Okay, we're started. Okay. Welcome to the Board of Health meeting of December 14, 2023. The preamble is that it's pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and renewed by Governor Mora Healy. This meeting of the Board of Health will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by following the instruction on the Board of Health posted agenda via Zoom. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access proceedings as soon as it is technologically possible. After this meeting, all approved Board of Health minutes are posted on our website once they are approved by the Board. I will now open the December 14 2023 Board of Health meeting at 5.30 with a roll call. Tim. Yeah. Premolo. Here. Lauren. Here. And Risha, we know is absent. Okay. For the first item, we need to review the minutes of November 9, 2023. I wondered if anyone had any corrections or concerns about that. No. Lauren, no. I'm not here so I guess I can't vote on the. Oh, so yeah, but there's still are three of us who were there and are here so. Can I have a motion to accept the meeting minutes from December, November 9 2023. Yeah, I can make a motion to accept the minutes of November 9 2023. And I'll second. Okay, well. I have a vote. Yes. Tim. I. Maureen. I. So the minutes are accepted. The next section is for public comment on items related to the current agenda. Are there any members of the present? I don't see any. Okay. So no members of the public. So I guess we can move right along to the old business. And the first item being the body art regulations. And hopefully the final review and vote. I'm. Let's see. I know I, I had some thoughts that I sent out previously for people to consider. And, and I know that. Kyle had done some research, you know, to help us review the, the concerns that were brought up by, but mostly by Steven. Lambert. So let me, I was just going to get my copy of the. Actual document up here. As I was telling.  I had a plan for this and I have to do, I have a computer in the iPad. And at the last minute I had to switch their roles because I couldn't get on to zoom with my new computer. And I can with my iPad. So bear with me if. If there's some delays in this process. I'm not sure how we want to go through this. In that document from Kyle. It brought up several issues and I thought maybe we could proceed through them one by one and see if anyone has comments there or if there are comments about any other area. We would like to hear that too. If not. I can just start by rolling through those. Just to confirm the red, the red. In the latest version of the regulation represents the changes now. Yes, yes. And I don't have that right. That whole full that's not what I'm looking at the wrong thing here right now so let me get to the right thing. I'm sorry. I got myself out of word even so that's not that's not a sign hold on a second. Let's know if it would be helpful to resend you the document so it's at the top of your email if that's helpful at all. That would probably be a good idea because there's so many things like will Bobby body art without a lot of that it's going to be hard for me to get to the right one. What about this is a female. I know that's not it. Todd's email. How's email. Yeah. Because he had that. Yeah, I just reset you Kyle's email so it should be at the top of your inbox if that helps. Not quite here yet. What in will it help me, you know, go go in my document. Just the red highlighted ones. Yeah, okay. You want me to do that. Sure. Yes. Okay. Sorry. And it's distracted. So we are on the body art regulation 12 three post hearing edits site. So I'll just go through some of the red highlighted ones. So in the second page, we have a definition of ASTM, which is the American society for testing and materials. So which, which I believe it states some of the international standards on materials products and systems and services. So that's a very straightforward one I think right. I added that because that's the organization that approved that the CDC uses to evaluate gloves. And that's where that came from. So that's good. Third page. I think there was one qualifier added for communicable disease or conditions where it is diagnosed by a licensed health care provider. So that was added in. Yeah, that was to replace physician to reflect the medical practice. Okay, on page five. That's a definition for gloves. That's a great single use disposable gloves that meet the ASTM standards. That's straightforward definition. Right. And that seems fine. Yeah. Yeah, these those are straight for those parts. So on page 11. On the top of the page. We have like a section G. This is for restrictions and prohibitions. The use of a piercing gun, parts of which can come into contact with the client's skin or bodily fluids is not allowed. So that was added. That was right. And I think body artists don't tend to use those but I thought we would just put that in there anyway. Okay. So the other section. On page eight section B. That we didn't change, but it's, it says, I think it allows, it says that these regulations don't apply to piercing of the ear only with what sounds like a piercing gun but isn't really a piercing gun. It's something that's a one has a one time use cartridge and is safer than piercing guns. And that was the language that was previously there and it, I think it was confusing because it sounds like a piercing gun but it's actually it's has that issue of the single use cartridge so that's a different thing. So I just wanted to make that out in case anybody had questions about that. But I think section. It's section be piercing. Right under extensions. Then there was another part that didn't get changed. I'm just going to go through this on page nine all those restrictions. The various procedures. I think Stephen advocated for expanding those to body artists. My feeling was that this was similar to the local. The same as the local regulation. The main legal only it's done by a healthcare provider physician. I don't know if anyone else has strong feelings about changing that doesn't sound like it. Okay, so then I'll know now on to the red onto the red changes that you can follow. Okay. I think. 11. Yeah. And then page the same page 11. There is a under physical plant. There was added in a divider partition or a curtain. So a curtain was added. I think that I went through. I was trying to find this idea of an open. Floor plan and I couldn't find that anywhere. But I did find and I think it was Easton mass that they have the option for a curtain and I thought adding that option would. Provide the ability to have a more of an open floor plan and more flexible kind of facility so that seemed like a reasonable consideration. I think I understand his ideas like if you're going to be cleaning floors and things partitions and whatever, get in the way, but this is something movable and washable and you know maybe not as attractive as some things it reminds you of the hospital emergency room but it's a lot. And if they're pulled back nicely I sure look okay. And the next section, this we might get a little more discussion about. I'll let you go ahead though Tim. I'm not sure I've got the right wording here. Oh, I'm just following the red fonts you know so. Right, right. So the next red font or highlighted one is it edits is page number 15. So this is about the hepatitis hepatitis B I think. So we added a statement I believe it's from Northampton. Any practitioner providing body or services while diagnosed with or suspected of having an acquired immunodeficiency condition or hepatitis B shall observe and follow all conditions CD. All current CDC standards. So there's a reference to MMWR 91 document. Right. And that document is updated periodically it's hard to cite those documents that MMWR, but the idea being that for the most part it's just universal precautions if a person has a particular hepatitis B where they can be much more contagious and then thoughts about what if they're particularly high risk procedures, they should just be considering that for the, I don't even think there are any of the very high risk procedures that are done with it's certainly not tattooing and probably not with piercing either I think it comes into play with certain types of surgical procedures but there just should be a certain awareness of those high risk, higher even higher, higher risk issues. And again that I stole from Northampton. And so, any questions or thoughts about that from anyone else. Right Jim. Can I ask, can I ask a question so we're talking about three right D three right now, is that correct. Yeah. Okay, so then it's when it says acquired immunodeficiency and acquired immunodeficiency condition. That's broader than just HIV. You know, I think that might be an old term, you know, it might just just whether we should modernize that to say HIV, but I, I. My feeling is that it's not. If we're talking about HIV. And so my question is there's something besides HIV that's an acquired autoimmune deficiency, excuse me acquired immunodeficiency condition, in which case I can understand that's broader language but if we're referring to HIV we should call it HIV disease. That's my sense right others in the field. Isn't that the correct nomenclature these days. I think that's very reasonable. Like I said I was quoting, but I think to update that language would probably make sense. Okay, so let me just write that down.  