We'll get started because we got plenty to say. Sure, so we're recording but I'll ask you to make that announcement when you call to order please. Okay. Everybody ready. Places everyone. All right, I am now calling the regular meeting of the town services and outreach committee of the town council to order on February 9 2023 at 701 p.m. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. So in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted as there is nowhere to be. But every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. Now going to call on the TSO members we do have a small quorum but we have a quorum to ensure that you can hear me and be heard so Andy Steinberg. I'm here. Glad to see you and Dorothy Pam. I'm here. All right, and we are waiting on shall new ball mill who hopefully will join us. And we will welcome her when she does. All right meeting has been called order we're going to go move on to public comment. Public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of the TSO committee, maybe made at this time, residents are welcome to express their views for one to three minutes we're going to give you three today. And we will not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment. In order to participate in public comment, you can raise your hand if you are on zoom. I will check to see if there are hands raised. This felt like we needed hold music here. All right, I am not seeing any hands raised going once. Okay. We do not have any town manager appointments this week. So let's move on briefly to approval of the minutes we have one set of minutes from January 26. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve those minutes, or does anyone have any corrections. I'll move we approve them. Great. Second. Thank you. And I'm going to go in reverse order this time, I will vote I Dorothy to approve. Yes, and Andy. Yes. Oh, and here's Shawnee. Awesome. Hi Shawnee welcome. Hello. All right, so you can hear and be heard and just for the minutes note, it is seven, excuse me seven of three. Shawnee we just approved the minutes and there was no public comment so we're moving on to the policy excuse me. Mandy welcome. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for inviting me. There is an updated draft of the street lighting policy in the folder for today's meeting. Andy, do you want to start us off with sharing what changes were made to this or is there a different, and I'm not seeing James in the audience yet. To start off, I think we tracked the changes in the document, but basically based on the last conversation. One of the changes is just we didn't have the right word in there. So that was just language pulled from a different bylaw that we forgot to change the thing for but the bulk of the changes were based on the conversation that we had the last time we were at TSO. Regarding locations and there was a lot of concern about the lighting zones that we had defined and then what it what where what we were putting in each lighting zone and how that may reduce the number of street lights in town by a lot and there was a lot of concern about that. And so listening to that we'd always talked about that this sort of was a proposed policy that was in two parts standards and then locations. And so we've taken the location set of this proposed policy and removed everything that was there related to those locations. We got it in other documents for later discussion and all, and in its place. We basically put in the current street light policy that pertained to locations. And so you can see that in the attached to the farther down in the modified document you can see the current policy. The one thing that we did not transfer over the language is not the same because we're trying to match the language to the current policy right so but the location standards that were are in the current policy that we follow. We're transferred over except for one instance which is the dead ends and cul-de-sacs. Again with the belief that lighting dead ends and cul-de-sacs is there to announce the dead end or the cul-de-sacs so people don't fall off the end of the street or drive up the end of the street. But that reflectors, especially when you're walking, you aren't going to fall off or drive off the end of the street very quickly, right?  So it's more of a concern about drivers not noticing that the street is ending. And if that's the case, reflectors with the lights that cars bring on their own serve that same purpose and serve that purpose without the same costs that lights do. And negative costs that lights do for people and animals but also maintenance costs. There's no electricity involved in putting up a reflector and all. And so we did not transfer the dead end and cul-de-sac street light portion over to this proposed section G. So that's the only thing we didn't transfer over. The rest is what you would find in the policy we are currently under that was adopted by the select board back in 2001 or something like that. So those are those are the changes. Thank you so much for for walking us through that. Are there any questions from members of TSO and I'd also like to. Yeah, everything. Yeah. I added in a F3 the materials and equipment standards and a seven pin receptacle requirement was added in based on conversations at MMA with lighting providers that said if you don't have seven pins. You can't do all of the potential dimming programming and all of that that we may want to do such that while we may not initially take advantage of all of that information if we're replacing the fixtures, we want to make sure that that technology is there in the future and so we want to make sure that we purchase fixtures that have that numbers of respects receptacles in case we want to use those features in the future so that was the other change sorry. No, that's fine thank you. I also want to welcome James, excuse me James Lowenthal. And James is a panel there is hello. James is a professor of astronomy at Smith College. Right. I get that right. And has been he's also very involved in the dark skies initiative and so he's been advising Mandy and I as the sponsors of this and is a wealth of knowledge so we're very, very grateful for him to him for being here as a subject matter expert. I'm going to turn to James did you have anything to add before we go to questions or do you want. Okay. All right so going to questions from the committee Dorothy. Okay, so I have a couple of just general background questions. So I read part of this earlier but today I sat down and read it through again, and I wanted to know how much does this document resemble the document that is at present in DPW, because I there were times and I thought I can't believe your making the statements that you're making about this has to be the best the most the what's, and I thought we're going to have to hire consultants to double check that material material equipment standards. They sounded just so mean I do understand now I see this is where your seven pin receptacle, which is which sounds interesting, but is this the kind of language that they use now, because if it isn't, I could just see them feeling very insulted at the micro management of every single detail of this, because they're the department that's supposed to be in charge of lighting, I can certainly see the town council coming to say we want to shield light in ways to not hurt nature as much and to, you know, to allow us to have dark skies, I can see a general statement of goals, I see that as coming from us. But the idea that we would go into this detail in an area where we have professionals is it bothers him to me so I really want to hear, like from Paul is this the kind of, is this are they used to this is this the kind of document that they have and we're just kind of making a few changes in it, or is this a kind of micro management that they're not expecting. Before I turn to Paul I'm going to give Mandia's sponsor and I'd also like to answer a sponsor if that's if that's all right as well. So, this has DPW Guilford has seen this, and this is not new, our former streetlight policy for for the record is at the bottom of the. In the packet so if you scroll down it is one whole page. And so it is extremely lacking in in our opinion, if you would like to compare this to other towns other towns do have this detail. DPW is very familiar with the language that we utilize it's pulled off a lot of this is pulled from manuals that they utilize and best practices that they utilize so it's this is another one where we are updating something that's very out of date. And, and this has been. This is not a surprise to DPW I think the issue Dorothy is that in order to say the things that you're saying on a conceptual level you have to give the detail. It's, it's a little, it's, it's tough to say we want to be kind to nature in our street lights like that's very philosophical and it's very worthy. And that's a big, big broad spectrum right so it's very easy to meet that by doing one tiny little thing and we think we're better than that and so we can not in a snooty way, but you know, in a way of we know that we can do better. And so by giving this level of specificity we're saying this is how we want to be kinder to our natural environment and our physical health. In my opinion that level of specificity is necessary in this policy. Mandy do you have anything to add before we turn to pop. I think on a covered it from my point of view. Paul.  