residents on issues and their desire to try to affect change. This isn't going to do it. What will do it is be for the T to appreciate me that there is the demand for the service, from certain points, and the money to provide that service. Now the T lacks the money and more so it lacks the drivers, the employees. The overall state of the T has been caused by a serious lack of investment being for decades. I mean, essentially, since forward funding started being told. So we can ask for it, I think we're better being working on zoning changes that will allow for more housing, especially in that Broadway area, so that if we could show that in a decade or so, there is going to be a lot more people there who would be inclined to use transportation to be one more argument, to extend the green line to the Mystic Valley Parkway. So I don't want to vote against it because I don't want to discourage people. I don't want to vote for it because I don't want to encourage people to do something that really isn't the best use of their time. So I'm going to decide on between our public state, just because I don't want to be bad. I don't want to be a bad person, but I don't want to mislead people. So any other comments, questions? Mr. DeCorsi. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And of course, each one of us is free to vote, however we see fit. But I see this more as a statement of concern about where things are going. I completely understand the personnel issues that the NBTA has right now in terms of finding employees, but to Mr. Schillichman's point, I mean, the 80 bus of all buses to be cut, there's no data on that because the station hasn't been opened. So I see this as a letter of concern and whether or not anything happens to it, it shows that this board is concerned about service to our community. I understand, but it's a resolution. No, I understand. Absolutely, and that's why I said it's a statement. Okay, I thought you said letters. No, no, no. Okay, if I said letter, it's a resolution, but it's a statement of concern. All right. I understand. So, so any other comments or questions? Okay, so, I did not write this one down, but I think I remember it. It was a motion to adopt the resolution by Mr. Kors. Yes, Mr. Kors. I think you have to open it up for public comment. That's true. That's true that I had thought about that, just for that. So are there any comments or any other counterpoints on the resolution? Have you seen it online? That's all right. And I should note that I was often had, that had to be reminded to me, so. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, look, I appreciate it. So it's all, it's all let's work together in the air feed on it. So I remember it, and I forgot and I'll probably do it again. I mean, so Ms. Meyer, did you see there were any answers? There's, thank you. All right, and no one in the room. Okay. All right. So, so on motion to adopt the resolution, but Mr. Kors, the second that is behind. Correct. Is that right? Yes. Okay. And so, Mr. Heim. Mr. Kirk. Yes. Mr. Kors. Yes. Ms. Lawn. Yes. Mr. Davis. Absolutely. The vote is three, zero, one with Mr. Heimann recusing himself. Great. Mr. Kors should have said three zero lines, just three zero with Mr. Davis and Mr. Lawn. So, our next is a special legislation article, a special legislation repeal MBTA prohibition. Mr. Suckman again. Thank you very much. I've spent a lot of time reading Arlington Advocates from the 1970s because I like anybody else who's been active in discussions about Arlington, particularly when it comes to transit, often get the feedback of, well, Arlington didn't want the red line. Arlington shot down the red line. And in 1976, I was a very young New York voter. And for all the folks who were not residents of Arlington in 1976 and were not voters in Arlington in 1976, the decision to fight the red line and have it terminated at ALYF is without a doubt the second most consequential decision in the history of the town of Arlington. Now, I think that people right now in the 21st century have a right to express their opinions and determine what kind of a community we want to have. Now, we can't have any discussion about improving transit through Arlington Center as long as this law is on the books. So what repealing this law does, it doesn't change anything except it would clear the books of a ban that was inherently designed to prevent the red line from coming into town. I think it's time for us to just reset the discussion. Whether anything is gonna happen this year, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years out, I think it's important that we come back at this point in time and say, that law wasn't a particularly good idea. It killed something and it stays on the books at this point and to repeal that just sets a neutral playing ground for any discussion we wanna go forward on. I gave you an extensive history and quotes behind why this happened and extensive discussion of some poorly worded ballot questions to replace in the ballot that really didn't give the opportunity for a good outcome of the popular opinion. So let's just clear the decks, go back to ground zero, repeal this law and just leave ourselves in a place where we can discuss about transit options without having state law being a barrier. Thank you, Mr. Schlichman. Questions, comments? Mr. Herger. Mr. Schlichman, are you gonna leave us all wondering what the most consequential decision in Allie's history was? Oh, that's pretty easy. It was a decision to be set aside from the then town of Cambridge and to form a town on our