 Well first off, happy new year. I think you can still say that on the 9th of the month, but when you haven't seen someone in a while, we're going to say you can still get away with it on the 9th. I think I once had someone say happy new year to me like last week of February, so you know these things are flexible. But anyhow, I hope everyone had a restful break, although maybe not too restful because we did say we're going to be doing some work during the break, and I know at least from my subgroup that we definitely were. And I suspect that's the case with all the groups. So I guess first things first, do you want, I mean you sort of unofficially did it, but do you want to call the roll so we can take attendance? Sure, I would love to do that. So Mike Guild's game. Here. Yep. Leslie Mayer. Here. Jill Barr. Here. Jill. I know is absent. Natasha Whedon present. Marvin Lewiston not present yet. Jim Dottilio. Here. Here. Great. Okay, so that is sort of the the roll call in that regard. And then for the voting members and then Jill Conley. Here. And as I mentioned, Claire Ricker is here from the planning and development department standing in for David Morgan, who is our conservation commission agent and also one of the individuals who has been named as part of the committee. Jim, I don't know if you want to take it from here. Well, yeah, why don't we take that out of order before we get to the minutes because you know, give Marvin an opportunity potentially to join us before we vote in the minutes. But I think Natasha set the table, but Natasha, you want to say anything more before we maybe turn it over to Claire to say a few words? Sure, I guess I'll just provide a little bit of background. We knew that going to this David would need to be taking a leave. And as such, we had been working with the town manager's office to determine who that sort of stand in would be. And it made sense that it would be whomever would be assuming his responsibilities or overseeing that. And so Claire Ricker, the director of the planning and development department here in Arlington, is that individual. And so welcome, Claire. We're so happy to have you here. And that's sort of the background on where David has gone and how Claire has come about and what and how that decision was made. Jim, I don't know if you want to add to any of that. Yeah, Claire, welcome aboard. Really happy to have you here. Do you want to say anything? Sure. I'll say a few words. I, in speaking with the manager and with Christine Bundger and the deputy manager, we were discussing who would sit in for David. I know there's a lot of work to do. I know that we are, the intention is to meet what looks like weekly, at least from now through closer to town meeting. So I'm happy to be here and participate as best I can, you know, with the understanding that I am, I am interim until David gets back and certainly I'll take good notes and fill him in on anything he needs to know while he is out on his break. The newest Morgan has not arrived quite yet, but we are all hopeful. Within the next week or so, David will be out officially on his leave. So thank you for having. Oh, thank you for, thank you for having us and joining us. We really appreciate it. Mike, were you trying to ask a question or just saying hello? No, I didn't have a question at this point. Okay. Yeah, well, and I guess a question Claire is, so as you're probably aware, David had joined, we've broken down into some subgroups or working groups, so we can be a little more nimble and kind of tackle some of these issues and then report back to the larger group. He had joined the environmental group with Mike and Joe. I assume you have no problem joining, filling that role in the subgroup. That sounds fine. Perfect. I'll offer what I can. I am not the environmentalist that David is, but I will try to participate as best I can. Thank you. Good. I think that's a pretty powerful group you have there. So you're showing with some fast fish there. So I guess at this point we'll do meeting minutes. You know, I hope everyone's had a chance to look at them. I'll be perfectly honest. I did a lot of prep for this meeting and forgot to read the minutes until about 10 minutes before the meeting began. So, but I looked them over. They look good to me, but I hope everyone else has had a chance. Are there any corrections, edits, comments? Moved, set the minutes as presented. Excellent. Is there a second? Seconded by Leslie. So Mike made the motion. Leslie seconded. Do you want to call the roll? Yes. Mike. Leslie. Yes. Joe Barr. Yep. Jill is absent. Natasha. Yes. Marvin is not present right now. So Jim. Yes. Great. Okay. So that looks like we've got one, two, three, four, five for the approval. And so that would pass. I don't know if it's, I mean, we could, well, let's go to the next item. And then maybe I might ask to jump around a little bit. But Natasha, I think you did a great job including what you had, but maybe give us a little update on the correspondence received since our last meeting. Sure. Yeah. So there was a lot of correspondence received. Forgive me for just one second. I'm a bit out of sorts and I just want to pull up the packet. It was 125 pages. So I wanted to be, you know, respectful and not print everything out. So I will pull that up right now. And so I will just explain a little bit about where all of the information is sort of coming from and how we got to this point. So I first and foremost need to apologize because there is something in here from Joe Connolly and a lot of information that was actually given to me prior to the previous meeting, but somehow I missed it. So it's been included in this week's meeting. So my apologies for that and any confusion that that may have caused. And, all right, I'm sure. Oh, and I need to also recognize that I did not include the, there was so much material to include in correspondence received. I typically include the chat comments. And I did not include that somehow that that was missed. I will make sure to include those in the next week's meeting or whenever the next meeting is. So I apologize for that. I just got all kinds of apologies today. New Year's repentance. I was just going to say that, but we're into the second week of the year now. So enough, enough, Tasha. All right. So in terms of correspondence received, we have received, like I said, an email from Joe Connolly with four attachments. And so those have all been included. I wanted to make sure that everything had been included and whatever folks felt that they wanted to look at or discuss has been included in there. There is a little bit of, I think we've already maybe talked about some of these previous meetings, but felt it was important to make sure that they were included because they were sent to us. Just going through, we get through this. And then the next is a email, I believe, something in here that is included that will come up in just a little bit is the Athletic Field Project at Lincoln Park in Lexington. And you'll see one of the last comments that came in was from Board of Health Chair from Lexington, Wendy Heiger Bernays, who also submitted the same presentation, but also had some comments from the subcommittee that did the work on this, as well as her email explaining her position on this. So that was in there. I believe we have a couple of emails from Susan Chapnick. Let me just, sorry, I'm scrolling through this large packet. I want to make sure that I'm not missing anything, but does anyone have any questions thus far? And, you know, there's a lot there, but everything's worth a read. So to the extent you haven't looked at it yet, please do so. And we appreciate the submissions. And so thank you to those who