Yeah, so I think I think what Anna said is there virtually isn't much of a policy now so this would be a new policy for the first time. And I think that that's what's important I think the question will be is what is the cost of implementing the probe of the policy, you know the going to the seven pin adapter there's a cost to that and so all these different things there's a cost associated with them so it's just a matter of when you look at policy with anything for the Council, you want to look at, you would ask the DPW what is the cost to implement and what's the timeframe for implementing. Okay. Yeah, because I had, there was one other small place where it seemed to me that you were going to have to on the materials and equipment standards. It seemed to be so complex, but that you would you'd have to what you wanted to have them do that you would need to hire a contractor to do that. But if you tell me that no they actually do this kind of stuff all the time and they know these things. You say the Amherst shell use the most efficient effective type of light fixture. And you have to determine efficiency and effectiveness fixture cost installation maintenance labor, manufacturer warranty energy use and cost like quality and fixtures lifecycle cost I, you know, I could see trying to figure out doing a study of that being a pretty complicated thing. And, you know, I don't work for DPW but I'm just, it seemed like it might be. I sometimes I just feel you're just going too far into the details but I do, I do accept that you're saying we don't really have a policy, it's not up to date. Other towns have similar policies, and we need to do it too but I think maybe I just would pull back a little bit I just I think it's a little bit too bossy I guess I'd say. So, um, Mandy I don't know if you want to go first this time. I would call on James. Yeah. Before we do. I must say that the comments that I was going to make are identical to what Dorothy said, I think that we are going far beyond the capability of counselors to implement what they're being asked to adopt. And that we are going into far greater detail that is appropriate in a bylaw that a bylaw out of set standards of what we want, but we need to trust our professional staff. That the bylaws and implement them in a way that is both feasible. And is something that is affordable. And I'm not, I just don't think that this bylaw is an appropriate one to recommend to the council, because it's you're asking the council to adopt something they're totally incapable of understanding. And I don't think that it is the business of the council to get into the level of detail and directing what is to be done that is here and as an unknown cost and nothing that has happened in the bylaw that makes me any more comfortable than I about it. This has been my hesitation about this since the first time I saw it. Okay, thank you Andy. Can I just make one clarification. This is not a bylaw proposal. This is a streetlight policy under our public ways. Control of the public ways that we are the keepers of the public way so so in that sense it's more like a regulation than it is a bylaw and I just want to keep that clarification in our minds. I think that the kind of bylaws are different than regulations and policies. I appreciate that. Thank you for correcting me on that. It doesn't change my view though because this is the kind of bylaw or regulation I should say I keep getting the wrong word. It's the kind of regulation that I would expect from professional staff to propose to us not us to propose to them.  Thank you for your for your question Andy. Mandy would you like to respond to the latter point. I'll let James speak first. Great. James. Thanks Hello everybody. Can you hear me. Once again my name is James Lowenthal and professor of astronomy at Smith College and I am very active in efforts to protect the nighttime environment from my backyard to the city of Northampton to the state of Massachusetts to the United States to United Nations. I'm in many different ways and I'm intimately familiar with this issue and the issues that are expressed in this policy. And I want to first just acknowledge that all the concerns that we heard just now and also at the last time this was on this body are ones that are often raised by other communities. And I want to put that in the perspective that everything in that you see in this proposed policy is so common that the International Dark Sky Association Massachusetts chapter now has a template recommended by law in that case actually by law but it's meant to be adopted however cities and towns in Massachusetts want to adopt it that has a significant overlap with the one that you see before you. So many many elements in there are exactly what other towns are already doing and that we recommend other towns. And the problem is, I mean you're, I think what we've just heard from Dorothy and Andrew are the reasonable concerns. It was too much specificity. Who are we to tell our W or experts about this level of detail. But in fact, it's exactly what's required. And all our experience shows that if you don't do that, then you don't get the result you want. And it's just an unfortunate fact about lighting that it is complicated. The values that that Anna and Mandy articulated are so simple. We want to protect the nighttime environment for human health for wildlife for safety to see the stars to conserve energy. It's so simple. We I'm sure everybody here agrees with that. But to implement that requires diving into the details in ways that in fact most engineering departments, including here in Northampton including there in Amherst are not equipped to do. They do not have training in lighting. And all the decisions around the state around the country around the world, but 90% of them are more I'm making this up, are made by people who have no idea how lighting actually works and what the impacts are and what good lighting is and what bad lighting is. And they're generally influenced directly by consultants and industry representatives who have vested interest in just selling equipment and Chinese manufacturers that produce terrible lights by the thousands upon thousands. And as long as they sell they keep making them. And so there's no attention to the issues that we just said are important, you know, protecting human health and wildlife and so on. And those decisions happen again and again there. They've happened all across the state in the country. And the result is that light pollution is growing by leaps and bounds, and a new report just came out in fact just a couple of weeks ago, that light pollution is growing at an astonishing 10% per year, which far outpaces population growth and development. So all of us are using more light per capita every year. And this is because of bad decisions, not intentional, but just because people are ill informed including the decision departments of public works all around the state in the country. So unfortunately, the bottom line is this level of specificity is appropriate and required, actually to help cities and towns make the right decisions. Now, whether it has to come in exactly this package or that package, I can't say but I can guarantee you the DPW, well intentioned as they are and experiences they are what they do, they are not experts of lighting in the way that that needs to be to protect the nighttime environment. If I might just say one more thing about the cost issue that to put the in the biggest picture I would say what we're asking it is how much is it going to cost to turn some lights off. That of course, I mean, it's a, it's ironic because we're talking about saving energy and and bringing back the stars and improving health and improving safety by turning lights off. It's such a win win. There might be some costs upfront. It's true. It's true that seven pin ready lights need to be. I'm so glad that that that's included now they absolutely need to be included. Because dimming controls are absolutely the way of the future. There is no question that 10 years from now if you put those lights in without the ability to dim and control them, you'll say what were we thinking.  It's a small investment but the return on investment is going to be less than those 10 years that I can guarantee you. Northampton has done the same thing. They all the lights here in Northampton are seven pin ready. Many other cities in town, for example, like Cambridge actually bought the controllers to go with those seven pin. And they dim their lights regularly. And when it gets in midnight they cut them to 50% you can control it every one you could turn them off after two o'clock in the morning. And, you know, you could do it with a cell phone, the Paul, you could do it or the or Guilford could do it from a cell phone or laptop. So there are many benefits it saves money because you know exactly which light is malfunctioning. So you don't instead of having to pay somebody to go around with a bucket loader and examine the lights one by one to find a problem light. You get it right there in your cell phone. And so the savings are very significant. In the future, there will be a direct energy savings as well from dimming the lights that with that will help you realize those benefits economically. And one last thing about the cost. Good lights don't cost more than bad lights. One example the town of peperal Massachusetts which recently redid their street lights with LEDs. They went through a major vetting process where the town put up a demonstration of a wide array of different lights and asked the public in a survey, which ones do you prefer. And they overwhelmingly preferred the ones that were the least bright, the least blue, and the least glaring. So they were the best lights, and it turns out those were the cheapest ones. So the city save money and and and got better health so they're direct economic benefits to public health and you know it's all the same reasons that we invest in water safety and air quality. Those are direct values and direct benefits and it may cost money to do it but it's still the right thing to do. Thank you James, Mandy. Thank you. I just want to add a couple of things. As it relates to cost I talked to the peperal town administrator at MMA they replaced approximately 400 lights and the fixtures within the lights for approximately $250,000. And that was a number of years ago, but that gives you and I, I thought that would be a nice number to hear in terms of just an idea of what something might be I think we're we have about 700 or 800 lights I'm not sure depends on what we do with the lights we have in terms of the policy. And the timing of it I spoke to Guilford recently at a gathering, and he said the, the lights that we have on our street lamps are at the end of their useful life, meaning that they went in 10 to 15 years ago and they're they've been approximately slated to last 10 years so I know that was a question that this committee had asked about what is it and so we're starting to see the failures. And so without a policy which goes to my next point, there's no, we don't know what will get purchased right there's no guidance on what to purchase and what they should look like. And if we're starting to replace now that they last 10 years or more. It's better to put that policy in place in three years. It's better to put that policy in place now if we're at the end of the useful life and thinking about potentially whether this policies there or not, needing to do a relamping because we've hit the end of the useful life of all the lamps in our town. And so what we're going to put in before we start buying three or 400 of these, so that we know we're getting what we want, which takes me to some of what James was saying in terms of and the concern that you have about specificity. So I'm looking at the policy and it's great to say we don't want to damage, you know, harm human health. And so that's where we get into saying, you know, we don't want. We don't want a play. Right. And then we have to define what up light is we don't want to be lighting the sky, or we only want to light the portion of the area that is not the house behind the streetlight well then you have to define what that means. If