Yep, go ahead Lauren we can hear you from the last meeting I thought it was brought up that disclosing certain conditions like HIV, we didn't want to really do that so touch on that or I don't think this requires disclosing anything it just requires the practitioner to be cognizant of any unusual risks or any risks that that they might have. But it doesn't require them to disclose that to us or to clients or to employers either. So that's that's not, not a disclosure issue. It's just taking responsibility for being safe. Okay. There's another section where I don't think we changed anything but on page 17 section age about hepatitis B vaccination for the practitioner. I might have added something somewhere about adding apprentice to just to include them in the discussion but that's what you added and the practices. Yeah, I think that requires people to disclose any illness or anything that discloses a decision whether or not to be vaccinated. And it's really a protection for employees that the that the employer should offer that that opportunity to be vaccinated for for hepatitis B protect themselves as they do the work that they do. It's really pretty common and a lot of settings even from the you know custodians and like the colleges and anyone who who might somehow be exposed to hepatitis B. It's, it's there. It's, they need, they need to know about it and to have the opportunity and to make a decision so it's not against or disclosing any medical information in particular. So how I see that anyway, I don't know if people see that differently. Again I'm immersed in this and sometimes don't see how other people might see things differently. So it states like a hepatitis B vaccination status. So that has to be disclosed right. Right, right. So I think it's like it's like we're going to kindergarten or something I don't know you have to have your vaccines. You don't even have to have this vaccine you just have to say you receive the information and and have it or declined it. I, I guess. So why don't we move this one, the hepatitis B vaccinations information and any type of a notification to the section number one, which is a establishment information. So what we can say the establishment should provide all the information about hepatitis B to the employer or something. I think it says that at some point in a different section. And again I don't have it all the whole thing in front of me which is frustrating to me right now. But it does say that on page 16 under establishment record keeping. There's employee information which shall include blah blah blah hepatitis B vaccination status or declination notification. Right. Is that already talking about okay. Yeah that's that's that's the section we are talking about in the sense, how would we know the status. So that has to be disclosed. Yeah, to the. Yeah, it does it is, it is disclosing medical information that's I don't feel like it's the most sensitive type of medical information and but it is asking to know that you correctly you're saying that practitioners would voluntarily have to disclose certain medical information such as the hepatitis B or autoimmune or immunodeficiency. No, no just hepatitis B whether they have the vaccine or decline the vaccine. Okay, yeah. And that that that's the level of the information and they could decline it because they already have hepatitis B and they don't, you know the vaccine isn't going to do them any good but we don't need to know why they decline the vaccine. We just want to know that they had the opportunity to get the vaccine and decide right now. But it's still a voluntary disclosure. What the disclosure isn't voluntary, the vaccine is voluntary. They don't have to have the vaccine. Yeah, I think there is something about that elsewhere to but I think it doesn't say anything different than that does. We can make it after you know vaccination status and immediately following that can we make it some sort of optional or voluntary after that just just to not make it it's a mandatory you know to disclose. So I'm just saying you know hepatitis B vaccination status and in parentheses we should have some condition you know it's optional information or something or declination notification. I guess I don't see why we would have that. I feel like that negates the whole statement in a way because that allows employers not to provide that option to get the vaccination. And you know if we don't know it it, you know I feel like probably the health department can help people get vaccinated if they need to be vaccinated. It's kind of expensive it's an expensive vaccine by the number. I probably know what it is these days, but you know it's required. It's required for going to be in the car for college and, and it's hard not to look at this as a healthcare provider because it is so basic in, in, in every sort of setting and now all we're asking is whether the best vaccination whether they've completed the vaccine series. Right. So now the infants are vaccinated. routinely. So, so if I could clarify and sorry if I'm missing something that it does seem like we're essentially asking employers to ask their employees if they've had it and to offer the happy vaccine which might not be possible because it's expensive because the employers are going to be able to vaccinate their own staff but they're basically saying are you vaccinated and if not, you know you can get vaccinated and here's where you can do it. And the practitioners say I'm not going to do it and then you have it on file that the person is either vaccinated or not vaccinated so if there becomes a situation where somebody's exposed to exposed to blood in a you know unsafe way, then you know the status of that person and their vaccine status. So we're just trying to collect that info and have it on file for safety reasons. Right, right. And it seems like that's fairly clear and the way it's worded. Is there is there any change that we would want to make to that or does that feel like the right stance in this place in this section. Like does it need to be clarified or is that like it's to me it seems clear but I don't know what others feel. And from my point of view and I just echo what premise that it's hard not to hear this as just a very routine statement and request and it is technically medical information you had the vaccine or not. It's a pretty low bar bars that goes into the context of how personal or Well, sorry Kiko is, is it an option for people to be does the health department offer the vaccine. Um, you know, we do actually we can get the vaccine for people who are uninsured or underinsured we can provide that vaccine we've actually been talking about doing some clinics for hepatitis because it's a concern and some of the shelters have a right so it is possible that we could offer that service but only to people who are uninsured or underinsured otherwise they'd need to go to their primary care person. And so if they were uninsured, they could I mean insurances are required to cover. Yes, that's a basic vaccine so yeah, so they would have an option either way. Yeah, I mean it's not like we hang out our shingle happy vaccine here today but yes we can do it if it's yeah it's something it's one of our services that we provide vaccine for uninsured or underinsured people, including him. I think mostly my question was just to establish that it would be available were all other avenues closed. That is true. That is correct. Yes. Yeah. Um, can I clarify something. I just said keep the you said that. Um, the fact the employer would be able to, well the employer would ask their practitioners to either tell them that they have a happy that they've gotten a happy vaccination or not. And I don't see that in the wording here. It just says. Yeah, I think the wording is under 16. I lost it G. So yours, you're implying information is your the status of happy happy vaccination status which means you were vaccinated or not vaccinated and if you weren't vaccinated that you signed. Declination notification means you signed something declining the vaccine. So the status is are you vaccinated yes no, and the declination is, I don't want it signed here. That's on page. That's on page through. Oh I lost the page 161717. The other thing that's required is blood borne pathogen training, which goes over all of this, you know, it's part that's included in, you know, learning about blood borne pathogens, what they are how to avoid them, how to avoid legal sticks, but also hepatitis B vaccine is included in, in that training, you know the idea that you can be vaccinated for that so it's, it's the information doesn't just come from the employer and saying oh yeah I get hepatitis B vaccine it comes as part of the education around blood borne pathogen. I think that is clear in terms of implementation. I'm fine with that. All right. And I, again, I think that on page 19 section G, this whole health of the practitioner. I think Stephen brought up a question about respiratory infections and a cold you know is a cold respiratory infection. And indeed it is but I think, I think it's, I don't know, maybe I'm trying not to define things too much but I think some common sense makes sense in this section. You know, if I am a practitioner of any kind it has, or even a person who works in an office with people if I have a bad cold, it behooves me to stay home and not cough and sneeze and spread everything around. And this is a perhaps a higher level because you know you're dealing with instruments that are being inserted into someone's skin. I'm sure I wouldn't want to have a tattoo or a piercing by somebody who's sneezing all over me. You know, if we've learned anything from COVID, you know, it's to respect, respect communicable respiratory diseases. If it's a mild cold and it's not like that, like, not so I don't know. I think there's a part, something that says it was likely to cause contaminate surfaces so if somebody has a mild cold and a little sore throat or something like that. I think we, they probably wouldn't worry about that. So I think just to use common sense and I for us to try to define that I think is not going to be helpful. We all learned to use masks over the last few years. We all learned a little bit about being cautious about spreading respiratory diseases around. You know, I guess I wouldn't change that. I don't know how other people feel. Did we move on from page 15. Yeah. 17 and now this was page 19, the little, I don't think there's any red text on it because I didn't change anything about it. It was in sec. I was just talking about page 19 I think section g health of the practitioner, something. And I thought, because I had a question about. Very suspected. We lost the voice I think we lost you Lauren. She said something about the word suspected I think I don't know where that is. I think it is diagnosed or suspected with that acquired immune efficiency syndrome. So that was from a ways back. Lauren, can you hear it? Yeah, I think it's in page 15. Page 15. The red font. Diagnosed with or suspected off. Yeah, can you hear me. Yes. The word suspected is there a way to change that work because it seems like. Either the employer is suspecting. And it could be something else. You know, I don't know it just seems. We could probably leave that out. I would think that in the past it was harder to diagnose things. So I think, I think we could just make it diagnosed and change that to HIV. And leave it. That sounds good. Thanks for bringing that up Lauren. That's a good point. Again, I think those sorts was an old must have been an older statement. So. So there is one red font in page 17. I think that's a good point. I think that's an H. Practitioners and apprentices. Right. I just felt that since you're adding apprentices, we should include them in that. I think that makes sense. All right. And then page 19, we've got to, again, an area with. I think we can just leave it as is, but. Welcome to hear other thoughts. Could you say what number that is? Because my pages don't have numbers for some reason. Section G. Health of the practitioner. I don't know what. I think it's a broader section of standards of practice. Okay. And within that one is section G. I'll let you try to find, I'm going to let you see if I can actually find my. I think I'm back on track with everybody now I have. I got people's email. So after 19, where, where, where is our next. The next thing I see is 24. About a prior criminal record. That's the next red. Yeah. And I. Again. It was this is