submitted. And so we had an email from, the easier way for me to do this is just go into my file, from Susan Chapnick, two of those, I believe. Sorry guys, I'll try to get this one back. We had the first email from Susan Chapnick on 1215, and there were, I believe, two attachments, so those would have been included. There was another email from Susan on 1215, and I, Susan Chapnick, and I don't believe there were any attachments to that, so you wouldn't have found any. Mike had sent an email on the first, I'm sorry, Susan Chapnick, no, 1215, 1215, Susan sent an email on January 2nd, 2024, sorry, as well. And there were, there were no attachments. It was just, I believe maybe a link. Mike had sent an email, Mike Fields' game on January 2nd, with some additional information. And then as I had mentioned, the email from Wendy Heiger-Bernes, the Board of Health Chair in Lexington. So that should be all of the correspondence received. And again, I did not include the chat comments only because it totally slipped my mind, and I will try not to make that mistake again. So I don't know if the group has any conversation or discussion they'd like to. No, other than I think they're worth a look if you haven't already looked at them. So just pulling up the agenda, working group updates. Part of me wanted to maybe skip to 2024 meeting schedule, but I think we can wait on that. That probably is appropriate at the end. So working group updates, the reason why we took a slight hiatus was because we well, A, there was the holidays and B, it was to give the working groups a chance to do some work together. And, you know, among individual members, I know I'm in the safety group and I've been based on a lot of studies dug up by members. Been reading a lot of papers, a lot of studies, and it's very interesting stuff, but there's always more reading to do. So, you know, I was hoping maybe the purpose of this meeting, or the goal of this meeting and this item is to sort of get a report out from each of the groups. But, you know, you can keep it sort of, you know, like you did last time of this is where we're going with this is what we're looking at. But if you want to raise particular questions or issues, all the better. So I think the first group we have is health, which is Natasha. Unfortunately, Natasha, it's just you. So you're going to have to carry the weight for this one. I'm happy to do that. I just wanted to interject for one second, Jim, because I know that there might be conflicting schedules tonight. I believe Joe, you're right. Yeah, we should do environment first thing. But one quick question I guess I just wanted to put out there if there are any other agenda items that we need to vote on. I'm wondering if that's something that we need to try and do sooner than later. Mike, I believe has a training. Is that at six o'clock, Mike? I'm not going to be going to that tonight like that one already. So that's not an issue. Okay. Nothing to vote on, but maybe we should talk about the meeting schedule then because maybe we should try to get as much input from those who are here. So maybe we'll move that up first. Some group reports and then immediately go to the environment group before Joe has to leave us. So we've been meeting remotely Tuesdays at five. I'm generally fine with that, but I know in the new year we said we'd reevaluate the schedule. That's kind of what worked for the first few meetings when we were getting this group off the ground now that we're running a little more rapidly. Two sort of questions for the group. Do we want to continue consistently with that date, with that day of the week and time? Or do we want to choose a different day and week and time or alternate between Tuesdays at five? And so just in case, because we've noticed like for instance Jill's not here tonight because she now has I think through a family obligation, a consistent commitment at Tuesday evenings, but she's going to skip every other one to make it work. And I don't want to speak first because she's not here, but I think that was the general gist of it. Also we've been meeting totally remotely. I have to be honest, it generally has worked, but some people might really long for a meeting with all of us together, if possible, certainly as we get maybe towards the end of the process. So I'll open up to the group. My two cents is I'm fine. I didn't want to meet remotely. I think it's been effective, but maybe planning to meet in person starting in February, especially if we have guest speakers, you know, potentially. As for Tuesdays at five, I'm not wedded to that anymore. But before we sort of go around and say what works best, if people are open to a different day, it might be better to just do a doodle poll again and find out if there's another day. But you know, what are people's thoughts, sentiments about this? So I'll just speak. I can make myself available wherever and whenever. So I don't feel like I need to weigh in. I'll try to sway with the group, whatever works for everyone. And I guess just, you know, what others might have, if others have conflicts, I am fine with remote. I am fine within person either way. And I can secure a space if needed. I'll jump in. I find that remote works well. But I agree with you, Jim, that perhaps closer towards the time where we have to hash out some final decisions, or if we have speakers that a lot of people want to hear, we should try to get together. Tuesdays at five works for me. Generally, I am somewhat flexible, although I know that some Wednesdays and Thursdays for me are not going to work. But other than that, I'm fairly open. Anyone else have strong views? I mean, I think we'll probably do a doodle poll. But, you know, any strong views you want to express now? Right. I'll just say the remote, I think, could work well with some guest speakers, because you have people who aren't local. So I think that maybe, even that could cut both ways. I think time, I'm, you know, I think doing a doodle poll for day of the week is fine. I think, you know, I've been happy with a sort of five o'clock time frame, because you sort of get, we get the meeting and then you could sort of have still have part of your evening to, you know, get other things done or whatever you need to do. So I think sticking with the five o'clock, if folks are good with that would be good. Great. Yeah, if we're going to stick to it, if we're going to stick with Tuesdays, it couldn't be any later. You know, I'm going to be hopping out the door at 6.30, quarter seven, because we have an in-person meeting every other Tuesday for the Park and Rec Commission. But having said that, there are other days of the week that are not going to work either. And I'm sure that will come out in the doodle poll, but, you know, for January- Leslie, were you interested in like a later Tuesday time, like Tuesday at like seven or something or no? No, there's a Park and Rec meets every other Tuesday. So that's why I'm saying the five, if we're going to stick with the Tuesday, the five o'clock. So, Jim, why don't I do this? Why don't I get a doodle poll out to the group hopefully this week? While we're on this topic, I do want to make note that we're coming up against a holiday weekend. So Monday, I do think that we're probably going to meet next Tuesday. If that's the direction, let me just, if that's the direction that we're going to go in, I have to have the packet ready to go much sooner than I normally do for two reasons. One, I am actually going to be out of town Thursday and Friday, but also to comply with the 48-hour rule, I have to have it posted by Thursday at 5 p.m. Now, I'm going to be out of here by tomorrow at 4 p.m., but I will make every effort to get it posted. If I'm going