we if we as a council say we don't want to light someone's yard because it's just or the house we don't want that light shining into their home. If we don't define how to determine that we can't really determine how to buy a fixture that doesn't do that or the appropriate fixture to keep from doing that. If we want a certain spectrum, a policy that doesn't talk about the spectrum gives the, the purchasers the DPW who would be purchasing this or a purchasing agent, the ability to pick any spectrum. And so if we don't put some of these specifics in, we haven't given guidance because you know there's a spectrum. There's a wide spectrum of blue light to yellow light that these LEDs come in we see it in our own town where on one street they're very blue and on another street they're not quite as blue and so if we don't put any spectrum in at all and just say you know something that works there's we haven't given the guidance that we thought we've given. And so I know it's very complicated in the sense that it's hard to understand what some of these numbers mean, or what they do. But they're standard numbers, and it's the it's it's those that sort of specificity that actually helps the people doing the purchase order the people doing that RFP know what they're looking for, and what they need to buy. Because otherwise, they could buy another 4000 Kelvin light, and that's not what we want, because that's too blue. And so we have to put some sort of Kelvin number in if we don't want the blue lights bought. Thanks Mandy. Mandy, could you remind me you had a stop now at 730. Eight. Eight. Okay, great. Shalini. Yeah, thank you for clarifying the timing piece. I think that's really important that knowing that so we can plan for this policy to be in place by the time we are ready for replacement. And again, around the process is that I don't necessarily see it as it's either DPW or experts, the, I mean, the way I'm envisioning it is that the experts like yourself, James, are working with the staff. And then maybe it is maybe what this is proposing is what the staff, I would prefer that the experts look at this with the staff because there is having been an academic myself and marketing a different field. But then I went into the actual field of marketing on like, well, there's a bit of a gap there just because of the practicality of things and other factors, which is where I think the town staff comes in. So I think there needs to be that conversation between the town staff and experts looking maybe at this document and seeing for our town what makes sense from the town staff point of view. And then coming back to us with maybe it's exactly this. And then also getting input from the public like what because this is like very dense. And as Jordi was saying kind of complex, but like what will it look like for people living in their homes what will it look like for the downtown businesses. So if we could break up what is the implication of this going to be for residents for businesses in different areas for bikers for. So if you could get the consequence implications of that for the different constraints then we could maybe hold a public forum and kind of say okay what is your feedback and you know what are their lived experiences and challenges. So I'll respond briefly as a sponsor, I think, Shawnee, I love your, your last point there about visualizing this for people and if you remember back to the initial presentation Mandy and I made we included some visual representations of what this looks like right so what these fixtures look like and what the, what the light looks like other towns have done really interesting things where they've actually set up some of the lights to to demonstrate for people. And we would love to do that. But I think for for now we've got the we've got pictures. And obviously, you know, maybe we can include those in a in a future packet again so that people can reference them to see this looks like what the different light level temperatures look like what the different shieldings look like etc etc. So I definitely do that I think to your first point, you know, regarding who I think, regardless of whether or not we like the process of who brings what forward. We are allowed as counselors to bring policies forward like this. And you're not saying you weren't saying this. And I think that as we notice concerns or issues and as we hear about them from residents or as they come up for us. And that's where this came from. And so we see that all over the place right and so this regulation. Mandy Mandy brought it forward from I believe a resident concern right and so, and then it grew from there so not everything will always come through staff and I guess I'll speak for myself only I don't think everything needs to come through stuff I think in terms we notice things that staff our staff do an incredible job. And, and we have a different perspective and so sometimes we see things that that they have been, you know, operating under for a while and we say you know what I think I think we're better I think we can do better. And that's my kind of take on why this came forward from us and not from dpw. And I think that for a follow up question clarification or in terms of the public engagement I know you showed us the images of what this kind of lighting will look like what that looks like but I'm thinking more in terms of the changes that are going to be made in different zones, So how it might affect or maybe doesn't and that's fine too but it sounds like it's going to have a different impact for shopkeepers or businesses downtown or in the bullet centers versus the residential areas and then there's some places where people have been complaining it's too dark. And so how it might actually get better for them. I'm going to pause you really quickly because we split them for that mandate you want to we split them up so this is this is Mandy go ahead. So, so I, you know, that was a big concern right and so that's why we actually went back on the placement standards to other than what I talked about what the current placement standards are. So there are no separate lighting zones now in this policy, other than sort of a streetscape although I'm not sure we eliminated all of that but streetscape lighting we've talked about but there's no streetscape lighting zone per se so we might have to go back and check that now that I think about it to make sure it makes sense now that we got rid of zones. But the placement locations, other than that dead end that I talked about would be no different than what the town is currently operating under, given the newest proposal that we've done because we heard about those concerns. So what would, what would be the impacts of the standards being adopted. The lighting would be much yellower. It would not be the bright blue white light that you see it would become much yellower, but it would cover the same. Well it wouldn't cover the same areas I'd say and it would cover the same areas is wrong, because it would also be shielded to stop it from covering the lawns of places it would meant it would be meant to cover and shine not only on the public way, not on the lawn locations, except in those streetscape areas like the downtown where that the main difference there would be that it doesn't go up anymore. It would be shielded so it's not lighting the sky, it's lighting the streets and the sidewalks. You know, and so, in some sense, the impacts are are much less severe than they were in our initial proposal because we've reverted back to the current placement standards so the impacts mainly are on the shielding the glare the color temperature and that that shielding that would say, don't light my lawn or don't light your lawn or make sure that it's shielded so that it's not shining in on that bedroom would be some of those impacts and make sure you're not lighting the sky. So that if you're above it. You don't see light coming up at you. I took a train through New York City over the holidays, and the train was elevated through and in certain areas of the town I was just amazed at how well they shielded all of their lights we were above the street lights and from the top. It looked really dark but that's from the top you want it from the top to look dark because you don't need to have light above the building. You need the light on the streets and they have done a fantastic job in some of their areas of making sure the light only shines down. And so those would be some of the impacts that if you're on the sixth floor or the fifth floor of a building or the third floor of a building, and you're looking out, you don't have a light shining up into your building, because it would be fully shielded from you. So, but the parts where we were removing street lights are no longer part of this proposal with that one exception of end of cul-de-sacs and dead ends. So I wanted to just make sure that that was like, so what you're saying in terms of zones and stuff Shalini is really valid and if we bring if we bring that back as a separate proposal then 100% but all that people would see the differences in this one or what they just described, does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. And so, so whatever is the change is what I'm saying is like how it might impact because you don't know that. And so we got so I mean basically have that as part of the process at some point, which I'm sure you will have as any changes requires, but I think going back I'm not opposed to any counselor coming up with the suggestion is just that I don't feel equipped to say yes or no to the maximum illumination level at the public right away line about putting residential ascent of using the streetscape lighting to extracial not exceed point zero one foot candle. I have no idea what that means. And so that's where I feel that if a staff person has gone through this with the experts and comes back and with you all could be like you know how Anna you did that with the water you worked with them. But if the staff person comes also and says yes we've looked at this here are some challenges here is where we think it's good. But then I feel more comfortable endorsing it versus this is a by a by law or a regulation that has been accepted in XYZ town, and these are established standards so therefore we are going to adopt them because we don't know in our town. What and maybe they are, you know, maybe they are, but again, I would really like to see some sort of staff input on this. Is there any anything to add there. I would just add that do we have Paul's permission to speak to Guilford on this to get that desire that TSO seems to be wanting. Yeah, so I think for as I think about this and read it is my first question is does the council want to move forward on this and dedicate staff time, you know which is precious to this proposal. If the answer