and we're recording and I'm gonna make you host before I have off thank you all right everybody Welcome to the May 23rd meeting of the go committee um I am there he is awesome great timing uh I am gonna call this meeting to order at 6:30 pm and I'm G to check in with each of the committee members to make sure that they can hear and be heard Pat d'angeles present George Ryan councelor Ryan I'm here Lyn grimer present councelor ete present great thank you um all right so we are as per our last meeting we're switching up the a little bit of the um oops hang on sorry I gotta I gotta keep my notes otherwise I don't know what's happening um we're gonna move forward in the agenda as um planned we currently do not have any attendees so this is the time for public comment um this is when attendees would raise their hand if they were here but as we have no attendees at 6:30 we are going to move forward in the agenda um we're going to start today with the review of the nuisance property bylaw for clarity consistency and actionability and then we had some other things on the agenda as well that uh Depending on time we are going to move to um are there any questions on the agenda in the order I put the resolution last as we talked about to try to um focus our our time okay um I want to note something on the agenda I don't I think this was a carryover the committee meeting time has been changed to 6:30 pm I don't know why that was on the agenda today but just know that it's not nothing's changing with that um I had noticed that earlier today all right so nuisance property bylaw 3.26 we are going to be reviewing this for clarity consistency and actionability I'm going to share my screen um what I have compiled are comments from Lynn and myself those were um the only comments I received which is all good but as we go through um I think my plan is to go through and I look to the prior go chairs as this is the first time we've actually done a bylaw um together so I will look to the past go chairs to course correct me if I feel like if they feel like I'm going off in a Direction they don't like and then I will decide if I'm going to take their advice or not um and we're going to but my plan is to go through it line by line and um I will not be reading it out out loud but I'm going to say section a section B1 section B2 if you have something in that um I'm going to assume you think it clear consistent and actionable unless told otherwise okay all right I'm going to share my screen ly yeah the other piece is that we're going to also decide what we think needs to be referred to CRC yeah ultimately we will send the entire bylaw back to them we're not going to just send them pieces of it um but we're making note specifically of of basically if the town attorney said something about it and we don't think that we are the people to answer that um that CRC needs to answer it we should note that they should pay attention to those specific questions great is it possible to make bigger I can also look at it on SharePoint if it's yeah thank you yes thank you except I can't see comments a little smaller yeah yeah see it all goodness gracious all right I all right here we go okay everybody good yep all right okay so uh any issues with the title enforcement or non-criminal dis disposition you you just want us to raise our hands right I would like you to raise your hands correct yeah um and if I don't see you right away you can unmute and tell me that you've raised your hand all right purpose okay going into definitions B1 we had a comment here from the town attorney that said You may wish to define the number of people which constitutes part of your crowd uh uh I had said for CRC Lynn um yeah I if I didn't say CRC here I totally agree with you you are listed as author as well it came in oh I see thank you for clarifying that yeah no problem sorry you both both you and the town attorney so you get to decide uh if you want to take credit for the town attorney comments Council Ryan on B1 so I guess the sense is that we as a group don't have any particular view one way or the other on this and we're looking for CRC to tell us what uh they think I mean um it seems somewhat arbitrary whatever the number one comes up with the attorney's comment is he'd like something or she'd like something specific to avoid issues of vagueness um I guess I don't know nobody has any particular thoughts one way or the other so I mean crc's in the same boat what number do they have in mind right I personally 15 20 25 30 um we're dealing with uh a group of five people 10 people 15 people what in I just in general I think it's a question either entity could ask what constitutes a gathering in terms of what the purpose of this bylaw is um two people probably not any thoughts or you just want to let CRC come back with a number or what if they just say we don't have a number we're just going to leave it the way it is yeah I think I can't figure out sorry I can figure out it takes me 17 more steps to raise my hand so um I'll go after councelor councelor I think my question was what what is the relationship between party crowd or event before we even speak about the number what do you mean I mean is there a way to distinguish a party from a crowd and what is the distinction between an event and a party party would be an event so the even before numbers jumped out at me I was wondered about what the numbers are actually qualifying um so my comment it I think my thought on what you shared councelor is that this they they said party crowd or event so that to to be really broad um because I do think that there are vent diagrams that could overlap very broadly but um you know people could say oh it wasn't a if it just said an event um people would say oh there wasn't an event happening we were just all there and so I think they they added in I think that's my my thought is that the relationship is that they might overlap but aren't necessarily the same thing to be intentionally Broad and that the number to to what George was saying the town attorney seems like wants us to add a number in I personally I did say they should go back to CRC mostly because I don't want to assume CRC doesn't have a number in mind but this is something that I would be comfortable accepting even though it is vague um in in my mind I think that it's clear enough that it's a group meaning more than two um but if we really wanted to add that we could I don't I think it's unnecessary to be honest I think it's