own. That was the most consequential. To confirm for our viewers. Yeah, as a former Arlington Catholic student, I'm not sure I get what the original intent of this law is, but I'm happy to have a motion to approve. Second. Any other questions? Comments? Mr. Corsiz? Yeah, and I remember when this happened because I looked at it at the time and I also took the opportunity to look at the advocate and we owe a continuing debt to Mr. Duffy for all the work that he did to digitize the advocate. But on this one, I agreed on the prior resolution. I don't necessarily agree to seek the repeal of this act. And I'll tell you why. This act actually, it was a big deal when it passed because Governor Dukakis actually came to Arlington to sign the bill at Arlington Catholic and Tip O'Neill came out to Arlington Catholic as well. And this wasn't the bill that killed the red line coming to Arlington, what it prevented. And I'm gonna quote Governor Dukakis from the advocate in October of 1976. And he said, now any station will be built at distance from the high school, meaning Arlington Catholic. It will be a community station to serve the people of Arlington, not a regional one drawing traffic from miles around. There won't be any parking garage unless the townspeople want it. Governor Dukakis said last week at Arlington Catholic, Tip O'Neill also commented that the real opposition which wasn't successful was the following year where Representative Kuzak had a file legislation to prevent the T from coming into Arlington and from terminating in Arlington because the original plan was that it would go all the way out to Route 128. Had that passed, I would agree with you, Mr. Schlickman, that it would make sense to repeal it. But this 75 yards, and there was different reasons. The St. Agnes Church and Arlington Catholic certainly had different reasons for not having the station within 75 yards. But when the governor who was a proponent of the red line and commuted to work from Brookline came out to sign it, he was just saying it's not gonna be there because we won't put a parking garage there. I also am concerned about asking the legislature to repeal something now. We have a number of home rule petitions every year, every other year that we ask our delegation to help shepherd through the legislature. Where I don't agree that this was the thing that prevented the red line, I really don't wanna ask them to do that. So unfortunately, we'll oppose this. And not for your concern, I think there were other consequential decisions. And at the end of the day, towards the end of 1977, our town manager at the time, Don Marquis, came back from Washington and said, the red lines aren't gonna go to Arlington because there's not enough money to fund it. That's really where everything ended. And there was only enough money to go to ill life and there were other concerns that just the cost of going underground all the way through Arlington, if that was going to happen, were prohibitive. So I enjoyed the history lesson, but I don't feel like this is the act that prevented the red line. And I just feel it's not something I wanna ask Senator Friedman or Representative Rogers or Representative Garbally to attempt to appeal. Well, that was interesting. So I really appreciated the history, Mr. Slickman, but Mr. DeCorsi, he certainly gave me a lot, think about there, you know. So Mr. Slickman, what is the effect of the legislation now, regardless of its original intent? The effect of the legislation essentially is that nothing can be done within 75 yards of Arlington Catholic High School. And that property, that would extend that 75 yard barrier onto Mass Ave at Medford Street. And because the property lines would extend it certainly well into the present parking lot and beyond. We can drop a map off the GIS. But as far as the effect is concerned, nobody's proposing to build anything there at this point. But this is an effort to more than anything else than to clear the decks. It is really in this point somewhat symbolic to not have a law that prevents any kind of transit facility being built within Arlington Center, within that constraint. So it's sort of, I'm really viewing this as clearing the decks to resetting the table, to being at a point where there's no law in favor or against, no resolution in favor against. We're sort of just saying, you know, let's clear that history. The town is different today. Clear the decks, reset the framework so we can have further discussions. All right, I got you. Okay, that may have a little bit more to say, but I'm just going to check first to see, you know, since this is a hearing to see if there are any ones who want to speak to us. Excuse me. No hands raised at this time. No hands raised at the same time, all right. Well, I'll give other people a chance to say more. All right, you know, okay. I mean, I was all for this until I heard Mrs. Of course, you know, comments, you know. My inclination is to talk with our delegates to see, you know, how they feel about this. And so what, I mean, at this point, because I think it could help with future, you know, transit possibilities in that area, I mean, maybe it might not be the thing that does it mean, but maybe it could spark me the thoughts of other things that other legislation that may need to be changed or proposed in order to allow for me that kind of development in that area. I'm inclined to support it, but I don't, I wanna warn you that I'm gonna have conversations with people and that we will have a chance to revisit this, and so I'll probably stay where I am, you know, ask