to that is we want a new street lighting policy then by all means we have people who are staff they're not experts as James pointed out, they, we have an electrician who knows what he's doing but he's not going to know, you know what the state of the art is probably and I think the way he described the relationship between sales people and things coming in saying here's the mid latest and greatest, you know, by this and also we're driven by budgets, you know they have a limited budget there are a lot of plans, and they have to make that dollar goes as far as they can. So, I'm listening, seeing if the count and this is, you know, for a lot of proposals is the council want to really dedicate efforts to this, which I think you said have said that that you do. And I think you're right child need to approach it that way to say let's bring the experts with our practitioners and come up with something and my big thing is the implementation plan. What's our, what's the timeframe what's the budget, what's it mean for our operations to we have to get to people with different skill sets, you know, our electrician spends a lot of time fiddling with what we're supposed to be automated signals, and they're always failing, and he's supposed to be able to do it from his truck but he can't he has to go out he's to plug in all these different things are a lot of little complications that come along with stuff it's in on paper it seems really good but in practice you want to talk to the people actually doing it and we would do that with other communities as well, you know, say what's working for you and what's not. So, like the first threshold is, is this something that council wants staff to put time into, and then we start to budget our time and are what we need to do to make that happen. All right, so I'm going to, we've got two more. I'm going to go to Jim's and then Andy for the next question I think Paul, what would be the indicator that the council does or does not. Because it sounds like TSO doesn't want to put this out of committee until we get staff input which is understandable, and what other indicator would would you want. You know, to be honest with you I think a fair amount of work has already been done by the proponents. So it's more probably having a meeting with the DPW, the key people there and saying, how does this read to you I mean you've already talked with Guilford about this I know I would want our electrician to be plugged into it as well Sean. And I think I think you know getting a good read if that's what the TSO committee would feel comfortable with we could certainly do that. James, did you have a response or is it a separate question. There's a response to the, the question about the illumination levels. Great. Oh, that's what I was going to say Shalini I feel like you might, you might learn what a foot candle is in this exact moment, because we have a astronomy. James go ahead and then we'll go to Andy, and then we'll wrap this one up. Sure foot candles are just a way of describing how much light is falling on a surface like the roadway and point zero one foot candles, which we're saying, and, and we see in this proposal here, shall not exceed that at the at the boundary line is the brightness of the full moon. So it's bright enough that people in the old days used to plan their travel around it because we all know that, you know the full moon is normally enough to see by. Now you might say well let's, you know that's, it's, it's too dim, because I've experienced the full moon and I couldn't see very well. Really, that's because there was some bad light poking you in the eye. And so it's the combination of illumination levels being reasonable, and glare control being very strict glare is the culprit and whenever you have, I mean we all know that, you know to use a flashlight properly you shine it away from you, not into your own eye. The problem is that there's so many bad lights out there that we have all these lights poking us in the eye, which makes it harder to see. And we could go into the physiology of what happens to the I why that is but if you can control that glare and minimize it, then much much lower levels of light are totally fine. So the proposal is point zero one foot candles at the at the boundary, it can be brighter than that in the middle. And there are roughly 50 other cities and towns in Massachusetts that have some kind of lighting regulation or bylaw, and they all have some illumination standard in there, and they vary. But point zero one foot candles at the at the property line is reasonable and, and you'll find it in, in plenty of other places. Thank you James, Andy. Thank you. I mean, I don't think we're ready because we got the proposal and I think that this has been a helpful conversation and I appreciate that a lot of all of the information that has been provided. And the other group that I would like to hear from our public safety because just for my own experience and I think we all have similar experience, however, driving into town after it's got after it start, but not too late at night. So I think that the council meetings as a matter of fact during the winter. I frequently encounter people walking in streets where there are no sidewalks, and I frequently encounter bicycle traffic, and sometimes it's easy to see and sometimes it's but what makes the difference is often what the bicyclist puts has in the way of their own lighting or reflectors the clothing that they choose to wear and the same is true for people who are on foot. I try and, and obviously, and I hope all of us do about everyone does is to be careful, but you have to be vigilant, and I'm sure that not everybody is as vigilant as they should be. So I really would like to hear also from public safety people about what they think is necessary, lighting to assure public safety in key zones. Okay, thank you Andy and I'll share the other day I saw a scary thing and a very. I don't know if it was excessively but I know that that's my opinion street lit area where a car. There were so much there was so much light from the street lights that the car was very much after dark driving without their headlights on and they did not notice, because the street was so lit. And then they were suddenly in an area without street lights and they had no light, and I was driving behind them and it was a little, a little scary. Dorothy you're going to be our last comment on this and then we're going to let Mandy and James go about there Thursday so Dorothy. I just think we should also check with tack. Certainly we've been talking about some of these issues but you know there's experts on that committee and public safety foot safety walkers pedestrians is an issue and as we know we had a death on the campus on a very poorly lit night with I think a lot of fog. And somebody walking on the road. And this is something that we have to be concerned about so if we bring this up and talk about it at another meeting, I would certainly like to hear from tack. Okay, thank you. All right. I think that's really, really though, that let please last one. Because we have a lot of things in the agenda. I know, but I think just to perverse for the next meeting. When this comes on the agenda I think it will also be good I was going to sit tack but also that maybe the disabilities. And I don't think easy as he wants to because this is good for the environment I don't think they will really. But just letting them know that we're working on this, but definitely tack and then from the staff of DPW and public safety input. And, and I think I would like a confirmation from DPW about the timing because when the last game I remember me in my notes it said five or six years is when we're planning to make the next change so it would be good to have that was when I was here. So I think getting a formal confirmation from DPW about when is the expected change of installation of lighting fixtures and lights expected the lights and yeah, and lights I guess. Okay, thank you. So with that Mandy and James thank you both very very much for for joining and we will touch base on timing in terms of when we're ready to bring this back after we have a whole lot of meetings. Thank you for having us. Thank you. Okay, we are going to move on to proposed amendments to buy the 3.33 refuse collection and recyclable materials. And we're going to start with an update from Paul. Paul is muted. Okay. See, so we have, you know, we've got receive the grant of time for Susan wait to provide the expert guidance on, and basically trying to develop a request for information qualification something like that. They, they have. She has several different communities all in the same place so she's a busy person, but she's, you know, ready to work on this. We have a meeting tomorrow with with her and with Guilford to sort of lay out the game plan for how this is going to move forward what their time commitments are. And they haven't. They have a lot of things on their plate for DP they've a very short staff there as well but she obviously cares about the town of Amherst. We all I think or several of us had a opportunity to have conversations with providers at the MMA conference which I thought was very illuminating for many of us. There is interest in from other haulers for our our business. So that's, that's useful information and we will want it before we put out an RFI we want to have some communication with them to understand what, how do we position ourselves the best when we do go out that we choose to go out in this direction. So we're still in the information collecting phase I think that's going to take some time to move forward on it but so that's where we are at this moment in time. Thank you. Are there any updates from the sponsors. I did have another question for Paul and we talked about identifying the staff person who would be the contact person for this. So we haven't done that yet after tomorrow we'll have a better sense that you know we do have Steve Toliga who is runs our solid waste operation. And, you know, it's that is the challenge is to find out who has the skill set and the time to put into this because it's going to take staff time for this. Thank you. Maybe we can hear from Dorothy and then I can. Okay, sure. So I have, I read through it and I support this wholeheartedly, but I found myself, I know I've read this a couple of times. So you put the stuff in a landfill and it emits methane and I totally know that we had an incredible landfill in Rosalind, New York, right near us in Port Washington. And that was a serious problem and it was also seeped up into houses nearby. But so we take this now and we, we put in our little buckets, and we take it to the farm. Doesn't it still emit methane. I mean, if it emits methane if it's all together in a dump, wouldn't it emit methane at the farm. That's the food waste, right.  