fine I I think this is fine as is um I I do agree sorry to no no no but yeah um I do agree that this is one of those that should go back to CC would okay we would be preempting if we decided to move on it okay great let's keep it there um okay B2 infraction whoops I just moved everything sorry B2 Lynn I actually suggest we accept this uh yep okay anyone else okay yep I uh councelor Ryan so what we're accepting essentially is it would read a violation of one or more sections of this no it would simply read a violation of a law or agreement no it would say a violation of one or more sections of this bylaw so you want to keep it even though the comment of the lawyer is that that's not how typically one defines an infraction the comment of the lawyer I believe they added change they suggested that new text the comment of the lawyer is the strike through it you used to read enforcement of this bylaw by criminal enforcement or non-criminal disposition yeah that was stricken yep but the comment if I and maybe I just don't understand it seems to be that this is not typically the way you define an infraction no this is the way is typically defined as a violation that's what the town attorney wrote this in a suggested language change but because it used to read that infraction was defined as enforcement of the bylaw right and now it reads infraction is a violation of one or more sections as per the uh attorney's comment and that removes the the objection about resolving because in the yeah because you can get in trouble according to this bylaw if you fail to resolve or do not adequately resolve the issue so that too becomes an infraction correct if you um so okay all right does that make sense no but I'm trusting that CRC the attorney and the rest of you understand this so good okay that's all all right I'm gonna I'm gonna click resolve on the comment do you want me to keep no can we keep okay here's the question how we send this back to CRC should we just keep what's left after we discuss it that was my plan I'm not seeing any objection okay so I'm going to click resolve here and I'm going to accept these changes okay hey one down all right B3 owner um yeah any issues there okay I suggested we accept it yep same I'm assuming that unless unless uh B4 person this comment was did you also wish to include executive in this definition as above I added in executor because it seemed smart to me in terms of consistency agree great except and I'm going to accept all right uh B5 person in charge my only question on this one is that throughout the bylaw f following this point it makes reference to both owner and person in charge uh as two separate people and I think that if this is if this definition is inclusive of both owner and or person who is authorized that we can just have person in charge I think that's I'm being a bit nitpicky when I say that but um there are a couple places Down Below in the bylaw where it says like notice shall be delivered to owner and person in charge or something like that um so I'm going to I'm going to write literally write that down so that when we get there we can edit it so are you saying to accept this um I wasn't even getting to that point I I do think we should accept this as it with the additions from the town attorney I do too yeah great yeah okay um okay we're just making a mental as we go through all right accept that accept that all right property can you show the expanded comments uh yes but it's that's for public nuisance there were no comments from on property oh okay uh public nuisance so my first thing my first question oh I was saying that some of this was vague um and then I had the this is the attorney's question here I also thought significant or substantial disturbance was vague but I don't think we can quantify that I suggest we send this to CRC okay any objections anyone okay uh and I'm actually going to delete my comment because I think my comment is for when it comes back to council I don't think that it's go appropriate I was just saying I think that their intention was to that it include private property um response costs B8 is the town manager the normal person to establish schedule of costs like this is that not something set by the I'm sorry I'll raise my hand no no go ahead um the town the town manager is who we go through so he'll he'll give it to staff and they'll he'll come back with us to okay great thank you uh eight where B9 underage person okay all right on to section c public nuisance violations C1 no comments on that and remember just because it doesn't have a town attorney comment doesn't mean we can't have a problem with it right um C2 all right public nuisance includes but is not limited to uh I was confused about the additions here I felt they were redundant and made this confusing so I want us to look at this closely and and if if I'm confused and the only one that's totally fine coun I was wondering if you could expand on your confusion it seems yeah yeah my confusion is coming in because it says uh activities that could be deemed a violation of and then it lists federal state local or regulation and including but not limited to the following laws bylaws by uh or regulations whether or not enforcement action is taken I I feel like it's just repeating itself a lot and maybe it just needs to do that to be clear and it's fine um because I think what it's trying to get at is saying if it breaks any law federal state local and then I'm going to list a couple that it might break to draw attention to them just in case does that is that the goal of this paragraph So if I get you clearly then it would be activities that could be deemed a violation of federal state or local law or regulation um whether or not an enforcement action is taken under the specific law so the parent paresis goes or do you want to stop from regulation so this part is what the I think the town attorney added yeah and I think that it just felt like it was saying law so many times that I got lost in the sentence but I think that that's me reading this quickly um I reading it out loud I think it's I think it's okay I can let it go councelor Ryan I think he's simply trying to cover every possible bit and so it's federal state or local and then what follows are state and local laws yeah okay Pat well I think we could take out the second I think it's redundant and um the important piece is whether or not an enforcement action is taken under these specific laws bylaws or regulations the other piece