not having read. I'm going to go back to what I was working off. I, I guess. My thought after. Considering it that. Is that it doesn't. Add much and maybe it's. You know, not necessary. And the fact that the town, the only. Only a license that requires this is the mobile food. Establishment that's the ice cream truck. So, you know, I think we're in a different category and that we can just. Even though it's not uncommon to see it in the regulations of other towns that it. It probably is not necessary. Yeah. And Kyle had done some research in which he did call North Hampton. And they said that they recently removed this from their body or regulation. So it's no longer in theirs. Yeah. So. Does anyone disagree with just. We didn't have it before. We could just. Leave that out. I agree to remove it. Okay. Does anyone else have it? It's fine with me. Okay. And I guess the next thing that I had. That doesn't have any red because I didn't think we needed to change it was the length of the apprenticeship. It really matches North Hampton and other. Towns and it matches. The amount of experience required to get the full license. So. And the fact that. As people progress through the apprenticeship, they can start. They're still under the auspices of their trainer, but they can start. Charging for their work. And. You get that experience under in that setting. So. It's, it does seem like a long time to me, but it just really matches the. The amount of experience to get the full license. So they can. Be pretty autonomous during that time. In a number of areas, but they still have the trainer. This is in page 28. I think we're at the end of that, except for when it goes into. Effect. Which you had as March 15. I did propose that. Okay. Yeah. I had. At 26, but it could be 28 by the time things got changed. Before him. So. Any other thoughts regarding any of these questions? I think we're at the end of that, except for when it goes into. I did propose that. And. I guess I want to allow. Yeah. I guess I did write that is sort of allow three months from the time it gets approved to the time that it. It gets. Goes into effect. So the. The license department can kind of update. And the applications and all the things that they need to do to, to make this. Put this into effect. And I didn't have Misha's name on the bottom. So that is another thing that needs to go. I think it looks good to me. Okay. And I think that's a reasonable timeframe. I did confirm that that works within our town process that we can change fees.  I think that. Right. We'll set. Yeah. So we will set these fees. New areas to step them in. For the. And. For the apprentices. Yeah. So we, that will come back to that, but. So at our next meeting, I, well, I could, we could, Kyle and I could get you some background information then about what the current fees are so that you could figure out how to set the fees for the guest artists who are only working. Right. Next number of months or something like that. Right. Right. For like up to 30 days for each time each. Term and then they can have. Forgotten, but three times in the course of the year. Yeah. Okay. But yeah, to set that the, and the apprentice and the apprentice is. Okay. Are we ready to. Vote on this ending the changes that we discussed. All right. Do I have a motion? That's the next step, right? Yeah. So I can make a motion to. Accept the Amos regulations for body art establishment. With the suggested modifications. Any further discussion. No. Do you want to vote then. Tim. Hi. Lauren. Yeah. Yes. Hi. Hi. Hi. And with that, we've accepted those. Regulations. I will put the effect. Make the changes we discussed. And send them to Kyle. Okay. Thank you everyone. For this whole process. Our next item is the geothermal well application process. And I want to thank him for putting together a list of. The types of wells that might be able to be approved. By the inspector without coming to the board. I understand. Do you want to discuss that a little bit, Tim, and just explain them, but. Well. So we get like applications at least two or three each time. And some of them are very clear. So I did some research on the mass DEP website. And. And then some background is provided in that, in that document, which we have. On geothermal well applications. So I identified six criteria, which might. Allow us to actually allow the inspector to go without. Public health approvals. So one of them is if it's a closed loop system. They either horizontal or vertical. That's usually doesn't have any potential hazard of contamination. So. So only thing I. I read in the mass DEP website about closed loop system is is the. Is the construction design, you know, in case there is going to be. Potential pressure to for leakage or anything. And how that could be minimized so. That the inspector can. You know, usually reviews the. Design conditions. The second one is. Installations which have five or fewer wells. Originally we were thinking about four, I believe. But. Mass DEP application had this five wells as some sort of a criteria for their design designation of different types of types of installations. So I just borrowed it from mass DEP underground injection control classification. So five or fewer. Well, they do not exceed 750 feet in depth. So that is also another threshold they use in terms of. Less impact versus a much more extensive. Well installation. So those which are beyond 750. Are usually subject to. Much more review. So. So here we are saying these are much more shallower. 750 feet in depth. And then. The next three criteria are more related to. Potential contamination. So geothermal installation that do not discharge. Or interfere with local water supplies. So. If there is a close nearby water drinking water well or any type of water supply. So that has to go through some sort of board of health review. The second one is installed installations not within the. Regulatory setback requirements especially for. Wetlands and protected areas. So if they if they are not within that particular buffer. Of regulation. That's another criteria where the. The inspector can approve. And lastly. This is a very generic category giving some sort of a. Some conditions of where the inspector can. Decide on so any application for geothermal well installations. Determined and clearly justified by the health health inspector. To not have health water supply and wetland impacts. So. I'm proposing that the all the six criteria. Or something you know the inspector can go ahead and approve them. Without a board of health approvals. I. I think I understand that I remember looking at the. Underground injection control classifications and I remember the. The terms were like major for the more complicated ones and minor. For the ones that. You're describing. You know, And I think at one point in time. All of these had to be permitted by the state. And I think they decided these minor ones. No. Permit by the state. So the last that general term is that just to allow the inspector. All these things are true, but I still have concerns about it. I'm going to take it to the board of health. Yes. And that's a, that's a some sort of a. Criteria, which allows the inspector. On the site visit. Everything else is clear, but there is some concern the inspector had. And I think that's where I think the, the description of the inspector. They could bring it into the board of health. Right. I think that's a good, a good. Extra. Condition that if they feel something's not quite. Right. So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, So, I know these are pretty technical things for people who haven't immersed in the process. But, But, But, But, Again, I, I asked Kiko about this. I don't, these things don't show up in the regulations. These are for the, for the inspectors health policies. And enter your process. So. So it is that we, is it something that we vote on or that we. So just propose to them. I think it's more like a. Guidance to the health inspector. On making the process much more efficient. So that's why I didn't have in a typical regulatory framework, you know, defining all those things. So one. Yeah, I think we can still vote, you know, because I think this, this could be something, you know, which the health inspector can take from here on, you know, so. Yeah. I have a few comments. My, my. One of my devices keeps going out. So I had to switch back to my phone. But ever since we've kind of. Had the geothermal start coming up. To vote on. I've been a little. Well, I've been uncomfortable about voting on it. Because one. Most of us don't, like you said, don't know a lot. About the geothermal wells. And before this meeting, I did some. Some Googling and it is. You know, I know there's the closed loop. And there's an open loop and the. The open loop, I think draws more water. And so whatever that water source is. It, it is drawing water from somewhere. So I feel like. Conflicted with voting on. You know, Wells that are presented to us. And we don't really. No, like we get a picture and, and, you know. Everything is seems okay, but. I just feel like. There has to be more to that process. And I don't know. How we find. What that process would look like. But also the, the geothermal wells take up a lot of space. A lot of dirt space and. They say that it helps. Like reduce. You know, your. It reduces, you know. The, how much you spend on electricity and so forth, but. Digging up your, your yard. If you, you do have a yard. Or removing trees does. And so I just, I, I feel like. Yes, there should be another process. Besides what we're, we're doing now because. I remember Tim saying as well that there has been like 16 or 17. Geothermal wells that we voted on, but. If we're not really. Aware of the effects of it and. Kind of. I just, I just, I just feel. That we should look at the process and. Excluding a vote from the. The board of health may not be the best thing, but if we don't really have the expertise and we're just voting, that's not a good thing either. So those are. Sometimes. Just to clarify. If it's going to be a open loop. It will come to the board of health. So what we are saying is if they, if it's a close loop. It is very safe to ask for the inspector to decide inspector looks at a lot of the design criteria really thoroughly. And so if it, if it has an open loop system, it will, it will come to the board of health. So we are not excluding it. So these are some sort of exemptions where. There is least risk in terms of any type of contamination. And. For the second point, which is about. Potential. Impacts during the construction. That is usually. During the, you know, the construction plan. There's a lot of. Practices to minimize any type of runoff impacts or anything. So. So that is also a design type of a implementation criteria. So usually the, when the health inspector makes a onsite visit. They will review. Any type of a potential impacts. And that's why we have the sixth criteria there. So we have to bring it to the board. If they, the inspector suspects, there is some sort of a potential impacts on, you know, in terms of any environment. That's where I think they could bring it to the board. Yeah. I guess, you know, I, I understand that. That in the construction, they could impact some things. But I, I think people. Experience wise, we haven't seen people cutting down trees. So. Generally these are single war. War wells that are deep and they don't take up a lot of space. You just need to get their equipment into the yard to do, to do it. And they, I know. Ed always comments on the access, you know, is there any problems getting. Getting the equipment into where they need to go.  