to be on the road, I will make sure that it's posted by Thursday at 5 p.m. at the very latest, but my intention is to have that posted first thing Thursday morning and an email sent out to the group. So with that being said, any correspondence that we will include, the cutoff for that is going to have to be tomorrow at 4 o'clock. Okay. And Natasha, we can talk about the agenda, but we're kind of at a point where I don't necessarily see new items. We kind of have some standing items that we quickly report out. I'll give you a call tomorrow morning to discuss, but as far as agendas goes, this one doesn't have to get too, the next one doesn't have to get too creative from where we already are. Excellent. Okay. Well, I think that's enough on that topic. And then as Joe's time is short, maybe the first report out will be from the environment group, with it's, you know, Claire can find out what she got herself into. Joe, do you want to start off or? No, I mean, you didn't sort of coordinate anything. So maybe give a quick overview and I'll jump in a little bit. I will just say that more we look into this, the more there is to look into. So I think you'll all find that. But there are a couple of efforts that Joe and I have been undertaking. I've been looking around at other towns and what they've been doing in terms of turf fields versus artificial turf. And I spoke to several towns and got very different responses in terms of what the concerns were and what they decided to do about the fields. I spoke to Belmont, I spoke to Sharon, I spoke to a couple of other places waiting to hear back from them as well. So that was one issue to see what other towns have done and what they found and what their concerns were. The five points listed in the minutes, which I thought were well described, lay out a lot of information and I've been looking at non-crumb rubber infill options. And there are several out there. I have not yet found reliable or good or really any assessments of the environmental impact of those, other than the fact that whatever the infill is, it's going to move out of the field. So that's why one of the concerns of the environmental group is that I am also aware that the city of Boston has banned, at least for now, the use of artificial turf. And so there are a lot of issues that are coming up and there's a lot more to be done. So I'm looking forward to hoping that Claire can give us a hand on some of these points. But there's a whole set of issues outlined in the minutes. So I won't go on at length, but other than to say that the information provided, the Natasha reference, is going to be very helpful for us. And especially looking at the environmental impact. So Joe, I'll turn it over to you. And I guess I've been spending some of the time trying to figure out or trying to identify other sort of experts we could talk to or people who have not so much to say experts in like turf fields per se, but experts in kind of dealing with playing fields. So I've reached out to trying to get in touch with someone from the MIT athletic and recreation department, Dan Martin, who's there, other facilities and operations, because universities are another user group that have had to struggle with this topic and also have to deal with a lot of stakeholders with lots of strong opinions. So I think as I'm trying to get in touch with him through one of my contacts there to see if he has either expertise to share from MIT's decision making and or other folks that might be good resources for us to hear from. So hopefully that can lead to one or more speakers. And then similarly, I reached out to Mass Municipal Association and heard back from them last night about, you know, they don't have a ton of resources, but I'm going to set up a quick call with with the person that chapter lane referred me to and sort of see if we can, if they have either, you know, internal stuff they can share or other communities that we might want to talk to beyond the ones we've already, you know, heard from or been investigating. And then the last piece is just trying to, you know, figure out if there are, you know, other sort of resources like that that we can we can tap into, but those are the two that, you know, sort of jumped out at me to help us kind of, like I said, get in touch with, you know, other experts. The last thing I just wanted to mention was this has come up and I can't remember if we talked about this or not in the previous meeting, but this has come up in Capital Planning Committee discussions about turf fields is the fact that, you know, in 2012, the state amended the Community Preservation Act to prohibit the use of CPA funds from being used for to pay for artificial turf. Now, some communities have tried to sort of do go around on that and we'll call it an end run, but just sort of get around that by basically using CPA funds to pay for everything but the actual purchase and installation of the turf and then have, you know, found some other source of funds, some cases private donations and some cases other municipal funds to pay for the actual purchase and installation of the turf. That has become pretty controversial. And so I think, you know, that certainly the the seems like the direction everyone's heading is unless you, you know, really want to have, you know, a lot of lawyers involved that probably you should stay away from paying for artificial turf for fields with CPA, which, you know, as Joe and others know, that's a big source of how we pay for our recreation facilities. So, A, I just thought it was interesting because, you know, it indicates some level of resistance to the use of artificial turf to the point that the, you know, state decided to make it not allowed under CPA and B, you know, it certainly limits us in terms of our options as well in terms of how we might pay for a artificial turf field if that was, you know, something we wanted to do in the future. Yeah, I would just add one thing to that, Jim, and that's what Joe was mentioning is the cost issue in the health safety environment. I don't see the cost issue specifically mentioned, but I think obviously that's going to be something we need to deal with. It's funny you mentioned that and that's a great point, Mike. I mean, we were talking about this in a safety group that although it wasn't technically part of our charge and although it doesn't neatly fall into any of the working groups, we would be, I think remiss if in whatever final product we give to, you know, town meeting, the select board, etc. If we don't at least make some reference to the cost issue, you know, the comparison of what it takes to maintain, you know, build and maintain a turf field versus build and maintain an artificial turf field. And so that was, I mean, that's a point we can discuss now if you want, but I mean, I think someone has to look into it. I'm just not sure any one subgroup, you know, naturally owns that. And I also, you know, although it's an important point, I don't want it to crowd out the things that we were specifically charged with doing. Having said that, I think it's very relevant to this discussion when you're trying to do cost benefit analysis of various things. We may need a new subgroup for that. Yeah, I mean, it may have to be a group called, you know, cost and maintenance, you know, and, you know, we had this discussion at safety too, and Leslie and Joe, feel free to jump in. I mean, you know, there's also different questions related to maintenance, you know, or, you know, what are you maintaining? Are you, you know, maintaining a field? How are you maintained? Is it organic? Is it, you know, are you maintaining it to a point where it's, you know, professional athlete grade, you know, the