seems kind of could be removed you're saying the following laws by zoning laws including but not limited to feels like it could come out I guess I think if I'm the only one that got tripped up by this I should just I'm just gonna let it all right go but do you think I mean I don't care okay all right I'm Gonna Let It Go um all right accepting sorry I'm GNA take a [Music] minute the capitalizations can we agree I will do the capitalizations where you're not having to watch me do it uh George just the thought that in general um assuming the attorney is doing what the attorney is supposed to do I don't think it's wise to take out large portions of text if the attorney hasn't had any comments on it so it's just kind of a followup to Pat's thought understand a desire to make things clear but um that's a lot of text and um the attorney has passed on it CRC has passed on it yep that's fine so to say okay um I had a question in this one so we're 2A one master no Law chapter 272 section 53 is titled penalty for certain offenses and I have it pulled up and can reference it if people want me to um it's it's not disorderly conduct the words disorderly conduct aren't I don't even think in that law um hang on I have it up I'm G to stop sharing for a second I will find it and so I just I wanted to make sure that this is what it's referencing the right thing it makes I think it makes sense um okay sorry it's titled penalty for certain offenses I'm not going to make you deal with how many tabs I currently have opened okay so this is Mass General Law chapter 272 section 53 penalty for certain offenses and it talks about night Walkers Common Street Walkers um there are things that relate and I just wanted to I just wanted to make sure this was the right thing I think that's a CRC question but with I think your comment is important but it should go back to CRC okay councilor Ryan no okay all right I will keep my comment in there and leave it for CRC to just confirm um or I think if they don't confirm it I think they should I'm sharing again sorry uh if they say yes that is correct I still think that they should change the titling of it to match what the bylaw or what the mgl actually says okay anything else under one there we got a couple commas in here from the attorneys okay zoning bylaws I didn't confirm these zoning bylaw numbers um which we we should do but I assume are correct okay General bylaws okay uh specific events we're back to lawyer comments so specific events uh the KP law said is a gathering of violation if underage persons are able to access alcohol regardless of whether there is a public urination fight or lit sorry my I thought this was the funniest comment of the document councelor Ryan BTO I don't understand it says that may yeah include if it said and that include then I agree but it says that may include so clearly it implies that also they may not so I don't see that I think I think in that case I I agree with you and I actually think in that case we could just accept we could say that the I don't agree with the attorney's comment and I think the I agree with you the word may leaves enough flexibility um I think we could accept this does anyone feel strongly that this needs to go to CRC I think it's fine okay accept it take all right I wish there were a way to accept all the changes that are like small punctuation changes I think you can yeah we can do that not all changes just punctuation changes I think if you swipe the whole thing oh oh okay let me try let me try and you just say accept and move on next go up to accept no go up up there accept Okay magical all right cool thank you um all right c activities that may not violate uh oh I just had a question here but I think this is for when it comes to council I don't think that this is a maybe it's a Clarity question I wasn't clear on who gets to enjoy the property nobody because I mean so I I I think I actually did feel like it wasn't clear but I'm really willing for this committee to say that's not Clarity consistency action ability but basically my thought was that the way I read this does the public have a right to enjoy someone else's private property and therefore make a judgment in a certain moment that they are not in fact enjoying it um I get what they're trying to get at but I struggled with this one a little bit in terms of the concept of enjoyment of a property you know there's I'm sorry go ahead I'll I'll take that as a raised hand I there's so many things I could list under C it's almost like they need to have Etc I mean you know what if somebody decides to streak or that's why they say including but not limited to okay yeah I guess I'm sorry go Pat and then George uh where is it I guess I never mind never mind councelor Ryan I think this bear is the uh the clear imprint of where this orig originated from and what at least for some people it is aimed at namely student canand right namely so these are things that involve sometimes unfortunately public urination fighting blocking the public way excessive litter um these are essentially student Gatherings um so uh activities that may not violate a specific law bylaw regulation but otherwise disturb the public peace or or create a public nuisance I don't think we can use the word nuisance because that's what we're right uh you know so your question is I think it's legitimate what do Disturbed the enjoyment of a property mean in this context my reading of it or understanding of it is any kind of thing that disturbs the neighbors probably most of the people at the party are perfectly happy with all these act or just indifferent to if not um doesn't bother them but it certainly bothers The Neighbors people who live in that right so um it's disturbance of the neighborhood or disturbance of you know I agree with you I don't know how is the enjoyment of the property Disturbed um I don't know so I would take it back to CC and ask them to clarify it okay anyone else that's my thought yeah Pat yeah I'm sitting here wondering and this actually happened uh where know there were I forget what the demonstration were there were people who wanted to know how certain counselors were going to vote this was like maybe the first year and they drove up to counselers houses with uh cars that had uh speaker bullhorns in them and paraded on the street they did that outside of my house yeah um that freedom of speech uh it was a nuisance it bothered all my neighbors um it you know and there were a butters on Amity Street