those conversations, but I just wanna warn you that may not be the case. I mean, so Mr. Hart, is that a hand up? Yeah, I mean, I would say that I definitely appreciate Mr. Corsi's comments and that we don't wanna bog down our legislatures with legislation that has really no practical effect, but I guess I would just say I don't, this has been filed by Mr. Schlickman, and as we review it, I still am not 100% sure I get the original purpose or what it's trying to affect, so I will still vote yes. The other members? Okay, all right, so on a motion to vote positive action on the resolution by Mr. Hart and seconded by Ms. Mohan. Ms. Mohan. Mr. Hart. Yes. This is Mr. Corsi. No. Ms. Mohan. Yes. Mr. Diggins. Yes. Yes. All right, it's a three one vote with Mr. Helmuth recusing herself. Thank you. So on to, so thank you Mr. Schlickman. Thank you, my friends, have a wonderful night. Next article, well, so my understanding is this article has been pulled. Mr. Rahman, thank you. And so, yes, it's on. Mr. Chairman, when folks sign a resident petition, we still need to dispose of it. So even if it's been withdrawn, the board should take a very quick vote. Motion for no action. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Second. All right, all right. So I guess we'll wait for the motion to come to a vote. No discussion on this, Mr. Hart. Welcome. Mr. Diggins. I'm sorry. No, my bad. No, my bad, my bad. That's our motion to vote for no action by Mr. Diggins. Motion by Mr. Hart, seconded by Mr. D'Corsi. Thank you. Does a vote or no action not require public comment? Public hearing. We probably should just double check. That's what he was asking. I assume there's no public comment. Add this. Quick look. There's no hands or his no. Roll it. Thank you. Mr. Hart. Thank you. Mr. Corsi. Yes. This is Mohan. For no action, correct? Yes. I'm sorry. Mr. Diggins. Yes. Thank you, sir. I'm writing it down. It's a 4-0 vote with Mr. Helmuth recusing himself. So next I see our resolution to change state of mind. I see all of you. I see the item. This is a solid one. Solid one. Yes. Good evening, everyone. We've been going for quite a bit of time without a break. You have a lot of thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to be here for the select board. Our resolution is to support the work of the special commission relative to the CEO and motto of the commonwealth. The special commission was established by the NMU to support the passing of the two subsistence. Let me just extend it quickly. Are other people having problems here? No. Approval of the phone. I think he's frozen. OK, so other people are hearing problems here. OK, so the solid one, I'm going to ask that you turn off your video. You turn off your video because we're not able to hear you. Thank you. All right. The resolution. Yes, I'm afraid your audio is just not working. So we're really not able to hear you. It'd be one case. I mean, one thing if we couldn't see you, but we can't hear you. Mark, Racheco, and as representative. Is there someone else from your group that could maybe help with the presentation? Here is the joint call. Mr. Chairman? Yes, yes, sir. Mr. Salomon has been kind enough to put his statement in the chat. Would you like me to read it? Sure. I apologize, Mr. Salomon. We can't hear you and the feed keeps cutting out. So the words I'm about to recite are Mr. Salomon's words. Thank you for the opportunity to present our case here before the select board. A resolution. A resolution to ask the select board in the town of Arlington to support the work of the special commission relative to the seal and motto of the Commonwealth. The special commission was established by unanimous support from the Massachusetts State Senate and received approval of former Governor Charlie Baker to replace the current seal and motto of the Massachusetts state flag with a new seal and motto. The resolution also asked the town clerk to forward a copy of this resolution to Senator Mark Pacheco and Representative Antonio Cabral, co-chairs of the Joint Committee on State Administration, and to Senator Cindy Freeman, Representative Dave Rogers, and Representative Sean Garberley with the request that they continue their strong support for the work of the aforementioned special commission and advocacy for a new flag and seal of the Commonwealth. I'll begin tonight with a brief introduction, explaining the resolution, and then a brief background of the issue. I'm sorry, it looks like it cuts out at that point in time. Mr. Chair. Yes. I don't know if we can do this during the time, but I anticipate favorable action here. Can we just rely on the materials provided and maybe give comments and see if we have a motion? Is that okay? I certainly think under the circumstance, and Mr. Chair, if may? Yes, Mr. Chair. I would provide the Board the opportunity to discuss it, give the public opportunity to comment. I can actually answer a few questions. Mr. Solomon provided some terrific reference material that were helpful in illuminating me on the current posture of the special commission. So I think that we can proceed and hopefully Mr. Solomon's connection will improve. Well, I think if we go through the Board and hear opinions, it may not be necessary to further commit. I'll move positive action on this. I support the effort here. Second. So any questions? Any comments? No, you know, so any questions, comments from online or in the chambers? There's no hands raised at this time. Mr. Chair. I think I've read it. So it seems like it's already more being done on this and the deadline is sometime