costs are very different, depending on how much it's used and who's using it at the time of year and, you know, various, various factors. So, although I don't necessarily want to assign it to anyone now, I mean, I think we should all be thinking about it, to the extent you come across things that inform it, please hold on to it and share it with the group. But it may be, I think it's a bridge we have to cross. I just don't know exactly when we officially cross it. But soon, I don't still want to take from the work that each of the groups is doing, you know, independent of that. But I'm with you, Mike. I think for us not to look at it would be glaring absence in our final decision. I've seen some, some figures on cost comparison. But I think we need to get into it a little more serious way. Yeah. Jim, I had imagined, sorry, Joe and Mike, I had imagined sort of, you know, our working groups sort of getting a handle on the topics that that we're, you know, working through and figuring out what, what research we want to bring to the group, present that, have the group provide some feedback about yes, we think we're going in the right direction on this, that or the other thing, or we need to look at this. And then sort of when we've ironed all of that out, we might then as a group sort of start discussing those other pieces that aren't accounted for. And I don't know if then, and you know, let's just say maybe it's in two weeks, maybe it's in three weeks. I don't know. I don't want to be too premature or push this off to too long either. But that's sort of how I envisioned it, that we would all sort of take an active role in those pieces that might be missing outside of the charge that we've been given by town meeting, if you will. I think that's very fair. Because yeah, we're not going to do this subgroup work. I mean, it will always be there, but we're not going to do it indefinitely through and then just magically come up with a report. So, you know, and in that realm, has the environmental group, it sounds like you are thinking because this is if we have one sort of big goal for maybe by next week, or at least doesn't have to be firm next week, but firmer than we are now. I'm hoping each subgroup to the extent we're going to invite anyone to speak to us from the outside, who has expert knowledge in this area or just any kind of knowledge in this area. Having some names that you throw out there as possibilities by next meeting would be helpful. Well, it doesn't have to be by next meeting, but I think just, you know, if you want, if you want speakers in February, you kind of got to nail that down fairly soon in January, because a lot of these folks would be helpful, probably busy schedules. And we've started doing that in the safety group, you know, some potential people to reach out to or some people we'd certain type of people we'd like to hear from, but we just don't know who those people are yet. So has environment kind of sound like you've begun to think about that and maybe done some initial outreach? Yes, that's right. And by the way, you know, there's a long way to go. Yeah, I mean, I'm hoping this is my vision. I don't know if it matches up with other people's vision that three of our meetings in February at each of those meetings, you know, one meeting, it's the safety group presenting, you know, some speakers, the next meeting, it's the environment, you know, not in this order necessarily environment one each week, you know, we have some agenda items, and then we, you know, put aside, you know, 45 minutes or whatever for to hear from one or more people who, you know, will give a brief presentation. And then really the bulk of it is for us to have a dialogue with them to ask questions. The very thing that really didn't and for good reasons couldn't happen at the forum, you know, the kind of follow up questions that were never really, you know, I mean, this is sort of the opportunity for us to, you know, not just read someone's study, but to actually, you know, ask them the follow up questions you inevitably have when you read those studies, but you know, couldn't get during the forum. If environment's good, and I know Joe may have to cut out soon. Yes, safety is next. So I sort of give a sneak preview, but I think initially, we did some, oh, well, we've been reading a lot, you know, Leslie and Joe, I think have forgotten more about this topic than I'll ever know, and have read a lot of studies and papers and are constantly finding new ones. And I, you know, I think one's with very, you know, some with balance views, some less so, but, you know, sort of essentially a sampling of what's out there on these topics. And, and it's been helpful to kind of get reading that. And today, we had a meeting where we kind of talked through some of the themes we see, and there are certain themes you definitely see throughout, throughout the literature, and the research, but independently, Joe's also been doing some outreach to MIA and some of the, some people in athletics to find out about injuries, and sort of general protocols related to turf and artificial turf. Joe, do you want to talk a little bit about some of the outreach you did before the holidays, and then some things you've been finding since then related to athletics? Oh, sure. I mean, we, we, I did reach out to the athletic departments and, you know, first we were trying to see if there was any type of a central database, excuse me, central database on reported high school injuries, whether it was, you know, per school or statewide, and there really isn't, there isn't a, you know, a statewide injury database on what injuries occurring out there that kind of happening individually, as they happen at each particular municipality on whatever field they're playing on. So I really didn't get too far there. Excuse me. We did, you know, one of the things we talked about in, in Jim may highlight a little bit later is just, you know, one of the areas of concern with heat, and we understand that turf fields obviously get hotter, and I don't think anyone's denying that, but if what was out there with regards to rules and regulations for athletic play in heat, so we were able to find MIA policy on temperature, and that's something I sent to Jim today, maybe we'll get that to everybody next time. And that's it. Yeah, and I think that's one thing we did talk about maybe connecting again with the high school department, maybe talking to their training, one of the, you know, talk about who we want to bring in, and again, we don't know individual names right now, and maybe someone from the Athletic Training Corps at the high schools to find out what they're seeing. I mean, they're the kind of the emergency personnel that are actually on both Arlington's turf and non-turf fields, and get some opinion from what they see, is that they see more injuries on the turf or injuries on our grass fields or is there no difference, so what? So that's just some of the kind of local work we're doing with high schools. And, you know, what we're seeing is obviously a challenge as some of these studies are about, you know, professional injuries to professional athletes or people who are on these fields, way more than, I mean, they're still valuable to give you context, but sometimes it's not always an apples to oranges comparison to, you know, an Arlington youth soccer player who's on the field, you know, an hour, an hour a week, once a week, you know, so, but, you know, we've been looking as I think Joe pointed out, we've been looking sort of at the injuries question, just, you know, sort of, you know, the bruising, the concussions, the hip, ankle, neck, injuries, the comparison there, we've been looking at the heat issue, not