You know, posting this is best specific process which actually helps to decompose it and make it into soil or sorry fertilizer that can be used back, as opposed to just letting it decay on its own which it would. And Darcy has a better explanation, maybe we, she's in the, this is my understanding of very basic layman's understanding but if you want a more accurate understanding. It just, it just really got caught my interest and I began, because I'm totally for this okay, even if it does, but I just wondered, how do we, how's it not emitting methane because it's being composted. Yeah, do we want to respond to that. Yeah, sorry that we don't have Susan present because she actually is enough Susan isn't the audience I'm sorry to interrupt you Andy. It's up to Paul as to whether she can come in. I, you know, because I've talked with her years ago about the whole process. And it's, it is rather technical, but way back when when I was previously working with Susan. We got one of those backyard compost things and we use it on on a regular basis. And so it's our compost is decomposing, and it is not emitting methane. It's because of the process that is being used it's breaking, it's because it has components within the compost that naturally develop that break it down from the compost, what we're putting into the compost been into what we in the end can pull out and in our garden is as well but I think I would have to rely on somebody with her level of expertise to explain. I think this is actually points up the need for additional education zero waste damage has done a terrific job of educating people but I think that's another opportunity to people understand why do we care about this. Why are we putting time and effort into it. What are the benefits to the climate and to the environment if we move in this direction. Right. Can I give an update about what a couple of things. One is that in terms of the sponsors just because we don't want to violate open meeting log, it made sense to have one person lead the process and so that person was was supposed to be me. Like I've got the permission of all the sponsors to, and I appreciate that opportunity to lead an initiative which I have never before. So I'm excited about that. And the other though in terms of process what we're hoping for is that we use today to just go through the bylaw and again the this proposed bylaw which is not set in stone at all. But it is something that provides us a foundation to see what are the decision points. What is the information we need in order to make that decision and, and, and those questions are going to be collected and send to the staff and Susan, so that when Susan is working and whether it goes into the RFQ and whatever. So they are going to work take that information and come back to us. The main milestone that we're hoping to achieve soon with Susan is to get a very well thought through RFQ. And once that is sent out and we get the responses, we will get that information from from Susan and staff, and that's going to help us at a lot of our decision points in terms of what is composting going to include what is going to cost, and those kind of things. So we're going to when we get to that we can do. But today I think the goal is to just collect go line by line through the bylaw and proposed bylaw. And again, knowing this is not how it may end up being but just to get the conversation going. In between there will be opportunities for maybe we and that's a question again for TSO is in terms of the RFQ do we want to provide feedback because we're hearing from residents we will also have the survey that was done by zero waste in communication with the town staff and on the request of Susan zero waste did a survey asking residents what are their services and what is the cost and you know different getting feedback from residents about the current services. So they could be an opportunity we get to hear what our residents saying about that. The second thing is, do we want to you do we want to provide feedback to Susan and the staff. About the RFQ. So when she's ready with the RFQ. Do we want her to present or the staff to present it to us so we can look at it from the lens of residents and provide feedback. Yeah. So, this gets into a different area, typically, if the council says go to an RFQ staff goes doesn't RFQ it's not a meeting process to edit every RFQ I mean, we're running into this and other committees as well and it sort of it takes an enormous amount of time and and can be contentious at times within a committee so typically, you know, when we have done the procurement which is what this is we relied on our procurement staff and whoever the subject matter expert on the town staff is to put the RFQ you give us a direction. And you know, say we want to go this way and then the staff sort of do that legwork. And it's just, it's a real time sink for staff to go to lots of meetings to talk about what these five pages are going to be. Mm hmm. So, okay, Dorothy. I have a couple of small questions. For example, why would apartments be last because I would think in a way they'd be easier. The same area, when we talk about pay as you throw, and that should help reduce costs for residents that don't use, you know, the people who are paying crazy prices now. But then I began to make, make me worry if you pay more for dumping more or getting rid of more. Again, the illegal dumping of garbage, at least this used to be a big problem in some places I've lived in the past I don't know, it may not be a problem in Amherst. Then it talks about your bill coming with your town water bill for recycling and compostable materials pick up and for transfer station services. And that's what I wanted. I wanted that service transfer station services to be defined, because for example, Bob and I go the transfer station, we do not contract with USA because we don't like them and we don't like their services. So we would probably know that if you do this, do you would we stay using the transfer service as we do, but we would in instead put a little bucket out in front. Even though we are not, or do we have to contract with the people to put a little bucket of compost on the curb, or can we take our bucket of compost to the transfer station. So that's really been my question is how does this, you know, because a lot of us who really are dedicated to transfer stations and believe in them. So I just want to know that would work. And the other last thing was, I had a community citizen complaint that the DPW used to pick up Christmas trees. She had her Christmas tree in front lawn, and they weren't doing it. And on page four, it talks about yard waste leaf pick up and bulky waste items. And I thought, Oh, that would be another way to sell this, if you would say yes and we'll pick up your Christmas tree. Because you know we've got to use a we've got to get this across of changing a way of doing business. But so my main question is, how did, how did the transfer station people fit into this new plan. Before Shalini fits okay before we jump into that I also want to respect that, what Shalini had also asked of us is to go line by line through. And so I'm going to have, I'm going to take the answer to this and then Andy's question as well but then I'd like to just be cognizant of time and getting to what the sponsors wanted to do but Shalini, or Andy would you like to respond to actually press my hand in order to volunteer to provide the answer. So it was not a separate question. Even better, I love it. The transfer station. It's envisioned that the transfer station still remains an option that people will still be able to choose whether they want curbside pickup through the town for contracted service, or use the transfer station. I will assume that the transfer station will be the less expensive option, because you're providing a different kind of service that is less expensive. Second thing you asked about it was about compost. I guess I have to remind you that there are compost buckets on the right side of the drop off area. And so there already is a component within the transfer station option that currently exists. And the Christmas trees which of course people can drop off. I don't know if they have a, I think, I think they have to have a sticker. I'm not sure, but at the at the land bill or other people who collect them like woman who has the goats and always is advertising that she was trees, but Christmas trees were picked up by the prior haulers there. I don't think by the town, so that if you had a contract with Amherst trucking when it existed as a separate company, or do so they would come around to pick up your Christmas trees, usually on the first Friday after the New Year holiday, New Year holiday week. I think I'm not sure but I think that USA trucking has not provided that service after it bought out those two companies. I believe you're correct Andy although my joke potential revision to your bylaws to include some sort of goat brigade for post post Christmas tree pickup. I also love finding someone with goats to bring it. Shawani would you like to share your screen with the with the proposed bylaw on it or would you, I can pull it up. Otherwise, I think I do have it up which I could but also have a lot of other notes, which is fine which everyone can see because they're just questions that I've put on the side so whichever. It's up to you I am using to situation so just give me a second. Okay, let me make sure I haven't said any mean things about anyone. You're not sure the color. I haven't. I'm just kidding. Okay. So first, can you full screen it really quickly. Okay, hold on. Hold on. We don't. We're not looking at your desktop. Thank you. Oh yeah, and that too. Okay, we start is this journey and you see it. Is it big enough for everyone to read. What I personally can read it is anyone else unable to figure. You're saying something I can't make out. I said, oh, okay, that's better. Okay. All right, so purpose. Do we want to add anything here in terms this is very important because that's a question Paul always asked me when we whenever I've talked to him is like, what is your goal here. Like, what do we want to achieve with this bylaw. So what we already have is written I don't want to read it but if you just take a minute to just go over it again. Just the last one was not in the original. So the one that's highlighted here with the goal of meeting time. This was actually in later on in the proposed bylaw, which I've pulled it up under here. If you want to say something to that effect or not. Shelly, this is not the document. Sorry. Yeah, I'm having the same question. No, I printed the document that was posted with the meeting. Okay. That's not what you put up. Oops. You're going to stop sharing while you're. Yes, that's a good idea. Yes. So the document that was in the packet was proposed amendments to bylaw 3.33 refuse collection and recyclable materials bylaw. Okay, I'm pulling it up now. Oh, that is the proposed changes. Okay. Yeah, what's in here is more. What we were planning to do is go through the bylaw language line by line. What's in the document looks like it's a memorandum. Is that what you're looking at? So the memorandum was what was in the packet. I don't know that we're going to be able.  