this year. So we're moving towards being where this resolution is taking us. Mr. Hyde. So there was a commission that was appointed to study the issue. I think what might be pointed out by some is that they weren't given a lot of resources and they haven't been given an extension of time that they requested. My understanding of the resolution is to join in a fairly large number of municipalities that have sent resolutions of this nature to the legislature to sort of continue to try to move the football across the goal line, if you will. Apologize for the analogy. But because there's not actually a firm action to say this is what we're replacing the current state seal and flag with, it's the fairest articulation I think we can make of it. And I note that Mr. Solomon appears to be back on video, but he looks frozen again, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's pissed off. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? I am in. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? I am. Okay. Motion. I just want to ask you this one question. I'm in favor of the goal of this. It's just, I just wonder what more we can do? And so is this enough? So we are potentially combining forces with other facilities that are doing this, and is going to put pressure on the legislature to provide more funding to get us to the point where they finish this, allow the commission to finish this work. Is that what you're understanding, Mr. Heller? Mr. Chairman, again, I don't want to speak for Mr. Salomar. What my understanding is that the commission was charged, its findings aren't necessarily binding, and they have expressed a need for more time, and at least some folks have expressed the need for more resources to help them finish their work. So that's my understanding of what the continued work has been in getting more resolutions of this nature from other cities and towns in the past year. All right. So it's with respect to the commission, as opposed to actually just changing the seal. It seems like we're really wanting to change the seal in regards to the commission is going to do. Because as you said, the commission's work is not binding, right? Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may, the commission already recommended changing the flag, seal, and motto, to my understanding, they made that vote. But I'm sorry. Mr. Salomon by chat says the commission's deadline has ended and their time has not been extended. It's up to the state legislature to take up this issue at this time. It has been two and a half years since the commission's approval. The state of Mississippi changed its flags in six months after George Floyd's death. So I think you've summed it up nicely, Mr. Chairman, that they're looking for additional sort of pressure to move this issue forward by having the town of Arlington be added to the communities. And again, I'm trying not to advocate. I'm just trying to read what Mr. Salomon has written here to continue to apply some momentum behind this action. I'm just trying to figure out what more we can do on this and maybe go through the effort of taking our time and Tom Beattie's time to deal with these resolutions. And they are good causes, but if they really aren't doing anything, then once again, I'm counting the situation where it was before. I appreciate the public engagement and the desire to affect change, but don't want to just do something for the sake of doing it. Because all right, well, the answer is I'm going to get on this. And I'm not frustrated with any of you. It's more just kind of you see me wrestling with resolutions in public because that's what we do. So I think probably my colleagues don't have any other questions or comments. And so I think on a motion to vote positive action on the resolution by Mr. Hurd and a second by Mr. Mahan. Mr. Mahan? Did you already seek public comment? Oh, I apologize. Mr. Hurd. Yes. Mr. DeCourson. Yes. Mrs. Mahan. Yes, thank you. Mr. Diggins. Yes. It's a 4-0 vote with Mr. Helmuth recusing himself. All right. Thank you. Thanks for that double check. Mr. Heim, to make sure that I had checked for public comment. So I don't know, I express appreciation for that. So whole point was for you not to apologize. All right. So next article for a bylaw amendment on medical and discrimination bylaw. So I think this is Mr. Catlin. Is it? Hello. Hello, Mr. Catlin. I thought it was in my mind. Mr. Chair, may I address both of my articles together and in reverse order? It's a little bit easier to explain that way. We'll still have to take votes on them separately. So is it possible for you to break up? Well, I'll tell you what. You go ahead and have discussion. We'll take the vote separately. OK. All right. Try to keep it short. I trust you've all read my submitted materials. So my name is Mark Catlin, town meeting member for precinct nine. And I'm also the newly elected chair of the Arlington Republican Town Committee. We developed these two warrant articles in response to members losing their jobs, pensions, and careers, much like MBTA employees who lost their jobs and contributing to the current shortage of drivers and engineers due to vaccine mandate. So the resolution is resolved if people have a natural and innate authority over their own body. It's short and simple. It's based on the constitutions of the United States and Massachusetts. And I just learned that there's two similar bills before the legislature for my two articles, SD 2014 and HD 2390. And it doesn't necessarily apply, absolutely, for those below the age of majority or have guardians. So