the heat island issue, we'll leave that to the environment or the health group, but we, you know, been looking more at heat as it impacts the people who use the fields, and then, you know, sort of issues related to, you know, skin issues, skin abrasions, that kind of, you know, inhalation. And, you know, we're starting to definitely see some, some patterns in the studies, you know, but more, more, more is needed. I mean, Leslie, you've done a great job of kind of finding a lot of the literature and doing, you know, a good job of hiding us with, you know, a sampling, and we're keeping, we're continuing to dig, but any, anything you want to add? No, I mean, again, I think you're right. We've been, you know, digging and trying to find relevant studies, things that are recent. And, you know, the thing that we've looked at over the years is injury reporting, as Joe said, really is inconsistent. You know, it's really kind of very ad hoc. There's no real reporting that's done at the, at the local level. But we have seen that, you know, a poorly maintained brass field is just as likely to cause injury as, as anything. So, you know, we do need to dig a little bit deeper and, and we do have both, you know, athletic and recreational uses that are on both types of fields where we can, you know, look at, at the sampling of, of what, what's, what's happening out there. And, you know, hopefully we can get some more information on it. But that's, it is, as you say, kind of useful to understand the overall things that are, that are going on with the studies. But the studies have been high-end, professional collegiate. And, and that's, that's really not the environment that, that we are trying to support. We don't have that level of athlete playing on our field. So, and, you know, I think that's exactly right, Leslie. Another, well, two additional points about the safety group. One is some of the studies address and, and you will all mercifully be, we read about it, but we won't be, it's not part of our charge, you know, how the different actual games are affected by the difference in fields. I don't think anyone here, it's not part of our charge. I don't think anyone here cares if, how a soccer ball bounces on one of these fields versus another. It's irrelevant to what we're looking at. But, you know, some of these studies do look to those issues as well. The other thing is we do face the same challenging environment group does. You know, obviously a lot of the studies are about the crumb rubber infill. And I think we noted at our last meeting, as reflected in the minutes, it's, we certainly should look at those studies. And in many cases, that's the majority of what's out there or the overwhelming majority. But if you were to go in a different direction and say we would never consider crumb rubber infill if we ever did artificial turf in town, and that the real interest area of interest or inquiry would be studies about non-crumb rubber infill and the health effects and safety and environmental effects. There's just not a lot out there, at least we're seeing in the safety space either. So that's a challenge. I mean, you know, because obviously you get a certain take on the crumb rubber infill and the safety issues and inhalation. And that's very specific to crumb rubber. And, you know, I forget is oyster shells. One of the things I think I remember reading is oyster shells, one of the things that's like an alternate. You're like, you know, we're not seeing what those studies say. Yeah. So I think it's just a challenge all the groups are going to have. Yeah. You know, one thing that's come up is, you know, looking at, you know, there was a comment that was just made. I think one of the things that we talked about today, and I think that the MIA policy is very good at laying out is heat is heat. And when the MIA looks to protect their athletes, they look at indoor heat, outdoor heat. It really doesn't matter where the athlete is playing in order to protect the athlete. The heat needs to be measured. So I think that, you know, that that's a good barometer of how at least our highest level athletes are being looked after from a health and safety standpoint with respect to heat. If it's too hot, it's too hot. Regardless of whether it's graphs or artificial turf or, you know, they even mention indoor heat and environment. So, you know, these organizations are looking out for the health and safety of the athlete overall and policies around what things need to be done to protect the athlete at various heat levels. So that I think is a very, you know, interesting thing that, you know, Joe said, Joe sent out and I think, as you said, we're going to send around to everyone to take a look at. Yeah. And, you know, another challenge is, you know, talking about, you know, and you really compare like, you know, a study about a professional athlete using the fields, you know, for most of the most of a week versus, you know, Arlington Youth Soccer players on there for an hour or two a week. Another challenge is we're seeing in these studies, you know, where are these, you know, especially on the heat question, you know, if you're looking at fields in Texas, Florida, California, you know, but particularly Texas, Florida, the Southern United States, you know, Nevada, you know, it's helpful, but the temperatures in those, you know, as I always say, if you're coming to me and saying you're building an artificial turf field in Las Vegas, I mean, that's a field that, for the better part of the year, if not the overwhelming part of the year is going to be, you know, in temperatures 90 degrees or hotter, not the case in New England, not the case, you know, I mean, we're going to have more 90 degree days than we used to in the coming years, but you know, just a very different sort of different context, different calculus about, you know, how many truly hot days we have a year in Arlington, naturally hot, and then that's compounded by, you know, a crumb rubber infill field, artificial turf field, you know, obviously, there's to some degree, some of these things in a New England context could be managed, you know, one of the things we're seeing is some of these things could be managed more than in a place where it could never really be managed because it's completely unmanageable, the temperatures, you know, almost 365 days a year. So, you know, sort of looking at a little bit in that realm, but today when we talked, the fact that it really in our environment, it's the shoulder seasons, we don't have the high intensity of use during the summer. What we're seeing and what we're trying to support is those New England springs, shall we say, the wet months of spring and fall, when the majority of the schools and leagues and athletes really are trying to get out there and, you know, our recreational uses are the highest. So, again, context, as you said, Jim, is part of really what we need to frame. Marvin, you're welcome. I had sorry your hand. Thanks, Mike. Yeah, first of all, my apologies. I got stuck in New Hampshire for work. I was supposed to be home two hours ago and just walked in the door 10 minutes ago. So, I guess a couple of things. One is I think the heat issue, obviously it's going to be really different than if we're in the South, but I think, you know, it's partially looking at, you know, the difference between grass fields and turf fields for heat. You know, certainly in June, August, early September, it can be really, really hot. And particularly if you've got people who don't happen to be really well conditioned to the heat that are, you know, coming on the field and playing with great intensity. There were a number of presentations on heat stress at the National Industrial