I haven't seen it. Yeah, the bylaw actually. Shallownay, I would suggest we not do that tonight because it is sponsors. We haven't reviewed the bylaw yet one more time. For what we're, what. Where we are with it. And it's not the item that was provided to the. Committee. It's not the item that was provided to the bylaw committee. So it does say proposed amendments to buy a lot. 3.3 committee questions. To the bylaw. So. It is on the agenda. And I think in terms of, and if you have any concerns about the process or because it is not again, this is not the. It's just to provide us some, to make sure that any possible questions and decision points that we have. We are thinking through them. Okay. So I'm going to, I'm going to pause this for a second. I. I don't think we have a copy of the bylaw. In, in it's not in this memorandum. I'm looking back here. I did, I read it, but I, I don't believe, I think you have, you outlined the proposed changes. And so maybe we can talk through what we think about those. But I'm. I mean, you don't have it as in like, you've never, I mean, because this was in the, when we passed, it was with the memorandum, but you're saying it's not in the packet. In the packet. Yeah. So, so would it be helpful to the sponsors for us to talk about the proposed changes? Or would it be helpful to, to table this until the next meeting and get. These go through that. And it was in a previous packet. So is the, the is, because it is on the agenda. So it's not like we're violating any law. And in terms of that was on the agenda is to look to provide questions to the proposed bylaw, not to the memorandum, to the bylaw. I understand that, but unfortunately the bylaw is not in the, like the bylaw wasn't in the packet. I know I haven't reviewed it since the last time I reviewed. I know, but see the point is that. If you, when, if you. We can, it's a very short bylaw, we can just go through it. The only purpose is to gather the questions. And if there are additional questions, you can send it to me afterwards, but Dorothy, like the questions you shared is exactly what. But if people are not feeling prepared to go through the questions. Okay. So I'll open it now then if folks do have questions now would be the time to, to ask them. Yeah, it's like in terms of the compostable materials, there is a very detailed description in the deaf. And that was one of the changes that is proposed is the definitions. So, okay, so I guess I'm going to, I'll raise my hand and start because my, my question was that this, this says that they're, this says that the proposed changes would provide a definition of materials and I was, my question is what is that definition. And so I think that was what I, I was really wanting to see the, the changes so that I could look through them that. So I'm not looking for an answer to that specific one, but I think that I was curious about how these were going to be specified out. So yeah, so the proposed bylaw does provide a definition, which includes all organic materials, food scraps, school soil, but did you want me to answer what it is, but you, or you wanted to know the process for define, find, arriving at the definition. Nope. I wanted to know what, I wanted to see the bylaw. That's all. And so I was, I was, because I was trying to picture all of these things. And so sure if I'm, I'm happy to hear the definition. You want me to just again share my screen because that is the proposed bylaw that was in the, that has been in the packets all through. There's no, there's no different definitions. What do you mean different definitions? Maybe come back to me. Dorothy, what's your, what's your question? Because I do have a question about the, can I just share the screen? Okay. Shalini, when I prepare for a meeting, I go check the packet. It doesn't matter if I've seen something, sometimes I see something 20 times and they're different every time. I do have printed copies of everything someplace. Okay. But when I prepare for a meeting, I read through the packet. I read through the packet and it included the memorandum, which I thought was very interesting, but it did not include the bylaw. So I do not feel prepared to discuss the bylaw today. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The agenda does not mean that we have to, it just means that we can. So we often do things on the agenda that we actually don't discuss, but Lynn would say, put it on just in case we have the time, you know, so. I'm going to hang up one second. I'm sorry. We got to go back to the, the hand raising thing here. We also do have one more item on our agenda. So I'm going to give this about a couple more, give this a couple more minutes to see what we can hash out. Maybe what it makes sense to hash out is. I'm going to give you a couple more minutes to see what we can do. I'm going to give you a couple more minutes to see what we can do. And then I'm going to ask you to discuss it. And what you want us to come prepared with it. If it's specific questions or whatever. So, so why don't we. Go ahead, Shalini. And then. But it sounds like this will be a continued discussion. Unless folks are feeling otherwise, but please, let's please. Keep raising hands so I can keep track of it. Okay. So we could go through the proposed changes that Dorothy is talking about. I'll just share that. Sure. That'd be great. Okay. So this is what you had. And so this does include talks about the definition of compostable materials. And so that could be one of the questions that we need to. Get. And I think it will come also what is our ideal goal is that it can be used for the use of the different components of the different plants and lawn. Like Christmas trees and all that. But again, I think that's going to be something that's going to go into the RFQs in terms of what are the cost components of the different pieces is how I'm imagining it. Because it's possible that. It's all we're able to afford all of it, which is amazing because more people will be interested if your yard waste is available. And it's not accessible that it might have to be. This is a basic compostable, but if people want the yard waste and they pay a little bit more. So there are all those different things around what the Compostable material will include. So the question then for us is, do we want the definition of the compostable specific in the bylaw? Or do we put it in the regulations? Because a lot of the details in this are going to go into the regulations. So that's a decision point for us. Okay. Strong thoughts on that in this moment. Paul. Yeah, I think the model that we should be trying to always trying to be following is. Create a bylaw that's pretty general. We've what we did with the water and sewer regulations and then we have the detail in the regulations that much easier for the council to adjust over time. But things are going to change all the time. And so I think, you know, if we start to think about this in terms of what's in the bylaw and what should be in the regulations, that was, we can start to pull apart what those two things are. And it means we have to do different actions, but I think that's much better way that the bylaw lays out the framework for what you want to cover. And then the regulations gives it the detail, like what is going on with the, you know, of composting that can change from year to year even, you know, right. Okay. So specificity in regulations more general and bylaws as a, as a rule. Does everyone agree? Okay. And then the second one was something that Dorothy had mentioned in terms of, when do we start and who do we start with? Okay. So, again, is something that has to come from the staff and RFQs because Apartments have their own contracts. And so if we are hoping for them to join us, then what is that transition going to look like from that contracts. And then also if you're only doing it with residential houses, single family homes or owner occupied, whatever. Is that enough number of households for a hauler to be interested in? Will it be viable for a hauler to just focus on, you know, would that make the cost higher?  Right. Okay. No, I know I wasn't sure if you were asking that as a question or not. Andy, go ahead. Yeah, I think that the original proposal. Was that we would start with. Homes that are single family rented. Or on residential streets that. Because it covers the greatest number of customers. And it's also the, the population that is going to be. Around for the longest period of time in this complexity. With the apartment and renters renters by and large. Have a shorter stay. Because you have a lot of student renters. And they can turn over every year or every couple of years. And then you have to go through an entire. And then you have to go through the application process. And that we want to try and get it up and running. For as many households as possible. In a stable fashion as quickly as possible. And that would mean. Not doing the apartment complexes because. And then the other problem. And I think that we know this from. The work that. And they had maybe Kaplan working for them for a year. On a grant. Program. The education component is much more difficult. And the enforcement. Of the regulations is much more difficult. In an apartment complex because it's not just with. The owner of the landlord wants, but it's what the residents of the apartment. Are complying by. And for all of those reasons. Zero waste Amherst. Proposal and the, which was then adopted. By the. Sponsors was to start with. With the way that it was originally proposed. I think this is going to, this is getting far too complex for tonight. And I actually. With all due respect. I haven't had a chance to look at what all of these. Like changes are and I'm a co-sponsor. So I'm a little bit uncomfortable with continuing the discussion. Change. Can you speak more to the changes? What do you mean? Well, for example. You were just about to go over the. Definition of compostable. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This is what was proposed in the bio proposed by law. It's nothing has changed since what we proposed and attached to the memorandum. That was in the original. Yeah. And it isn't something that. That's being done. That was responsive to the prior. Request for more information. Then I stand corrected. And I'm sorry. Okay. So we're going to go. To the next meeting. I think it might be helpful. Shalini is if you can really clearly. Tell us what you're looking for from us for next meeting so that we can all. Be better prepared. Dorothy. So, you know, everybody meets on Thursday and I've been hopping from one zoom to another all day. So there's a little cross fertilization here. Talking about student rentals. That's a place I can see as a problem with this. I don't know where we're going to start it. And I don't know whether we can count on good cooperation. And that's an added thing. And I think we have to think about that in terms of the rental registration as well, because this would be adding a. You know, some new requirement on the, either the owner or the manager or the students, but if they just leave it to the students, it'll be chaos. That's my comment. So with your question, Dorothy, be the, how would we enforce the. Especially with. That would be part of the rollout of the easier, you know, owner-occupied houses, the residential neighborhoods, but they're a very big part of many residential neighborhoods. And they do present unique challenges. Unless they're owner-occupied, you know, so that has to be thought about. So that's the kind of question we're looking to put down that would be in the enforcement part and also the education part. Like how do we educate people and get everyone on board? Why this is so important because we're running out of landfills because of methane, all of those things. So that'd be part of the education. And enforcement. Yeah.  I want to, I want to push back a little bit on the fact that it would be hard for us to do this if you look at trends of, who's actually kind of working on, on environmental issues, it's millennials and Gen Z more than anybody else. And we see this at the colleges, especially it's become routine for a lot of people for, especially students. So I think it's valid to talk through enforcement, but I'd really like to detach that from, from generational and students. Yeah. And that's, I mean, that's data, like we have data on that. So I just. Okay. You're saying, you're saying a house of male students would do it as well as a house of female students. Okay. I, I, I will, I will wait and see. I'm not going to respond to that. Are there any other, any other. Okay. Last, go ahead, Charlie. Last one. I just, I'm just putting it as a question. How do we enforce the composting by law? I think that's a great. Education for different people in different ways. Yeah. Great. All right. So with that, I think we'll go back to the rules and then we'll start on that. Yeah. So we're going to go ahead and do a final comment on our agenda, because I also see that Amy was like, he is here. And so, shall any, will you. What are our, what is our homework for the next? Okay. So I, do you want me to send the by-law itself to everyone? And so for over it by line by line again, if there's anything you do not agree with or you have questions, what would help you to make that decision point? Those are the questions. If you could write down, the paid bylaw, any questions that you have compostable, what is that gonna look like? What should be in the bylaw? What should be in the regulations? So the bylaw is more longer lasting, regulations are what keep changing. So as Paul explained, so those are the kind of things if you can send your questions, should they send them to me or just bring them? We should bring them. I mean, people could individually send you questions, but I also think if you could just have the bylaw placed in a packet and then for the next meeting, and we can refer to that, that would be, I think that would be best. Any questions about the process though, before we move on? Because I think for the public and everyone, I want, you know, this has been brought up a couple of times that people feel that we are, you know, we're putting the horse before the, no, we're putting the cart before the horse. So I don't want anyone to feel like this is a done deal and we're, it's not set in stone. This is just to provide us a framework to have this conversation think through what are the decision points we need to move forward in a thoughtful way, that it's feasible, that it's accessible, it's affordable for our students and what does a staff think? And yes, so. Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you very much for all your work on this, Shalini and Andy and other sponsors. All right, so we're going to move on to proposed water and sewer regulations, but I want to jump ahead really quickly, Paul, I'm looking ahead on the agenda under item nine, review of future agenda items and council referrals is the surveillance use policy. There was nothing on that in our packet. Do you have, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to plan ahead here in terms of timing because I had thought this was sort of our last thing because there was nothing else in the packet. Do you have something on that that you plan to need time for? I guess not because it's not in the packet, but I just send them, when I sent a memo some couple of months ago to the council that we should put that into packet, but so you haven't had a chance to review it in detail. I mean, you have it, but it's from a couple of months ago, I think. And also if that was really going to be on the agenda, we should have the police chief here. Yeah. I think Anika, we agreed that that was not going to be this, but the next meeting. Perfect, love that. It's a coming attraction. All right, let's move on to water and sewer regulations, y'all. I can like see the finish line. So we are, I feel like Amy, the fact that you run ultramarathons and the fact that this has been, you run ultramarathons or normal marathons, either way. You run long distances. This feels like the policy version of that sometimes. So I'm glad that you're coaching us through it here. We are gonna start with an update from finance committee and then the decision on the table before TSO is whether or not we would like to change our recommendation to the council to match what finance committee said. So I'm gonna ask for an update from Andy. I'll ask for any updates from Amy that if you have any, and then we will decide whether or not we'd like to, if someone would like to make a motion to change our recommendation or not. All right, so, and we're gonna do all of that relatively quickly. So Andy, take it away. Yeah, and Donna, since you're also in finance, you should be plugging in and switching roles when you need to talk about what you saw happening in finance. But basically, I think that we recognized the same, we're at the same place that we were last time we talked about this as a committee because there was a recommendation that was made by finance director Mangano that we take the portion of the bylaw that would change ownership of water and sewer lines between the main and the property line that was proposing to change the ownership from the customer to the enterprise funds and delay that decision for two years until we obtain more information when that was adopted by the finance committee and then this committee decided that it would prefer to take a slightly different tack on it, but not substantially different because what was being proposed was to delay the implementation of that change for two years, but to go ahead and to actually adopt the change and the obvious difference is that two years hence is new information is available under the original and continuing finance committee proposal. The finance committee would in council and TSO at that time would look at the new information and decide whether to make this additional change whereas under the TSO proposal, it was kind of the opposite in two years from now we would essentially get the same information and have the council and its committees decide whether to reverse that portion of the decision that had been with the delayed effective date and that was essentially the difference. And we talked a little bit about the reasons to do it. I think that the one statement that was made was that it would create a situation where a homeowner might be able to say after finding out that there's a problem with that section of the line, oh, I'm just gonna delay until after the two year period and then it's, I don't have to pay for it anymore, but I think that that could be addressed through how do we write the by-law so that doesn't in and of itself answer the question. And then the finance committee, the other thing that was brought forward and why I suggested that I wanna be free to talk because she was the spokesperson from the perspective of wanting to have the council go ahead and implement the change if it thought that change was the appropriate thing to do and to say that this is where we are going as opposed to leaving the decision for a new council two years from now, but I'm not wanting to put words in your mouth and if I have misstated it and I wanted to make sure that you were gonna seize the opportunity to say, no, that's not what I meant. But after the discussion at the council meeting, the decision or the finance committee meeting was the finance committee suggested that even with the fineness of the difference that it was suggesting that we've forced the decision at the appropriate time and that there be a time date put on it as to when it was happened and so that it would have to be in time to go into effect on July 1st of what would be 25, I believe, and that that would be the by putting a date on it would force the decision. So that's where the finance committee ended up. So it was kind of back to TSO because I think that what we didn't wanna do is make the decision and discussion at the council more difficult if we could avoid it and having two different versions are two different concepts going to the council's problematic and the other thing that we were conscious of. But I think that this is really up to Lynn as president to figure out a methodology if it comes to that. So that Amy doesn't have to develop two regulations that comply with both committees but could get some indication of where the council wants to go before she has to do it so she only do it once. So I think that's my report and leave it to you and Amy to add to it. Thank you, Andy. I wanna set a quick parameter here. I don't think we need to rehash our entire conversation from the last time we discussed this issue. I think that what we need to decide is not the merits of the motion that we made last time and voted on but whether or not we would like to and if someone wants to come out and make that motion right away that's fine too whether we would like to change the motion that we made last time to match what finance said. That's the goal. I'm not trying to rehash the whole thing again. We've limited time here. So Dorothy. I do not wanna change our motion. I wanted to, I think our motion is much more