Even close loop systems that are field. They're more, they do, they dig up more space, but those are really unusual. And it seems like. We haven't seen any open bore. Applications at all. I think those are also quite. An unusual situation where you're able to install that kind of system. And the other part I was going to say is in, on the board, I've tried to rely on some of the folks on the board who do have expertise like Tim and say, yes, this kind of runoff I'm concerned about, or this aquifer is over here. I think he needs my source of comfort in terms of voting on some of these things that are technical in his field. Seems like. Sorry. Go ahead. Okay, go ahead. Well, I was just going to say that it seems like. What Tim drafted really makes sense to me, because essentially we're looking. To add Ed's recommendation, right? I mean, that's really how we voted. We voted along the lines. If he says it's okay. Then we vote yes. And. So in as much as, you know, we would expect him to be the source to refer back to us. This document makes sense to me so that we wouldn't have to be looking at all of them at each of them. Especially if, you know, and then of course if there's some issue of concern, we'd have to do a deeper dive into it. But that hasn't occurred so far. At least not since I've been on the board. So in cases where it will come to the board. Or open loop systems. If the wells are more than five, that means there's a lot of wells, massive installations. The wells are very deep. And some which are going to be interfering with water supplies. Or impacting protected areas. This is where Lawrence concern is. Or wetlands. Or those, those which have some sort of a suspected criteria, you know, so the inspector when they visit they found probably there is some potential impacts, you know. And those are the places. Or cases that will come to the board, you know, we haven't seen the open loop system. In all the cases we reviewed and uprooted. Everything was closed loop. Okay, wasn't the last geothermal well application and said it was close to a combination. Or something like that. So what is too close? I just, I don't know. I always feel like we're kind of voting on something and relying on the expertise of someone else or the inspector. And I just, I just know the best. So the town does have regulations for wells, both a water drinking water wells, but also the geothermal wells are included in those regulations. And they state what the setbacks need to be. It's not. And those were developed with, with thoughts in mind about what, where water flows and where, where things go. I don't know the details of that, but I know, I know we already have a regulation that gets applied by, by the inspector, you know, that there are certain setbacks that are already determined in our, our regulations for, for, for drinking water wells, but also the geothermal wells are included. And they have the same setbacks as the drinking water wells. I have another question for Tim. I know some of the geothermal wells are also require a permit by the state or they did are, are the ones that fall outside of this group required to have a permit from the state or is that not the case? You mean open loop? Yeah. Yes. They need to get, yeah. The mass DEP reviews it in terms of discharges and potential impacts. Yeah. They need to get approval from that. So the applications, the well or the geothermal well applications classes open loop is some sort of a has to be reviewed by mass DEP and others, you know, so because potential discharges, potential contamination, potential, potential violation of any setbacks, all those things, yeah. So we kind of have a backup plan for that. I guess if, you know, yeah, I think we lost. So yeah, just as a, just as a for information, we have wetland protection act and river protection act, which is for the whole Commonwealth, which restricts any type of installations within 200 feet within the water bodies in a wetlands of rivers like that.  So here we are talking about those which are outside that outside of those types of, you know, setback regulations. So which are not very close to the river or close to the wetland, but these are residential places, you know. And so I think that's why we have, I think if you remember Ed, when Ed is presenting each one of the cases, one other thing we look for is the distance to the wetland boundary, distance to the closest aquifers. If it is overland aquifer, that is some sort of a troublesome, you know. So those are things which usually Ed carefully looks at before presenting to us. And so we usually have some sort of clarifying questions. Did you look at this one? Can you provide us? So for some cases, he went back and, you know, brought more information, you know.  The other question though I have is, while my phone is still working, that it depends a lot on who's designing the well and installing the well. And I might not have all the language to like say clearly what I'm trying to say, but is there a way to, like I've asked before to have other committees or commissions, you know, weigh in on it. I know that geothermal wells, they say that it's common, more common now that people, you know, are installing them. But I just don't know what the impacts would be and what, who would look at that if it's not, like who would study this more. And yeah, I just, I just think there's a lot of questions. Lauren, I don't think we're able to hear Tim when I asked when he spoke about the mass DEP getting involved in wells that are more complex and they've determined that this type wells that fit this, these criteria are considered not complex and not so worrisome that they don't need their own permitting through this state. So if there's something that comes up that's more complex, the state review, the state DEP reviews the applications. And, you know, I think we have something coming up where the Fort River New School at the Fort River site is going to have hundreds of wells, I think not thousands, I can't remember, but that won't be coming to us as a primary perimeter on that kind of thing. So. Right. I understand that. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's, I think it's important to remember that it's a, it's a highly regulated industry. It's not like the Wild West where people are just doing whatever they want. I mean, there are rules that have to be followed and the DEP is involved and Ed is very knowledgeable and, you know, all of everything has to be done assorting according to a certain outline that people who are super knowledgeable about these things has have designed, right. And so it comes before the board of health for us to be able to say if there's something, maybe something additional or some other health concern that we want to bring up, but mostly if people are following the regulations that are very clearly written, there aren't going to be very complicated things. And if they're extra, extra complicated, it's going to be out of the board of health's purview anyway. I mean, that's what you were just saying, Maureen. So we're like, we're like an additional measure. We're not the be all end all of approving and deciding about geothermal wells. I think if that, if that's a way to summarize it perhaps. And when I say we, I mean you, I'm not on board of health, I'm just staff, but you understand what I mean. Yeah. Yeah, I think that summarizes well. It's not that we are the only people who are reviewing it. It goes through engineering design standards. It goes through the EP reviews. If there, if it is a, there are in habitat, then it goes through some other DCR reviews. If there is any fish and wildlife impacts. And so there's a lot of potential layers of regulations. So we are actually adding to that more on the health side. So we have the authority to actually review it and say, no, at the end, you know, if there is some sort of potential health impacts. So with the next step then be to share this document, if there is any further discussion. Did you want to add something to it, Tim, about, um, of course it's at the discretion of the inspector, if there's something, some reason that they need to feel the need to bring it before the board of health that that's up to them. Even if it doesn't meet these criteria. Oh, that's the sixth of the bind. Sorry, I missed it. Ah, yes. Okay. Got it. So. Do we want to vote to support these recommendations to. The inspectors or, uh, To allow them to develop a policy, their policies in terms of. Approval of. Geothermal wealth. Oh, do we want to run it by, by the, by Ed first and see if. He has any thoughts about that. Yeah. I mean, it would have been great to have him here this evening, but he's not able to make this meeting often. So I think that would be the, the right thing to miss by him. And then, um, and I don't know if we need to bring it back up at another board meeting, because it's not really policy. It's guidance. Like you said, Tim. And so unless there's some question or something that doesn't make sense, um, if this looks good to add, and we, I had told him what your initial conversations were, he said that all makes sense to me. So this is just expanding on that. Um, so Kyle and I can definitely share this with Ed and see what the next steps would be from there. If that sounds right. Yeah. Okay. Does, um, Does it, so it doesn't feel, I guess I wonder if there's a need for us to vote on passing this along to. To the health department for. Or if we just pass it along. Well, um, if you want to vote, I think it. We'll just vote to accept the determination criteria. For review by the inspector without board of health approval. And. Subject to Ed's review. So maybe we'll vote on that and. Okay. That sounds. Put that into emotion. Okay. I make him. I make a motion that we will, um, accept the determination criteria for installation design. To be reviewed by the inspector without board of health approval. Uh, subject to. Further edits by. Or recommendations by Ed. I'll second that. Sorry. Discussion. Yes. I'm trying to be, uh, a full participant this evening. Um, I would like to modify that. To. Say. Instead of, um, without the board's approval without the board's votes. What's the distinction you're making? I'm. The distinction I'm making. I