Hygiene Conference is here. One of them, and there were a number of really interesting points that I had not been aware of before, but severe heat strain can have physiological effects even days later. So, you can be exposed to really high heat levels on Monday and not have a whole lot on Tuesday and Wednesday, but go back on Thursday if it's hot day. And there's some still residual stress, you know, to the body that's existing that can compound whatever the Thursday exposure is. There were also a couple of presentations by industrial hygienists who worked at various colleges. And their feeling was that for the most part, you know, coaches are very well-meaning, but aren't really well trained in necessarily recognizing early stages of heat strain. And particularly given that most kids just want to play, you know, I think about, you know, kids with, you know, mild concussions who insist that they want to stay in the game, you know, without kind of additional training for staff, I think that that, you know, creates an issue. I've been doing a whole bunch of stuff, not on crumb, but I've been looking at heat. I've been looking at phthalates, you know, and some of the plastic components, looking at PFAS and in addition of, you know, the crumb studies. And the other thing that's kind of striking is most of the studies of crumb have been done with cancer as an endpoint and have been done with one specific compound as opposed to kind of the mixture of the sort of, you know, carcinogens that are present. OSHA has a mixture permissible exposure limit for solvents because when you've got assorted compounds that have comparable effects on the body, it's additive. And so they've done something like that for solvent exposures. There is nothing like that for carcinogens. There's nothing like that for isocyanates, though the Europeans have that. So there really haven't been tests of mixtures. And there also haven't been any studies that have really looked at other end points, you know, whether it's asthma, whether it's, you know, the effects of endocrine disruptors or anything like that. You know, again, we're kind of in a place where there's not been a whole lot of work done, which is unfortunate. And virtually every study I read says, you know, this just illustrates the need for more work to find out more stuff. You know, so that's, you know, that's an issue. In terms of the, you know, difference between kind of pros and college and, you know, high school students, I think one of the things is when you're looking at scientific research, you have to look at big numbers because small numbers may not really give you the information you want. So for example, I just got a safety, you know, a safety recall from Hyundai because of a break issue. And it would be if we looked at the, you know, if we said, well, let's, let's see how many break problems there have been, you know, from cars that were sold at my rack, and we'll based our actions on that. Obviously, you have to look at like big number sets, and you're looking at kind of, you know, relatively sometimes minor differences and things, but, you know, there's still effects to think about. So. That's all right. No, those are all really, really good points. And it reminds me how lucky we are that you're in this group with us. And I, you know, pardon me to the health, if we're ready. Yeah, no health. If you guys are ready to transition to the health update, I love it. Marvin, we didn't do a health update just yet. What I had planned to do was just kind of give an overview of some of the, the stuff that we've been looking at. And so I've written down some of the stuff and I'm just going to put it right out there. Jill and Marvin, I am so grateful to be part of this working group. They have really dove in and just gotten so many different things to look at. So some of the things that that we've been looking at, you know, to everyone's point, you know, crumb rubber and, you know, the cancer risk, we sort of talked about that information about crumb rubber infill and synthetic turf fields. We're looking at, let's see, a lot of the crumb rubber hazard assessment study on organic compounds and heavy metals from using artificial turf, human health risks associated, I'm sorry, assessment of synthetic turf fields based on investigation of five fields in Connecticut. So we have a Connecticut study. We've looked at some materials from the state of New York, the state of California. We're still synthesizing a lot of this stuff. But these are sort of some of just the broad topics. We have, you know, I forget, I think it was Marvin who gave us a presentation from University of Pennsylvania. That sort of talks about the safety issues associated with artificial turf fields. So we have those types of things that we're also looking at. They're doing a lot of research there at New Penn. We're looking at heat streams of various athletic surfaces. So a comparison between observed and modeled wet bulb globe temperatures. So these are just some of the topics that we haven't committed to what exactly we're going to, I guess, report out on. But I feel like we're doing a really good job of being all over the place and sort of trying to hone in on all of these different things to make sure that we're covering the health topics that we sort of feel are important. We've got something from 2023, assessing children's potential exposures to harmful metals in tire chrome rubber by accelerated photo degeneration. I'm trying to read my own writing here. Weathering, we've got something from 2017, heat strain on various athletic surfaces, comparison between observed and modeled wet bulb globe temperatures. We're looking at the Burlington Public School, their policies around their heat plans. I've reached out to the Brookline Health Department. They had a group that was working on, similar to us, like a study group, working on the field usage and decision making around artificial turf fields. So I've got a lot of those materials that we're sharing together. I think to Marvin's point there, I think what we're running into is, excuse me, there's a lot of materials out there and a lot of it is sort of the chrome rubber piece that we've talked about. But the alternative to that, there really aren't a lot of studies right now out there about any of the alternative things either. So it feels like we're a little bit torn in that this versus that or that. I'm just throwing that out there. So I think that that's one thing that we've acknowledged. Jill could not be here tonight, but she also had been mentioning some concerns that don't exactly fall under health, but maybe the larger kind of group and maybe we could put them under health, but sort of accessibility and the mental health component. So she's done some research into studies that show mental and physical activity and being part of sports is just as important, although I don't know how much that correlates to the use of just an artificial turf field. But we're feeling like that's an important piece that we need to acknowledge. But one thing that we discussed as well is that and Jill will probably be reaching out to you is maybe being able to get some of our own data here to understand in the last couple of years, how many times have you had to cancel practices and how many fields and what does that look like? So even if it's down pouring today, are you canceling practice today on that field or are you also canceling it tomorrow the next day the next day? What is that impact look? And so I don't know if you guys have that data, but we felt that that was something that really might need to be discussed. And I think we wanted to get the thoughts of the group on that if folks thought that that was