just. I go to meeting after meeting. We talk about our taxes rising for lots of reasons. We're building this. We're doing overrides, all kinds of things. And what have we done? What are we have we done for the homeowner that has to worry about costs and expenses? This is the least served group in our town right now. And I would feel absolutely betrayed that the work that we did in coming up with this which is a fair regulation would be put off to be redecided by the finance committee at some point which is just another way of saying killing it softly, killing it slowly. So I am very much against changing the TSO's motion. I'm sorry the finance committee felt and I know that Alicia was not in the meeting when that happened. I don't know if that would have changed the vote. I was listening, but I had to get off to pick up my grandson. I'm very upset about this. So I do not want to change our motion. Thank you, Dorothy. One quick, two quick clarifications. There actually wasn't a vote in finance. The motion never got a second. And the second point is that it would go back to the full council not just the finance committee. I don't think that changes your point but just wanted to be clear. Any other questions, Andy? Yeah, I just wanted to respond to Dorothy on that there's going to be an additional expense to somebody. And I think that what you have to recognize and we all have to recognize is that if we go forward with the TSO approach the water rates go up for everybody. And there's an amount of money that's going to be collected that's going to cover repair costs if it goes and when it goes into effect. And we're talking about now two years from now, not now but assuming it goes into effect. The water rates for everybody goes up or homeowners at that point will probably have a choice bear the risk that if the lines that run to or from their house become a problem that they're going to have to pay the cost or they have to make the decision to buy insurance which Paul has been working on developing and identified an insurance option that would allow people to purchase insurance. But there is a cost that is going to be borne by our taxpayers either everybody through the water rate increase or by a select group of those people who purchase insurance or if they don't purchase insurance bear a risk of paying the entire cost of repair should their line be the problem. Thank you, Andy Dorothy. The insurance of people who've looked into some of the private purchase of insurance nowhere could come close to cover the costs for many, many people. The unfairness of somebody like LC Federman having to pay for cleaning changing the street is ridiculous. What will happen to homeowners who are in a more precarious position is that they will have to try to get a second mortgage if they're actually have that availability and the chances of having a losing their homes. So I think it's a really extreme situation and we did find we've compared our water rates with other local towns nearby towns and our rates were lower, which is why we were when we did that little raise last year or this year, I don't know what year it was. It wasn't that upsetting because it was still our rates were very still lower and they are still lower than the neighboring towns. So I feel that I was spared total destruction because I happened to have insurance but when friends of mine tried to buy some like that, they were not able to. So it's the insurance option is not really a good answer. And it might cost over $30,000. So let's pay. How can you explain the insurance option but under any circumstance, right now where we're at, if we don't do anything then somebody who's caught in the position that you described naming that one particular taxpayer that's still would be there. That hasn't changed because under the present regulation it's there. If we make the change, it is going to involve a substantial water increase. And the other thing that because of what was reported to the council at the last meeting and discussed at the finance committee meeting we're gonna have to incur additional costs for centennial which will raise the rates anyway. So that there's already gonna be a substantial increase. So it's gonna be a larger increase. And that's the choice. And I don't think there's any perfect answer to this one. It'd be so easy if there were. I'm happy to entertain a motion. Otherwise, the TSA recommendation will stand. Would anyone like to make a motion regarding the water and sewer regulations? Well, I will make the motion as you did last time at the finance committee meeting, except in reverse. I remove the TSA committee amendments prior action and that it concur with the recommendation to have the decision on the change in two years. In time to make implementation on July 1st of 2025. Can you say that again? Andy, because I, sorry, I'm sorry. I know I'm, because I feel like that's what we said last time. And so I want to make sure. The motion would be to amend the prior recommendation of the town services and outreach committee that it adopt a regulation that does not change ownership of the lines between the main and the property line until a decision is made. And that that decision will be made in time for implementation if chosen by the city council. For implementation if chosen by the council on July 1, 2025. Okay. Is there a second? It's finance all over again. Confirming there is no second to the motion. Okay. All right. This is what happened in finance y'all. So that's, that's, that's okay. Kelly, our note taker who is recording. I hope that you got that. Shalini, do you have a question? Yeah, I mean, I guess I just want to hear from Andy again the way I'm thinking about it that even though we have the centennial because of that and increase across the board, but in my mind still, we are spreading the cost across all people, which is less than it affecting one single person who could, who's their home as Dorothy explained. So in my, I mean, can you explain to me what was the finance? Because I didn't listen in or follow that conversation. Paul, yeah, good. Yeah, I think the basic differences is that TSO and finance committee agreed that the service line ownership should change to where the, so whoever owns the property owns the service line. What's different between what finance committee says TSO said, and it will change to ownership that change will happen on date certain two years from now. And what the finance committee says the town council will review it two years ago. So it's a matter of one, it will default into action or it will be considered for action. That's the basic, it's not a huge difference between. So substantively you're on the same page with finance is just a matter of is it going to happen automatically or is it going to be up for review in two years. And I'll, I'll share my perspective on why I would rather it happen automatically is that it's a new council who has not gone through this, these entire regs. And so I was thinking about that. And that if our town staff or counselors had concerns, they could bring it back up for review. It could be reviewed. That was my, those are my two main points. All right. Thank you. And I would just support that. Oh, and my another point would be that I think it gives residents some consolation that this is moving. Otherwise it's like, oh, they're going to go and decide it. You know, they didn't really decide they're going to review. So it leaves it up in the open. Doesn't give any assurance to the residents. So I think I would. I agree with what you just said. And what Dorothy is saying. All right. Exciting times. Amy, do you have anything that you, I apologize. I feel like I did not actually ask you to, I'm so sorry. Do you have anything that you'd like to add or say? Not necessarily. You guys covered it. And I just want direction on how to write this. And like I said, to me, the most important part, I guess that this is a big portion to you guys, but there's a lot of other things in the race. That are equally important to move forward. And I'm glad that we all agree on all the other stuff.  So I think the next step is we'll try, we'll try and frame a memo for the council for your next meeting on the 27th to say. Yeah. I think that's a good point. Here. Everything in the regulations, everybody agrees with, except there's one, this one decision point. And we'd like direction from the council on this decision point. And hopefully they can vote that that night.  I'll do the work. So Amy doesn't have to do it twice. So we have to do different versions in front of you. And then bring that back. We can, I don't think they, we can take that straight to the council. We don't have to go through the committee process anymore. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I started drawing the map last time about where it went. And then I got lost. Yes. Paul, that sounds great. Is that a memo you're able to prepare. With. Yes. With Amy. I think he's using the royal we, which means we will do. Amy, I'm so excited to read your mouth. Yes. Okay. Amy, thank you very much. I know it's a late night. Appreciate you being here. Thank you so much. Thank you. We will let you go and we'll see you at a full council meeting, which is willing for everyone. All right. Thank you guys. Okay. We are going to move on. I, I personally do not have any announcements. Does anyone else have any, any announcements that they'd like to. Share. Okay. Future agenda items coming down the pike. We will be talking about our surveillance use policy at some time in the future. And we look forward to a memo from Paul on from. From Paul. I know I'm nervous about saying Paul is going to do a memo. We will. The materials that were referred to us. From Paul. At a council meeting. To be discussed at a later. Yes. So you, you do have a memo that outlines that's the in car video. That happens with police cruisers. So you have that memo, but I think you'll have a lot of questions about it. So having someone from the police department here to answer your questions is in the world with your new surveillance bylaw. When there is a technology that is surveillance, the council has to approve it. And you have a certain number of days to do that. You have plenty of time, but we were, you know, talking with the Nica, just let's line that up for your next, probably the 20, whatever your next meeting. And have that come before you then. All right. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. I don't, I don't have any unanticipated items. And with that, I believe we are set to adjourn unless anyone has a really good reason for us not to. No, I'd love to have dinner. Thank you. All right. I, can I just declare us adjourned? I feel like I should know this. All right. I'm doing this adjourned at 846 PM. Thank you all so much. Have a wonderful evening. Thank you. Thank you.