still think that the. Well, whether they're closed loop or open should come with. But I don't think we should. I couldn't hear the end of that sentence. Oh, I don't think we should have to vote on them. I'm not sure I'm understanding the distinction either. Um, Okay. Um, Right now we. Are presented with geo geothermal well applications. And based on the. Um, Inspectors. His approval. We both. I'm saying that. This, these guidelines that are saying that we won't have to even see some of the. Geothermal. Well applications. We should still see. Them, but we should not have to vote. On them. When they come for us. I have a visitor. But if they meet the criteria, why would we not? Um, Why would it have to come? Hello. What a lovely interruption. Yes. So I'm just trying to understand why we would need. Why they would need to come before us. If they meet these criteria. I guess they were saying we shouldn't have to vote on it, but why, but I'm just wondering what. What you're thinking is in terms of why. Because one, I think. Um, Water quality is everyone's concern. And like I said, we don't. We should know where the wells are located. Um, I think that's one of the reasons why it's put. Forward. Um, on our agendas and put. Put. Four to the, to the board. And although. Um, The number of wells, I think. Is going to come in the question. Sooner or later of how many. Well, maybe too many wells. And. You know. If there is something more that the board would like to suggest for. Us to be more informed with, like maybe. Uh, in person demonstration or something like that. I would welcome that, but I feel like. We do need to know where the wells are. I think that's one of the reasons why we're. We're informed about the geothermal applications. And, um, Yeah, like I said, I think that there. Is going to be a limit there or there. Maybe a discussion about the limiting of. Of wealth. Um, So we still have a motion on this table. And it's been seconded. Um, I guess I'm. Not wanting to. Push this through, but I feel like. There's a. A disagreement. Among the board members about whether this makes sense. But. I feel like we should still bring it to, to a vote. And, and resolve it that way. Um, I don't, I think it might be available to any. Concerned citizen to find out where the permits are. If you are interested in. If someone is interested in that they can, um, Ask for the information from the board from the health department to know exactly how many. And where these are located. But I don't know that it needs to take. The time before the board. For each one of these to be reviewed. If we're not actually in the role of. Approving them and we've delegated that role to the inspector for certain in these certain settings. So. I. I guess I would like to go ahead with the vote. That. Um, Tim. Hi. Lauren. I think we lost. Yeah. I. Maureen. I. Lauren. Looks like she's coming back. Yes. No. Okay. That's, I got, I, I respect that. Um, so. I think we will just pass these on to, to add. Um, Our next area is new business. And this has to do with. Another tricky question. Which is. The issue of wood smoke. Um, And I have something here. Okay. I'm going to try to follow. So just the history of wood smoke. Um, I think we'll just pass these on to add. Um, Our next area is new business. So just the history of this. Um, is that. The board of the health department received a complaint. A year ago regarding. Um, Excessive wood smoke in a residential area coming from neighbors. In the area. And I think the. Um, Inspector went out, but at the time the inspector went out, things didn't seem to be a problem. So it's really kind of difficult to, uh, Do anything about that. Uh, the same person brought the issue back to the. Health department. Partly in light of the fact that. You know, people's sensitivity about the issue is raised by all of the. Um, The, the terrible air pollution that we had during, during the summer months from those various wood fires. I think the problem for the neighborhood is not. Different. Uh, that has remained the same. And may relate to the. Um, I don't know how much it's being used, but it seems to this neighbor to be producing excessive smoke. Um, And the questions are what. As a board and can we do about this kind of a problem? I think. Um, I think one of the issues that came up over the summer is just the. Um, I don't know how much it affects people's blood pressure and that it is. Quite damaging to people's lungs, but not just lungs. It affects people's blood pressure. It affects fetal development. It's, it's, it's a, it's a significant. Uh, air pollute. Problem for air pollution that produces particles, but also volatile organic compounds and other harmful substances. Um, So it's a, it's a problem for, um, Wood, wood burning stoves in terms of how long. How much smoke there can be in for how long? Cause I guess most of the smoke comes when you're starting or stopping the fire or adding wood to the fire. Or, um, And it also has a permitting system that, that people who. Put it, put in a wood stove or, um, You know, You know, Um, They actually have, there's an educational part to that that you're supposed to, um, Learn about how to use your wood stove and take this test and pass this test for the, for the town to get the permit. Um, That being said, it's still hard to regulate these stoves. Um, And, um, The question is. What, what do we think we can should or could do to help, um, With, with. Limiting the amount of wood smoke that's in our neighborhoods. Um, And, um, Are there other ways of looking at this, I guess, um, You know, I think we might want to ask the inspectors to Check this out one, one more time. But the other question is, are, is there a role for monitoring air quality? I know we have one air quality monitor in. In Amherst, this blue, purple air monitor that was. Um, that we've had for about a year or so. Um, but that doesn't really reflect very local. Uh, issues. Um, I think if the, an ad had talked to, um, Kiko about this somewhat and thought that, uh, Development to try to educate people about how to use their stoves. And, um, Kiko, And I did talk about it briefly just to think about ways sort of Brainstorm ways to get information to folks and to try to make Sure that they're being used in the best manner possible. Again, I think it's a tricky question of what to do. Um, and what's possible. So any, anybody have thoughts? The regulations that we do have from. For this, there are two separate regulations. One is about. The smoke that comes out of the chimney and it's measured in terms of Opacity, like 20% or 40% opacity. Just how dense the smoke is. And I guess, um, Susan Malone is a qualified. Assessor of smoke Opacity. It seems like it's a tricky. Well, tricky to do. Um, And. Um, Where was I going with that? Um, But we probably have it was updated in 2013. That was the most recent update. We probably do have records of permits. So we do know of who might have a wood stove and perhaps could target Folks to kind of send them information about the better ways in Which to use them. So that, that was one of the thoughts. I think another thought that I had was whether to try through. Through the health department and maybe through partners that are Have. This as their major. Um, Mission is to improve health and improve health and improve the air Quality in the, in the Valley, there is. The Valley is kind of notorious as being having bad air and bad Asma, especially in the southern part of the, you know, the, you know, The Holyoke Chicopee Springfield area has the highest rates of asthma In the country. Um, and some of that has to do with manufacturing and probably Has to do with other allergens, but also what smoke is a Contributor to those, to those conditions. Um, I think we're just putting this out there to think about because we're Not going to resolve anything this evening, but, um, I'd appreciate it if anyone has any thoughts about ways we might Consider proceeding. So I'm just not clear. Beyond this 2013 regulation, which actually says if there is a Excessive smoke, which was compliant, you know, a complainant Brought in and the inspector goes and measures and then the Board of Health. Um, has some sort of penalties on those violators. So. I'm not sure, you know what, because it's very clear in this In this regulation, you know, um, it's very clear that Means on a case by case is the inspector comes and brings to The board and we make a determination on what type of Um, changes or penalties that has to be done. So it's already there. Everything in this regulation, you know, so So if the if that person who's complaining probably has to Complaint to the health inspector. Who goes to the goes to the location and evaluates the Stow or whatever the burning equipment. Evaluates the contaminant flow, you know, um, Opacity. And then they bring to the board. So again, this regulation is There on the procedures to follow it up. You know, so I I'm not sure if we need a new regulation or, or, or If you need a new regulation, what type of additions we are Going to make to this. I, I, I agree with that. Um, you know, I don't think we have this general problem With what smoke that that other communities might have where There's so many people burning smoke and there are a lot of Weather conditions where there might be a air inversion where it Traps the smoke and those communities, they have like days Where they like you can't burn.  I think we have more issues with local smoke. I do think that there is this perception about wood burning That it's like historical. We've done it for, you know, since The dawn of man, you know, and, um, and it's, it's, um, It's thought to be more environmentally safe. It's our natural Because we're burning wood and, um, and there's also this Thought that that if you can't see a lot of smoke, you're not Harming the air, but in fact, without seeing smoke, it air is Still being affected by it, but I think that there might be a Sense, an overall sense that, you know, think twice before Burning wood. Um, it's not healthy for you and your family in your house If you're doing it. And it's not great for the environment, but I don't know I don't know that we need, we do have this, this, uh There is something on our website already about air quality. Yeah. Maybe add something about what the smoke to that is an Advocational thing. But I think I don't think our regulations are really something That need to be changed. I guess I wondered how well enforced The permitting and the, you know, taking the test to make Sure people are doing things correctly is happening. Um, it might be nice to confirm that that's all going according To the regulations. Um, but I think it's kind of hard to go one day or another Day depends on the wind depends on the wood. It depends on a lot of different things, how much smoke is Going to come out of people to me. And there's different sensitivities to what smoke someone, You know, the different people are different. And if whether you have asthma or other kinds of sensitivities, The smoke is probably more bothersome than it is to another person. Um, It seems like it's a much, you know, theoretically at least a Much bigger issue, but I wonder in this particular case. Um, Who, who is the person who has to respond to this letter that was sent? Does it just automatically go to the inspector and he sets a date And so on or and then responds or how does that work? I wonder. Let's kick over that. When you say letter that was sent, do you mean this most recent Complaint? Yeah, no, it was just a conversation. She didn't send a formal letter.  