an important piece. And I've got more stuff that I can sort of talk about, but we're looking at Department of Chemical and Environmental Services, New Jersey Institute of Technology. We've got lots of different things that we're looking at for materials. And so I think what our group wants to do is probably kind of do a little bit more of a deeper dive and figure out what this is all sort of saying so that we can present it then to this group in a more formalized way. And Marvin, I don't want to so sick of hearing my own voice. So I'm so glad that you're here. And I want to give you an opportunity to also just add in what we've talked about as well. Sure. Yeah. Huge kudos to my partners. And Natasha is not exactly sitting on her hands either. No, mostly there's a lot of information out there. And it's just a matter of trying to figure out what's relevant. And so for example, what I've been looking at is really kind of exclusively peer-reviewed journal articles. I'm not looking at really anything by advocacy groups on either side of the issue, because I don't think that that's going to be particularly helpful. If our charge is kind of to deliver a report that's hopefully as accurate as possible and comprehensive to town meeting, then that's what we should be doing. And I want to do that really kind of based on fact and not opinion to certainly to the extent possible. I think that that's how this committee has credibility. And I think that that's a really important thing to do. So again, I just kind of touch briefly on some of the things that we're looking at. There's obviously more to do. And I would hope over the next couple of three weeks to flush out some areas that I feel like I'd like to see a little bit more on. One study leads to another leads to another. I start reading footnoted articles. And sometimes that's really productive. And sometimes it just kind of goes off into a direction that isn't really quite as relevant. So I'm really just trying to kind of stay essentially focused as possible for now. And again, once we get everything organized, I mean, I would like our group to be able to present something to the rest of the group in kind of an organized fashion that's relatively easy to digest as opposed to just like throwing links to journal articles. I mean, everybody has more than enough stuff to do with their time now. And I don't want to be in the position of just kind of dumping stuff in people's laps for them to try to sort out. Hopefully we'll be able to do this in a way that makes a little bit of sense. And it's easy for people. I mean, I really look at that as part of our function. Well, you raise a good point, Marvin. And here's what I'd say. And I don't want to get ahead of ourselves and say, this is how we're going to write the final recommendations, final report. But maybe each group should sort of proceed over the next few weeks as they're doing what they're doing with the idea of it's almost like if we were writing a report, and you had the section to deal with, in this case, health or environment or safety, what would you be putting in that section? If you were saying, this is going to be the section that says, this is what our deep dive looked at. And this is what our conclusions or recommendations are from that, from at least that vantage point, in the two or three pages that are going to put in this report about that subject matter, what would that look like if you synthesized? So maybe try to keep that, I don't know if that's what we'll ultimately do, but try to keep that as you're synthesizing information and trying to figure out next steps. Think about that, because it sounds like Marvin, you're already kind of maybe there in terms of how do we bring this to the group and are comprehensive, but also concise and fully digested way as opposed to just a mishmash of sites. Yeah, I mean, this is the way I've worked in groups in the past when there have been divisions of labor in terms of things. And it just is a lot easier to kind of present something that's, I don't know, more organized and more concise to people. Again, given that I don't think any of us are just kind of sitting around eating bonbons waiting for somebody to hand us stuff. I mean, I certainly have a day job. So I think that brings up a really important point, Jim, is that I don't know if you want to go this way, but it might help if each of the subgroups report that eventually turns out has the same structure so that, you know, we had considerations, we had findings, we have recommendations or something along those lines. That would make it easier for folks reading the report to figure out what's going on. And I fully agree with both of you with saying that there's more research and papers and information out there that we could possibly deal with in any one of these subgroups. But I think if we structure each part of the report in a similar way, it might be helpful for the readers. Yeah, Natasha and I will talk about that if maybe we can, on our own, work on a template that maybe we can share with the group either at the next meeting or the meeting after that, and then we can discuss whether people would like the template for, you know, for their section if they want to tweak the template. I think, so for the next, you know, I'm cognizant of the time, and I know we don't say this is a hard stop in an hour, but, you know, I do know people's time is quite valuable. So, you know, subject matter experts and additional research needs and gaps, here's what I'd say about that now that we're after six o'clock. We do have the next meeting coming up very fast, because there's a Monday holiday. And on this, I wanted to spend some significant time on this part about research gaps and needs, because I got a few recommendations from various folks about things that didn't necessarily neatly fall within any of the working groups, but that, you know, were kind of essential issues we needed to cover and sort of bring some questions slash suggestions to the larger group. We've sort of indirectly touched on a little bit of them, like the financial issues, what are the costs and comparisons between building and maintaining a regular natural turf field and artificial turf field, field demand and usage. You know, there are other issues. I don't want to short change that discussion. So, Natasha, I'd recommend carrying that over to the next agenda item, next meeting, and making that maybe one of the more central pieces, because, you know, in a week there may not be a huge change in the report out for the other things, so maybe we can make that other element a bigger part of our meeting. I'm also wondering, Jen, if we sort of just try to look at the calendar now and say, you know what, it might be a good idea for each of the groups to say we're going to have some sort of report out to about what our working group has done and what that looks like to each other, you know, I don't know, by the 30th. I don't know if that's too late or if that's not enough time. I don't think it's too late. I don't think it's too late. That gives us almost like the three weeks, like we're still coming together to talk about things and we can address like, hey, we're going in this direction. Do you think that there's anything else that we might be missing? That gives us that opportunity to also talk about like additional like research needs and things without it. It doesn't have to be necessarily a topic, but I think on that 30th, we might then be able to have that as well as like, okay, or maybe it's the next meeting. We've done all this and I think, you know, maybe we're missing this, this and this. How are we going to get there and compliment that? Sorry, Jen. No, I think it's a good point. I