the statement includes reproductive rights. That women have their right to terminate pregnancy until the growing baby is recognized as having rights itself. This includes reproductive rights in the number of children a woman may have, making China's one child unacceptable to us. Includes gender-affirming medicines and surgeries for adults, tattoos, piercing, general surgeries, et cetera. The sauce includes whether a person takes or refuses drugs claiming to be safe and effective, including vaccines. The sauce includes whether a person chooses to wear a medical face mask or not. At the minimum, mandates need to be made by elected boards responsible to voters and not appointed officials as in Arlington. Authority over one's body means not being forced to wear a medical mask or Birka as in some countries. Both being demanded for the benefit of others, a mask to keep others safe from COVID, a Birka to protect men from possibility of feeling lost, giving them comfort. I ask for your support in affirming that people are born with rights over their own body. Government does not grant rights, but instead must protect the rights people are born with. That is the responsibility of government. My second article is people shall not be denied access to facilities or services based on medical status. Should also be easy. I grew up during the AIDS era when public fear and ignorance resulted in horrible discrimination directed at suffering populations and those suffering horribly. Laws were made to protect medical status information, people from discrimination. This is all out the window with COVID. Fear and ignorance returned with vaccination cards and needing them to gain entrance to venues like the senior center or participate in youth sports. Young people faced no risk from COVID and are at the highest risk for myocarditis. The decision makes no sense. Again, COVID vaccines do not block transmission, yet science was ignored and people clutched fear-based mandates. President Biden said COVID is over. I hope belief in disproved claims by the CDC and others will also end soon. Censorship of newer science must end before healing can begin and victims of bad science are made whole. I respectfully ask the board to protect residents from discrimination based on what medical conditions they have or don't have so they don't need to produce personal medical files to enjoy facilities and services today and for the next pandemic. Thank you. Thank you. We are going to take these one at a time. So the first one is on the amendment, by-law amendment for medical and discrimination by-law. So I turn to Alex's. Okay. So I think before we take the motion, I'll check to see if there are any input from members of the public. There is one hand, a couple hands raised at this time. Okay. So this is being resolutioned. Sorry, I didn't point this out earlier. We are going to adopt in the same format that we do in town meeting where we take one, a positive, a pro speech. Mr. Diggins? Yes. I think I know where you're going, but I don't want to confuse it. I think we're talking about the by-law first. Oh, right. So then it's just a hearing. So then we can accept it in a minute. So thank you. I appreciate that clarification. So we can have as many comments as we want. Okay. So please bring the first one. The first person is Gina B. You would just unmute your mic. Hi, can you hear me now? I'm sorry. My name is Michelle. I just wanted to voice my full support for what Mark Captolin just said. His two, I think one was the by-law and one's a resolution. Something that we can all agree is something that we need more of in this world as we've just gone through the most divisive years in history. The first one is the bodily autonomy, right? Either it's my body or my choice or it's not, right? Either you have control over your body or the government does. And I think we all agree we should have that choice. And then the second was the anti-discrimination. And yes, of course, there has been mistakes made in the past, actually a group of concerned citizens. We just met with someone in LinkedIn leadership who actually did and honestly admit that mistakes were made. And we need to learn from those mistakes as to not repeat them. So no, any discrimination against someone that has not had a medical procedure should never happen. So I really hope that you consider these and also send your support. Thank you. Thank you. And the next person is Paul Schlittman. I just want to point out that the school committee maintained its legal obligations throughout the pandemic. We did adopt emergency policies that designated certain decisions to the superintendent during the pandemic, which was a common policy to most school committees throughout the state. The intent was because the conditions were changing rapidly, an elected body cannot make quick decisions. We can set the parameters through the decisions and then set ourselves up with the ability to review or reverse them if we so desire. But the decisions that were made regarding both masking policies and opening school were done through the authority and school committee. In addition, the decision to require vaccines of extracurricular activities within the district were specifically made by a vote of the school committee attached to that temporary policies that we enacted during the pandemic. It is not uncommon for there to be vaccine mandates put forth by the state. In we don't view that as being an unusual part of our work. For the record, the emergency policies have been rescinded, so they are no longer in effect. But the