And so I spoke to her on the phone and then I also mentioned it to Ed And Ed said, yes, I remember her. I went out there, you know, So I think what I'm learning from this conversation is that the Regulations are in place. Like you said, Tim and Maureen, They probably don't need to be updated, but. And if Susan is a certified opacity technician or whatever the words are, Then if somebody feels like there's too much smoke in the neighborhood, She should be able to assess that, but it's all about timing. You know, I mean, if they call her and she's in a restaurant somewhere, She's not going to be able to run over there and check the smoke. And by the time she gets there, it might have changed. So that's where it seems like if I'm understanding it quickly, The enforcement of it is a little bit tricky because it's the wind and Everything can change what's happening with the smoke and the blink of an eye. So it wasn't basically to answer your question. It wasn't a formal complaint. It was more about, hey, Can you start a conversation with the people who make rules, The board of health, et cetera about this issue and whether it should be What we could be doing. And I think what I came to is that it's really education that we could be Doing more than anything, you know, change, put some more stuff on the website. Maybe send emails out to people whose contact information we do have Because they've gotten the permit since 2013. I mean, that wouldn't be everyone with a wood stove, but it would be some people. It's better than nothing. You know, that that's doable at least. So beyond the education.  And we actually designated the inspector to go and do the inspection. And yeah, so we have those regulation procedures, you know, And if it's not there, I think probably I probably did this before. And they do the again, you know, so it's not phone calls. You know, it has to be officially. Yeah, right. And maybe she sent a formal letter before, and that's what triggered Ed to go out and do an inspection. But it does seem like inspections are not easy for this kind of thing.  Right. Or what are your thoughts about that? I know the air quality changes and the emissions, you know, but But usually I think the inspectors have a way to go more frequently. Or less frequently depending upon. So they probably will visit a few times to actually get the opacity reading. So I think they all they have to do is just follow this regulation. And if they want to initiate a complaint, let them do it. So, okay. And then from the property where they are, the inspector can see if they are downwind upwind type of circulation process. What type of. Appliance they have for burning. If it meets the standards, all those things are something they could consider. And the inspector can bring it to the board again, you know, if there was a violation, the board can actually decide on any type of penalties at that stage or even guidance on what type of changes should be made. That's very helpful. I mean, I'm sorry to maybe not make the best use of your time. I wasn't really, I didn't realize that there needs to be a formal, I didn't read the regulation full disclosure. So now I'm learning that there is a process to follow. And if this were, you know, I should have basically said to her, if you really need, want to file a complaint, you can do so. And that will trigger a inspection and possibly a board of health review if we do, if there's a violation. So that's a process. Let's follow it. So this has been helpful for me as a new person, just to understand how it works. And also to think about the possibility of some sort of educational campaign, which would be a health department responsibility to do.  You know, we do alerts about tick borne illness and mosquito borne illness in the summer. Maybe we should do an alert about what smoke in the winter, just as a matter of course, you know, something like that. There is a page on the town website on air quality. Yes. So we could have a link on it. Yeah. Yeah. We could have some sort of a link from the board of health to that side. And then maybe request more information, you know, from those. There is a big list of monitors. Yeah. On the board of health website has an air quality one that links to those things. There's another organization in this. That's also on that website. I didn't realize it was what it is. It's like healthy air. So it's based in the pine, it's based in the valley. And it involves researchers. From Yale and it involves actually other partners and including the Hitchcock center and they might be a source for helping with the thoughts about education. And one of my was one of my thoughts when I, when I saw that. I think partly that state has mandated improving the air in, in that lower part of the valley because of the significant health effects that have been documented. So it's, it's really, you know, this is part of a more serious health. Issue and. And just to make people aware of that is probably a good thing. Could I ask one more question about this, which is, you know, you referenced that healthy air network and they're also, I think there's a link on the air quality site to the two purple air, you know, that place, that website that does have, but there aren't a lot of sensors in Amherst. I think there's just that one.  So they have a whole lot of sensors there. And so I think there had been some interest among some constituents or at least a question. Why don't we purchase more sensors for Amherst? So I just wondered what are your thoughts as a board of health about that, whether that's something that we should be doing. Because they do cost, I think they cost $300 the sensors. At least that's what I had heard. So I'm curious for your thoughts about that. Well, it's not just buying sensors. It's more than that. So, so of course, you know, more sensors, more monitoring, it'll be awesome. But it's also who is going to collect the data? How they're going to analyze it? How are we going to present it? Who is going to maintain the sensors? So there's some sort of a bigger questions on monitoring. So I think it'll be here. So we have air quality monitoring needs, water quality monitoring needs, soil quality and everything. So I mean, if it should be some sort of a part of much larger discussions where we have nice budgets to actually monitor our own health and health and environment, you know, so. Yeah. I mean, my understanding was that the purple air program does all the monitoring. You just have to purchase the monitors. And once you put them in place, then all the data is analyzed and it goes up on their website. At least that's what I understood. That's my not well researched information that I have. Yes. And we need to look at. My not well researched thing is this healthy air program seemed to show all of these, these monitors in green field. And in the chicken, she could be Springfield Holyoke and one in Amherst, which was at the Hitchcock Center and not the one that's in the downtown Amherst. And I just wondered if linking and connecting Amherst to this network might be something to explore. Yeah. Because that's a, that's a very well, it looks like a wealth. I don't know. It looks like a very robust program in terms of the research going on. Yeah. So that was one, another thought. Yeah. I mean, like you said, make it make use of it. We're not going to start from scratch. We should make use of existing things. If it's something we could connect to, and it makes sense maybe, but starting some, some whole program of monitoring from scratch is not feasible. Okay. Yeah. Anyway, thank you. Thank you for the conversation. I appreciate it. All right. We're going to turn to you now for the directors. Okay. All right. So I have a couple of things. I did one, let the board of health know that we, you know, we have, we're part of the pioneer Valley tobacco coalition. And as part of that relationship, we do have the ability to, that we are, they conduct youth compliance checks twice a year among tobacco retailers. And there was a vibe. There were actually two, well, one real violation in November, a retailer called lazy lungs, which was only recently granted a tobacco product sales permit did sell to a minor. So I, you know, this was interesting and new for me to be able to go in and talk to them about this whole process and to tell them that their license would be suspended for seven days and they had to pay a fine. So there, that's happened. They've paid their fine and their license will be suspended starting Saturday for seven days. Yeah, it was interesting. So that's just, it's important. Like I've let the town manager know he likes to know what's going on with businesses in the community. So that's one thing that happened. The other youth compliance check that was. Done. Well, they did them at all of our tobacco retailers and there was one other shop called the wild side smoke shop on college street. That actually does not have a tobacco license. It hasn't had for several years and they sell everything, but tobacco, all of the paraphernalia and whatnot. And they have. Wraps hemp wraps. So they're not blunt wraps because they don't have tobacco in them. They are made out of hemp or palm and they're flavored and you could use them to roll cannabis or tobacco. Anyway, they sold one of those products to an underage person, which isn't technically a violation of the regulations because they don't have a tobacco sales permit and it's not a tobacco product. But they do think of themselves as an adult only store and they sold up one of their products to somebody who was not an adult. So I will be following up with them about this, but it won't be. And I spoke with the Pioneer Valley Tobacco Coalition folks about this. It wouldn't entail a suspension of their license, which they don't have or any kind of fine or anything like that. So that's just information. I wanted to make sure that the board had, they'll be a sign on the door of lazy lungs that says they're tobacco sales product sales permit. And I'm being, what I learned is that we have to be so careful with the language because initially I had said tobacco sales license and they said, okay, so we can still sell electronic nicotine delivery systems. No, you can't sell any tobacco or nicotine product. So it's a tobacco product sales permit and it's suspended per