think what I'd suggest at this point is maybe Natasha, you and I, I'll call you tomorrow. Maybe we can talk about some of the logistics and make some proposals to the group about potential dates. And then because I do, I think we need to nail down some sort of for scheduling purposes, some dates to work towards. But I'm realizing like Joe and Jill aren't on this call. And I don't want to like make anything too hard and fast with two of our members not here right now. I mean, the other thing I'd say that's really important maybe between now and the next meeting, although it's not a, you know, drop dead deadline, but the more that each of the subgroups could think about people they might want to, I mean, it doesn't have to be, you know, that you've locked them down, but people you'd like to invite or are working on inviting to come and do a sort of brief presentation Q&A with our group at meetings in February, the more we can have a sense of that by the next meeting or at least a sense of the work you're doing in that regard to get someone would be very helpful. And so are people sort of comfortable with, you know, and by the way, it should be now go without saying the subgroup should keep meeting, you know, meet as much or as little as you want to, but, you know, I won't say, oh, this is a week to meet. This is not a week. The subgroup should meet as much or as little as they want at this point and don't need further direction from us other than, you know, keep up the good work. But, you know, this meeting has been helpful to me in sort of thinking about some additional areas, you know, of inquiry, not just in my group, but sort of for the larger group. So are people comfortable with, you know, a week from today coming back from a long weekend for some of us, at least I think are most of us, you know, covering this gaps, research gaps or additional needs issue more in depth rather than trying to just sort of quickly, you know, talk about it for five minutes now, having the usual report outs with maybe an emphasis on trying to specify also, you know, potential guest speakers. And then maybe at that point Natasha and I can also present a potential template for final, you know, a template for final recommendations for each group, as well as possible dates, you know, for, you know, deadlines for work. That all makes sense. And I know time is short and I know our goal is still to be done with all this or it's not our goal. It's our requirement to be done with all this by some point in mid to late March. It's going to sneak up on us quickly, especially with February being a short month, although it's a leap year. It's not as short as it could be. But, you know, time is short. I still am pretty confident we can get to where we need to be without requesting an extension. You know, the next few weeks will really determine that. But I think this group can do its job and do it well without having to compromise on anything. But I think that's because I believe in the power of the people in this group and the talent. So don't prove me wrong. Don't make a liar out of me. So are people good with next Tuesday at five? And Natasha and I will talk tomorrow and try to iron out or make a few proposals and various things. And then subgroups or working groups keep chugging along? Yeah. And, Marvin, I just wanted to ask, too, if you have an idea or like some, I know you've worked on groups where you've done something like this. If you have any examples, I'm happy to take a look at those as well. Maybe Jim and I can kind of look and just give us some sort of guidance and idea. Truth be told, and to be perfectly honest, I've never really had to write out a report like this. So this is new to me. And so I would welcome any kind of template or thoughts on that. Yeah. And we can maybe have an item, maybe even at the next meeting or the meeting after we can have an item of what each person's vision of a final product looks like. I mean, it's a preliminary discussion because you don't build the plane while you're flying it. But I mean, I don't think it's necessarily helpful to town meeting if we submit a 75-page report, unless it's a 10-page report and 65 pages are helpful sources and appendices and stuff. I mean, I just think if it's 75 pages of text, I think we know where reports like that end up. There's a few hardcore folks who will read it and the rest will end up in a pile and collecting dust. I mean, I think it's better to have a report that can have lots of citations and appendices, but ultimately is easy to read and concise and gives you packs of powerful punch in a dozen pages or less. That's my view. But Marvin? I would just say that certainly there's an advantage to brevity, but at the same point, some of these are fairly complex issues. And I think to try and distill something down into four or five sentences and then have a whole bunch of references, it may actually not be as helpful because I think when you're dealing with particularly scientific research, it sometimes takes a little bit to explain what's actually going on. And I would rather have a little bit more length than that and have people kind of get a sense of what's going on, as opposed to counting on them to actually start reading these papers, which again, for people who have been reading research papers, it can be a little daunting. There's also alternative paths, right? Like you can have a longer, a longer report and then, you know, maybe more of a concise PowerPoint presentation summarizing the report, you know, that's more easily digestible to someone who has less time. And certainly have a couple of page executive summary of it, have sections attached to it with kind of more explanation. And that might work. And I did see a comment in the chat and I just want to reiterate, you know, I think at a prior meeting we did say, you know, when we're looking at these studies, obviously, you know, look at whatever you want to look at, the good, the bad and the ugly, but, you know, that the emphasis and that the prioritization and the hierarchy of these studies would be for things, you know, obviously, you know, peer reviewed, government issued, you know, these would be sort of at the top of the hierarchy and things that are not peer reviewed or industry folk industry backed, you know, or supported would be kind of probably more towards the bottom of the hierarchy. I don't think there's anything wrong with reading an industry report. I just think, you know, I have to keep it in context all the way through and, you know, take it for what it's worth, which may or may not be that much. So with all that said, any new business or new items to bring up before I entertain a motion to adjourn? I just want to add one more time. We've got a holiday on Monday. So if there are any materials that anyone would like to be included in next week's meeting, please get those to me as soon as possible. I do plan to get the packet out and posted by Thursday morning. So I can only accept materials until four o'clock tomorrow, which is Wednesday. So I apologize. It just is what it is. And I'm taking a couple of days off. So thank you. You're entitled to the Natasha. Well, let's not be crazy. We're going to a hockey tournament. Well, thank you. And I hope we haven't scared off Claire. Hope she still wants to stick with us. I appreciate. Is there is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Seconded. Marvin. Motion made by Mike, seconded by Marvin. So I guess with that, Natasha, we call the roll. Sorry, Mike, Leslie. Yes. So bar is not present. Just write that down. Jill is not present. Natasha. Yes. Marvin. Yes. And Jim. Yes. Perfect. We are adjourned. Thanks, everyone. Thanks. Bye, everybody. Thank you. Good night.