statements that decisions were being made by the Board of Health or the superintendent and not based on the decisions of the school committee and the parameters set by the school committee is not really accurate. Next question. I don't agree with some of the stuff that is going on. But I mean, I'm going to make a motion for vote no action under the premise that the language to me just seems overly broad and there could be just read on its face. I can't comprehend the full extent of what would be prohibited here and what special circumstances we could be changing just by inserting this language. So for those grounds, I'm voting. Submitting a motion and no action. Thank you. I second that. And I would just add, having reviewed Attorney Hyme's very helpful memo to the board, which is available to the public on the Select Board Agendas and Minutes page, it's very clear that whatever ones if used are on the substance, this is an inappropriate, legally inappropriate vehicle. This bylaw, if I am interpreting Attorney Hyme's memo correctly, can have no effect. It would be immediately ruled rejected by the Attorney General and for very good reasons because it is not within the scope of town meetings authority to do the things that it enumerates endeavors to do. Thank you. Quick question, Caroline, would there be any exceptions to your bylaw, where the stake should require a requirement? Well, sure. I mean, it's hard to think of a situation where there should be an exception. Should people with HIV be excluded from activities? How do you feel about that? Well, I have an answer, so you said there could be, but you're not sure what they are. OK, just trying to understand. All right, well, there's always emergency edicts that overall any law. And we've seen that happen. And that would be so that's acceptable. Yeah, sure. I mean, if there's an Ebola outbreak and people need to stay clear of infected people, then certainly. But in this case, mandating masks and vaccines that are now shown ineffective in the most recent science, they're unreasonable. All right, got you. So thanks. Well, that was helpful. So all right, so any other comments, questions? OK, so well, I appreciate your answer. It's a good answer. But because of that understanding about the exceptions, it does make it easy for me to put no action on this. So with that, I mean, we have a motion on no action for Mr. Hurd and a second by Mr. Helmut and Mr. Heim. Thank you. Just to be clear, the board is voting on the proposed bylaw amendment. Mr. Hurd. Yes. Mr. DeCourste. Yes. Mr. Helmut. Yes. Mrs. Mohan. Mr. DeGas. Yes. Mr. Heim. Great. So now we're picking up the resolution, my body, my choice resolution. So any comments, questions, motions, and comments? Mr. Helmut. Mr. Helmut. Are we doing public comments for this first before you do motions or have that period finished for both of us? Well, if you want to do the motion, that's fine. I mean, I am going to do public comment. I'm sorry, I was just, it's late. My practice is always to listen to the public before I make a motion, so. I was just finding a way to tell the public chime in. It's just I didn't want to limit what you do now in this period. So give me public comments, questions, motions. So I'm seeing nothing from my colleagues at this point. So we'll look to the public and see if there's any statements. In this case, we'll take one. Gina B. has her hand raised. So this is a resolution meeting. We've heard from her before saying that she was going to be in support of this meeting. So the way we're going to handle the resolution, I was about to say this earlier, but we stopped in the middle of it, is that we're going to hand the resolutions that we do and tell the meeting that we take pro-site and anti-site meetup. So Ms. B, Ms. Gina B, if this is against the resolution, we'll hear you, but if it's for it, we won't. No, it's absolutely for it. OK. Just one comment. So they all talked about the L-Wife project, which is amazing, right? Absolutely disgusting wastewater is going in and killing the fish. But we look at this, which is actually hurting. It has hurt people and children, but we're not going to take action on that. I just find that astounding. I got you. OK, I appreciate that. So questions, comments, motions from our colleagues? We have no action. I'll second the motion. It's sometimes with these resolutions, it gets kind of funky because, I mean, I agree with the premise of what the article is saying, wording, but I mean, I think this is sort of similar to what the chair said with previous articles is not sure where. At some point with these resolutions, the explosion of resolutions that we've had in the past couple of years, we have to really figure out if we're accomplishing anything with the resolution if the resolution is doing something. And while, again, I agree with the wording, I just don't think we should continually be supporting resolutions that really don't push anything on the back end. So any other questions? Yeah. So look, I think we run into the same issue that we did with the bylaw on this one. And ultimately, the Constitution takes care of all of this, and any limitations that we see are generally coming from bodies that can be challenged in the courts. So this is not going to get you anything that you don't already have in our system of government. So it's your right to make these resolutions. It's your right to use our time this way. It's your right to take whatever we vote on, create a substitute motion to take more of Tom Beattie's time. But I don't think you'll benefit anyone, but it's