the board of health for seven days starting Saturday or Sunday. Anyway, so just FYI and let me know if you have any questions about that before I go on. Shall I continue? I don't have any questions. This is sort of exactly the kind of things we should. I are going to be talking about in terms of the revisions of some of our tobacco sales. Or tobacco. Related sales. Regulations and we have a plan to kind of start. Working on that in January. Yeah, it's a really hot topic right now because there are so many new products that are coming on the market and all of these companies are just working around the margins of the current regulations. There's a product. Maybe you mentioned this Marine called Delta eight, which is a curated cannabis product. It's not cannabis. It's not tobacco, but it so it can be sold by, by these stores and it's, um, it's, you know, it's very interesting. So I mean, we have to, it's almost like we can't keep our regulations current fast and keep up because the, the industry is moving so quickly with developing new products all the time. So it's going to be an interesting project. So thank you to you and Risha for working on that. Um, So I'll move on to the next one. All right. Yes. Okay. Toxic chemicals resources page. Um, so I think, uh, in the last board meeting, I mentioned to you that we would be putting that, that we would make that page live. And I think Kyle emailed you in the meantime, telling you that it's live. So it is live and we have, um, both the document that Tim and Kyle worked on together, plus a whole lot of resources on the toxic chemicals resource page. Um, and then referring people to, um, the, the regulation on the website, which governs the use of toxic chemicals by the town. It's very specific. This board of health regulation about the town of Amherst, avoiding use of toxic chemicals. So we reference that on the page as well. Um, so that's just wanted to let you know that that's, that's done. We did that. And it's, I don't know. Actually, if we're getting hits on it, that might be something that we can look into. Cause I'm always curious to see whether people are accessing the information that we put on our website. So I don't know that, but that's the update on the toxic chemical. Topic. Okay. I had a suggestion. I know. Um, it. Uh, is it possible to add any graphics or any. Visual. Um, pictures. Yeah. So, um, sorry, go ahead. I didn't mean to. That's it. That's it. Yeah. I mean, I'll say Kyle and I have talked about this. There were plans to redo the website so that it's a little bit more interesting, looking more visually appealing.  So Kyle doesn't, Kyle's the person who updates our website doesn't really have the ability to do anything more jazzy than what it currently is, but I 100% agree with you, Lauren, that it needs to look better and it would be nice to have more graphics. So we have that as a goal. We just don't have the infrastructure right now. We're waiting for a new communications person to come in. So the community health needs assessment update is that you're all familiar with that. The students who produced that did present to the board some, some months ago now. And we were kind of on hold because we didn't have a executive summary for the document. It's a long document and we didn't want to post it without an executive summary. So we completed that. We posted it today. It's on the website, the full community health needs assessment student project, plus the executive summary that we wrote. And I, I actually wrote most of it with Kyle's help. And it was really helpful for me to go through the needs assessment to really understand some of the things, the findings that were there and to write the executive summary. And I think that's going to help us as a health department, especially with me being new, thinking about how we move forward with certain things. So it's been a really good sort of guiding document and a jumping off point for some thoughts about more different work that the public health department can do. So you, I think you're familiar with it. It's there for your reference on the website. I'm happy to email it to folks. If you want it directly, just let us know, but it is there on the website. Great. And then there was, there had been some questions about our ARPA funds and the opioid settlement monies. And just to give a brief update on that. So I, I'll start with the opioid settlement funds. So the town just recently went to, to the financial, or to the town council, to the financial subcommittee to set aside a special revenue fund. So this just happened and within the last month. So the funds from the opioid settlement money are now set aside in a special revenue fund. And that means that it can be spent without appropriation. So there isn't a need to go to town council to ask permission to spend the money in certain ways. So that's the advice that the state has been given to municipalities about how to set up these funds. And they pulled some strings to make that easy. And so we now have that set up in Amherst, which is great. We currently have $162,000 in opioid settlement funds in that pot right now. But this is over the course of 18 years. We're going to be getting quite a bit of money. See if I have. Did I bring my notes about that from. So what's interesting about it is that there, there were initially two. Sorry. There were initially two big companies that settled. So Janssen or Johnson and Johnson and distributors. And from that pot of money, we should be getting over the course of 18 years from those two companies. Over $700,000 over 18 years. So it comes in a lot of ways. And then there are five other companies that also settled. And so there are additional sources of funds that are coming in. All that to say, you know, it's, it's not like all that money is in our coffers right now, but over the 18 years that will be money that will coming to us, be coming to us in a steady way. We don't have a lot of sources of revenue for our health department. Lauren had asked this question and I. Took me a while, but I did sit down with the financial focus. To see what our budget is. And our operating budget is only $11,000. So when you take out salary and benefits, what we have left to spend on things is $11,000. And a big chunk of that goes to the pioneer valley, mosquito control district being part of that district. I'm thinking about treatment and whatnot for mosquitoes to manage mosquito-borne illness, which I think is very important. And I'm glad I know that Jen fought really hard to be part of pioneer valley, mosquito control district. And that's good. It's not. Free. But it is, I think an important use of our funds. So all that to say, we don't have a lot of. Disposable income. But. This source of funding. Is really, I think we can. I've talked with Paul Bachman about, you know, using these funds to hire a staff person. Who could really manage some substance use prevention efforts. Both upstream and harmless. It's really open in terms of how we spend the funds. It just has to be with an eye towards. Thinking about those. Communities most impacted by the opioid epidemic. So it's fun. It's exciting to think about what we can be doing with these funds. We definitely want a lot of community input. And it's actually mandated from the department of public health that we get community input. On how to spend these months. And I think it's important to think about how we spend the funds. And I think it's really important to think about the public health that we get community input. On how to spend these monies. But you need someone to manage the program. So I think we're on solid ground in terms of being able to spend some of it on a staff person. And it's not a grant that would be over in three years, but continues for some time. So that's also really important when you're looking for funding for staff. If you're dependent on a short-term grant, that's really hard to keep long-term staffing in place. So it's exciting to me because I think we can do some great work with the public health, but I think we can continue to work on how we can continue to have the most effective funds that we can use. Can be supported through these funds. So that's the opioid settlement piece. Any questions about that? And this is all just, we're in the planning stages right now, but it's exciting to know that every municipality is getting an infusion of this money. It's terrible.  So we are anticipating something around 38k for the town every year. Is that right? Yeah, you're good. You're good at math. Yes. So even though the money is not here, I think that is something proactively I think your idea about but if we have some sort of a proposal like what you have, have a specialist who can be a staff member working with this particular problem, that is something we could propose and see if that town can add some sort of match that funds so we can leverage those money, not just exclusively depend on that. Yeah, that's right. Because right, since the total is 772,000 over 18 years from those two companies that I mentioned, so that does sort of, it's between 35 and 48 every year. It's a different amount every year. I don't know how they calculated it but that's not really enough for a full salary especially with benefits. So you're making a good point but I think when you can, you're in much better, on much better solid footing when you have some funds to be able to request additional, because you have something to leverage. And I guess the other thing is I think there's opportunities to coordinate with other communities in the, you know, in neighboring communities like Northampton and Hadley in this general area because there are things happening everywhere around substance. Yeah, I'm so glad you mentioned that. Hampshire Hope is the regional opioid task force and they're coordinating some of these needs assessment efforts doing a survey and some focus groups with community members, people who use drugs, families of folks who've lost people to the opioid crisis. So there is a lot of regional work happening and especially for those municipalities that aren't getting as much money, they're thinking about maybe pooling their funds to do something regional to maximize impact. So there's a lot to talk about. People don't have to create, you know, they can share, we have pools together and work together and not have to create everything over again in each place. And we could also partner with UMS, you know. Yep, yes. If they have some good programs, you know, so that's another way to pool. Yeah, they have a committee that meets regularly to talk about coordinating substance use prevention efforts in the region. So I'm going to be part of that committee so that will be a good connection also. Yeah. And then in terms of ARPA funds, so, you know, we do have some ARPA funds that were designated for the health department. They have provided staff support for our staff, including Kyle and Olivia, who've been working on our COVID efforts. We've purchased COVID tests and other things with those funds. And I think there's a big chunk of ARPA money. It's about half a million dollars that was set aside for mental health services. This is something that Jen worked on when she was here. Jen and Earl, the former director of CRES, some kind of mental health services for underserved folks. And that's something that we need to relook at because the original proposal I think we've maybe moved away from. We don't have a CRES director right now, although we're hoping to be hiring someone within the next month. They're in the process of finding somebody now. And I know they have some candidates, so that's exciting. But this would be an important collaboration, I think, between public health and CRES to develop some kind of a mental health intervention, especially for those people who are most marginalized, you know, experiencing homelessness, that kind of thing. So all of the ARPA money needs to be encumbered by the end of December 2024. So we are rapidly working on our plans to be able to make, you know, make sure that we can use these funds, because if we don't use them, we have to, we lose them. So everyone's spending a lot of time and energy thinking about that. Yeah, that's a question. Yeah. I'm sorry, I keep in and out, but of the Zoom. I know I have mentioned the youth population. So do you, even though you mentioned that there is no director right now for CRES, it's still operational.  