your right. So on Mr. Chair, could I just very briefly, I'm just so hesitant on the fence about saying this, but I'll be voting no action. I sort of think case in point, if you're a guardian of a family member, for whatever reason, you as the guardian has to be the person who oversees, similar to a health proxy, that individual for whatever developmental delay. I don't want to go into it too much, because I'm not trying to make light or I think you understand what I'm saying. This would really go against that, because I do know of some individuals that it could be someone that really isn't that even verbal and just says no all the time. And something like this could preclude. But I'll stop there. I'm getting into it so. But I do see a case in point where, unfortunately, because of some individuals, this could be something that would not be to the benefiting, could be harmful. Thank you. So generally, as Caroline said, we're treating this like we do, the resolutions in town meeting where we're just doing one statement for one statement against. I wanted to clarify. OK. So the statement would apply to adults. So they're above the age of consent. So naturally, you wouldn't have children deciding on their own to change their gender or get an abortion without the parental knowledge and consent, for example. So and then the same thing applies for people who have appointed guardians. Again, the guardian then has legal responsibility for that person. Thank you for that clarification. Appreciate it, man. So any other comments or questions? All right. So I think we're going to interrupt the debate here. So on a vote of no action by Mr. Helman and a second by Mr. Heard, Mr. Heiden. Mr. Heard. Yes. Mr. DeCourts. Yes. Mr. Helman. Yes. This is Mahan. Yes. Mr. Davis. Yes. Yes. It's unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Caroline. Good night. Thank you. Welcome. So we have one more to dispose of. I understand that this article has been withdrawn as a vote to establishment of a civic petition, civic participation study. Motion for vote no action. Second. All right. We won't need for discussion. So I want to vote in the action by Mr. Heard and second by Mr. Helman, Mr. Heiden. Mr. Deans, I'm sorry. I just want to make sure since we've been following this practice that we, if there's any public comment, I know it's the petitioner has asked for the withdrawal of the article in writing, but I just want to double check. No problem, Mr. Heiden. That's why you're here to keep us in order. So thank you. Any input? At this time, there are no hands raised. OK. Great. So can't pick up where we were this time. So we have the motion of no action by Mr. Helman and second by Mr. Heiden. Mr. Heiden. Close enough. Yes. Mr. DeCourses. Yes. Mr. Helman. Who am I? Yes. This is Lawn. Yes, for everyone. Mr. Deans. Yes. Mr. unanimous vote. I thought I had a right. I thought that's why it's been the first time. You know, so all righty. So we are on to updating. Overnight parking pilot. So I sent you all the link to the video of me of the park, the forum that Mr. DeCourses and I, and actually Mr. Helman. So it was actually a special elect board meeting, you know, and it was, you know, a good two plus hours of interaction with residents about the issue. You know, and so as Mr. DeCourses and I reiterated and Mr. Helman, too, at the meeting that this was, we were not coming to residence with a done deal. You know, that we were going to certainly take their comments and questions, you know, to heart, you know, and think about them before moving forward. So I met with Mr. Corsi, I talked with Mr. Corsi afterwards, meaning that we certainly had some more thinking and more to do before coming back to the board with a proposal. And so we will, the earliest we'll do that is next meeting, you know, but at this point, we just want to check in with you to see if you have any thoughts and feelings. But before I turn it over to you, I'll ask Mr. Corsi if he wants to say a few words. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now that was well said. I guess just one thing, and you always learn different facets of what's being proposed and there's a lot of comments that are going to require us to go back and think through before we come back to the board. But one thing, and related to overnight parking, but a little bit outside that came through at that meeting was really the need for, the struggles people have with guest parking in town. I know several people who spoke up at that meeting and that's something that maybe you and I will think about some more in terms of how that gets incorporated as well. But as I said at that forum, I thank everybody for the comments and there was a number of people opposed to it and there were people who were in favor of it as well. But the comments were all constructive and we appreciate the input. Any other comments? Questions? Yeah, well, I'll just add to it. I was really impressed with how well, you know, people conducted themselves at the four meetings. Any form can get heated, you know, especially if people care a lot about a topic, you know, and that was not the case here. Everyone was very respectful. And so I very much enjoyed listening to them. I mean, I did more listening, you know, than countering points. I mean, there were certainly some things people said to me every once in a while, I would give a thought, you know, or a counterpoint or something. But that's really good to hear the input. And I'm pretty sure where we are landing on this thing is that it'll be an increase in the allowance being for permanent