And how could you include the youth population in the conversation? And I also, I zoomed out after the eight years of the opioid settlement. I don't know if you can go back to that. Yeah, yeah, I was noticing you weren't there. And I was, I was wondering, I was hoping you would come back, because I knew you had specifically asked about that. So with the opioid settlement funds, there's a sort of steady infusion of money over the next 18 years. And there's a lot of interest in doing work with young people around substance use prevention in the schools. I think mental health is obviously a driver of substance use among young people. So there's a connection to be made there. You know, it's not like we're getting hundreds of thousands of dollars a year with the opioid settlement money, but it is a steady infusion that can support some programming. So I think it's, it can serve as a basis for doing some work with young people. And then for the mental health work collaboration with CRES, I think it's great to think about how that we've set aside that money to work on mental health issues. I think we need to rethink how to do it. And I think involving youth voice would be important. So, and I'm just getting to know the CRES team. I think they have a lot of interest in doing that. I think there's definitely potential for that type of work to be expanded to young people. So I'm going to be doing a lot of planning with the staff, the public health staff over the next month or so, with a little bit quiet over the holidays. It's a good time to think about things. So we'll be fleshing out some of these plans in the next month. I lost you guys for a few minutes there. We lost you. You're back. Glad to see that you're back. So those are most of my updates. There was one thing that I've forgotten to put on the list. And I don't know if this is of interest to you, but Susan Malone did say that sometimes she, people have questions about new restaurants or, you know, restaurants that are opening, restaurants that are closing. So I have a whole long list of restaurants that have opened and restaurants that are closing. And I don't know if you want me to go through those with you or send them to you in an email or I'm not sure what your interest might be in hearing about that. Or if people have questions about a specific institution that they heard was closing or some new restaurant that you're wondering about. I guess are they closing for health reasons or no. No, just a lot of places have transferred ownership like Casa Grande Pizza on Fearing Street is now called the Campus Pizza. So it's a different owner. And other places have just gone out of business as far as I understand it, but nobody closed for, you know, violations. That you would know about. Right. I guess we would. I don't mind hearing the new restaurants. Okay. I'll just give you a quick summary. So in 2023, the inspector's licensed 32 establishments that provide food services and an additional 105 licenses for brick and mortar establishments that are restaurants, groceries and convenience stores. So I guess the first one was food services in colleges, schools fraternities and 105 other ones. So anyway, a lot of licenses in that year of the 105 licenses for brick and mortar establishments that are restaurants, grocery and convenience stores, 10 were newly opened. And they are Amherst Burger Company, Campus Pizza, which used to be Casa Grande Pizza, Carefree Cakery up in North, the North Mills District Cupcake Place. It's great. I've been there. DP Doe, Future Coffee, Lao Hu Tong on Main Street, Papa John's Royal Chicken Kebab, Takari Adele Pueblo, and the White Lion Brewery are new ones that opened in 2023. And then closed. I mentioned Casa Grande Pizza, which is now Campus Pizza, Cisco Cafe, Hazel's Blue Lagoon, Keeney's Nutrition, Kelly's Diner, which I guess was an institution has closed, and then Rice Delicious are the places that I know of. Amherst Burger Company also shut down. I just want to include that. Well, yeah. That's what I had been told, but then Susan emailed me earlier this week saying they haven't closed. So I'm not really sure what's going on there. Are they currently closed, Kyle? I saw like it was boarded up today and then last week or so. I heard that they changed ownership. So maybe it's something not that. So maybe they didn't deem it as closing down or something. Yeah, that might be it. It might be coming back. I read something in the Gazette. Oh, okay. I know we already moved on off of the funds, but I have to keep reiterating that because of the other committees like the CSSJC and as you mentioned, the Crest Department, they keep speaking about how they're going to be funded and how they're going to collaborate. So is there a way that as the public health department starts its conversations, is there a way to have input, to know and to kind of steer those conversations and that planning so that all of those committees are involved? Because I just feel like there's been a lot of delay and we kind of wait for the we kind of wait for the response or wait for something to happen and we really don't know if it's targeting the areas where community members may see the most need. And so I just want to know if those conversations and that planning would be open. Yeah, I think those commissions and committees have some really important findings. We're sort of collating all of the results of all of that work and other assessments that would be relevant to what's happening in Amherst to put against our community health needs assessment so we can use all those things when we're planning what to be doing. And I plan to work really closely with Crests. I think that they're a great partner for us in public health. So all of the commissions that have done all that work, I think it's really important. It's there for a reason. Let's make sure that we consult that and use that when we're planning any interventions that we're doing in public health. So thanks for reminding me of that. I think those are all of my updates. Thank you. Can I have a quick question? So I know we have a summary of the community health needs assessment on the website and we have a set of recommendations at the end. I'm just curious how those recommendations are being communicated to the relevant departments. So I think it'll be helpful to maybe share our summary with those. For example, one recommendation is for school programming. And I'm just looking at the next step on how to implement those recommendations. So if there is any specific way we are actually engaging those specific departments in implementing those recommendations. So we have, I think, the colleges and universities connections in terms of student housing. So trying to communicate this to those. I'm just curious about what is the next step on that. Yeah. Well, it's a great question. And I think that since I'm new in my job and I hadn't really had a chance to go through that whole needs assessment until just now. So writing the executive summary was really helpful for me to see all those recommendations. And I think the last paragraph in the assessment and in the executive summary about how this is not just the responsibility of public health and the Board of Health, it has to be a collaborative thing. So this is sort of a roadmap for me. I think there are a lot of next steps that me and Kyle and Olivia need to start thinking about how we can implement those recommendations with the partnership of other entities in the town because it's certainly not something that we can do on our own. So we're just beginning to think about how to make that happen. And I don't want to, I do want to say something that I think is important, even though Risha is not here. I did remember that she does some kind of like strategic marketing. I think it's a background. And it just would be helpful for me and any other Board members that have some experience with outreach to be able to be part of, if not like the conversation, just to continue bridging those, you know, those, the partnerships as you say. And I went to a community discussion in Springfield with Beat The Odds. It's through the Springfield Youth, I'm sorry, there's too many organizations, but it's the Public Health Institute of Western Mass and they partnered to put together this space for young people and it's called Beat The Odds. And they have these two little merch like swag merchandise, they have journals, they have hats, but most importantly they have a space for young people to go to and to like just be there and also to learn, you know, different things about health and about their community and so forth. So I just, I would like to see something that really targets youth and I know, I just, yeah, I just would like to continue to be part of the conversation. It would just be helpful to know what the Department of Health, what they're doing and how they're going to share that with, you know. Yeah, yeah, definitely. Yeah, I'm definitely looking at what other communities are doing in thinking about this. So I appreciate that resource. But that's it for me. Any other questions that people have for Viko? Okay, I think we're ready for a motion to adjourn the meeting. I can make a motion to adjourn the today's meeting. And a second. I'll second. Okay. With that, the meeting is concluded and we will see everyone on January 11th, 2024 at 530. Thank you everyone. Great. Thanks everybody. Thank you. Happy holidays, happy new year. Yeah. Bye-bye now. Bye.