overnight parking. And I only say that because it may very well be that when Mr. D'Corsi and I come back with a proposal, it'll have a little bit of a different name, you know, because I think we used the term pilot because that was the term that we started using when it came to force in 21 as an article that we would go in and examine what we could do. And I think we just kind of settled on the word pilot. For us, it was more the just trying, you know, to change things, you know, it was a shortcut. But I think it gave a little more, a lot more breadth to, or in larger scale to what our intent is. And so, so that's it. So unless there's any questions or comments or anything, I will move on to the next issue. Next item. All right, rolling along here. So correspondence received. We have traffic concerns on Gray Street, Joe Greenleague, 24 Windermere Avenue and Claudia Madison, 17 Gray Street. We have inspection improvements at Churchville Ave in the Cott Road and Gloucester Street. David Brighdon, 25 Finnecott Street and some more support and opposition on letters of authority and potential overnight parking pilot by Lori Leahy, Mark Dipsy, and I think we have a letter from Scott Smith. All right. Move receipt and referral of 17, 18 to TAC, which I assume just gets bunched with our previous referrals and just, I think move receipt of 19. And referral to our overnight parking subcommittee. Thank you. The hardest working committee on the select board. Thank you. So we have a motion. Go ahead, Mr. Helm, make a challenging point. Go ahead, go ahead. Second. Second by Mr. Corsi. Okay, thank you. So any other comments, questions? Alrighty, so on motion to move receipt and referral to TAC on 17, 16 to 17. By Mr. Herd and access to start and then referral to the overnight parking pilot committee for number 18 by Mr. Herd. And second by Mr. Corsi, Mr. Hunt. Mr. Herd. Yes. Mr. Corsi. Yes. Mr. Helm. Yes. Mr. Diggins. Yes. Mr. Helm's folks. Great. And so we come to new business with 13 minutes to go. So Ms. Meyer. Mr. Hind. No, no business, thank you. Mr. Kohler. A report very quickly that we got our state aid figures in from the governor's budget. They were up substantially from what our original estimates were. We originally thought there'd be $750,000 in state aid and additional state in there. There's close to three million, that's right. Yes, yes. Thank you. It's late. This will be considered by the Long Range Planning Committee at their meeting on the 10th. And I think shortly thereafter, there will be a recommendation back to the board for consideration of whether to have an override this spring. And that's all I have to say about that. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Kohler. Mr. Corsi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, and thank you, Mr. Kohler, for that update. Well, it's that time of year for high school sports and tournament time. And I usually give a little update on that. So at Arlington High, Boys Hockey is playing this Thursday against Westford Academy in the first round. Girls Hockey is playing Wednesday night at six at the Ed Burns Arena against Beverly. While you were all talking about Appleton Street, I was in the back room watching the boys basketball game. And unfortunately, they lost at the buzzer tonight in the first round to Reading 45 to 44. So congratulations to them for making the tournament, but a tough loss. And good luck to all the tournament teams. Okay, thank you, Mr. Corsi. So to break up the sports new business, I'm going to skip behind and go to Mr. Hurd. Actually, no, that I may still have that issue. So I'll go to Mr. Halman. No new business. Mr. Hurd. I have sports new business, too. And at a much lower level, I just want to congratulate two Arlington youth hockey teams for winning the state tournament this weekend. One was the PV AAA team, which I do not have a connection to. And one was the Squirt AA team, which I do have a connection to. That's Wesley's team. They went out to the level arena today this weekend and they won in overtime. They scored a goal about five minutes into overtime against Hanover. So it was quite an exciting day for them. So it is a possibility of a state championship banner with my name on it, hanging next to one with Wesley's name on it. I might need to talk to the rec department to see if we can rearrange some bands. Not to exert any undue influence. But no, it was, I just want to congratulate those two teams because it is a, it's not, it's no small feat for them. And certainly at that age, they've never experienced that before. So they're quite excited. Thank you. No, that's great, great news. Ms. Mohan. No new sports for any other business. Great. Well, thank you. So I was thinking that Mr. Perth might mention a little something about beautification, you know, but so he and I are probably going to work some more being on the whole beautification committee thing, I mean, maybe have something to discuss at the next meeting, you know, this. Yeah. I think we'll put an agenda item, a brief agenda item, just for a recommendation for some changes to the, this is originally a beautification committee that we're trying to get going in. Oh, beautification, it's a little, it's a little limited to what the slots were originally put on it. So that will be forthcoming. Great. So, so that's it for me. So on that, you know, I will take a motion to adjourn. Second. All right. So I'm most adjourned by Mr. Perth and seconded by Mr. Corsi this time. Mr. Herd. Yes. Mr. Corsi. Yes, Mr. Helman. Yes. Yes, please. Yes. See you all next week. Good job.