who complained and uh so I have trouble a little bit with this um because there's no specific bylaw against demonstrations um there's no I don't know it just feels we do have a noise bylaw H yeah but are you gonna tell people to stop I'm just saying we have it I'm not saying you know I don't know how you there's no measurement in the noise box yeah the activist is wondering I mean would a would a bunch of us sitting down in the street to protest something that was happening um be um subject to this bylaw and would we be then be fine for sitting down and blocking traffic for whatever reason I just have a I don't know I don't know why it didn't occur to me before but it's kind of bugging me right now okay so what I'm going to say in my comment is need CRC clareth Flair go back to your definition very first definition these gatherings however you want to blce them and dice them are specifically for social occasion or not for political well it doesn't me it just says social yeah so it's I that was where I would start um so if somebody's protesting or demonstrating it's clearly not a social occasion um now if they put out lawn chair and bring in a band and start serving beer then you might question that but sounds good though to this whole day I can understand the desire but I think so it says social occasion I wouldn't worry too much about it okay I hear you I do think that including the attorney's recommendation of including but not limited to is important here yeah I don't know why that wasn't in there initially um I had a question about public fights oh wait sorry y okay we did that um I just again I was being picky but maybe that's maybe this is true it's only a violation if it's viewable to those not at the Gathering um my question is if there's two different groups of people living in the same house and one of them is hosting a fight club I'm being dramatic but one of them is hosting a fight club and the other tenant wants to call it in as a nuisance can they do that if it's technically inide I might be being too picky and you can say Anna you're being too picky and I accept that councelor I don't think you're being picky I don't really know what a public fight is okay I'm gonna just say it is not clear what this means I mean I understand what it is I don't understand what it isn't I'm sorry again I was looking at two things at once no you're fine what is it what is it specifically that you don't find clear is public fights versus like private fights well it means people yeah um you could just say fighting I guess but you know I don't know um it's like public urination that that we know that is defined by the state like that's that has a state law I looked it up I also had the same question well that has a state definition up above it just says fights I know that's why I'm wondering why this can't just say fights I I don't see why not either right so can we just change it so public your nation fighting we could or fights fights great yeah let's try that and see if it gets past everybody people are going to say you're telling me I can't fight in the privacy of my own home exactly right uh blocking of public way okay that's just capitalization and then they clarify the um the attorney clarified I'm just making sure we've I've just covered it oh what was this oh yeah okay so um I think that they're talking about front lawn yeah I yeah okay meaning front lawn is not a defined term I agree sometimes it's the backyard that faces someone else uh Lynn yeah I I think it's the the front lawn was just too narrow yeah what if it just said simply from the public way is that I think that's what this was intended to say get at but it does say street or sidewalk so we could change it to say the public way councilor I had some residents point out again that they were refuges and other things that were left on the side of the houses and not on the front lawn yeah may not be visible to the public right right um okay so should we say should we keep this with the attorney suggestion of excess excessive litter or refu on the property visible from the street or sidewalk or did you want to change it to say excessive litter or refuse on the property visible from the public way I think it should be visible from the public way I I agree that's fine do I capitalize public way um no okay thank you I mean it's not it's not a definition right okay okay no I mean it's yeah okay unless there's another reason it should be I don't think so all righty um D nuisance property designation we did that already okay um oh there weren't comments on this but there were additions counselor it's is there definition of the public way I think in in the rest of our bylaws yes but not in this specific bylaw that was my question too it is it is capitalized in other sections so maybe I okay yeah I'm also wondering perhaps if um it would help if there was either a definition or a referral to where it's defined in other places here maybe that's something for CRC to consider we can easily pull the definition from another bylaw um Can someone look that up for me while I'm I'm just going to add a note here for us to do that at the end you're asking us to um find the text that defines a public way in a balog or anywhere anywhere or if we could say on the property visible from the public way as defined in whatever like I don't even if we don't add it to definitions um okay D so attorney added some language in basically just saying at what point it becomes a nuisance property I think their their language clarifies a lot right there's there's a maybe a question that's not appropriate for us at this level but might call an issue of clarity I mean let's say in a given incident there are multiple infractions oh so let's you know I mean clearly you could have fighting I mean you could have a all host of infractions litter blocking right does that count as a single infraction or is that three is that immediately so is it somewhere stated clearly that it has to be three infraction an infraction is one or more so one single infraction is an instance regardless of how many more how many section the BW were violated right that's my reading of that definition so if you had multiple infra multiple uh issues it still only counts as one infraction for that particular event yes okay I mean that's fine by me that would seem to be what they intend um they're trying to give people a chance to to clean up their act yeah not just right so right okay people feel that's clear then that's fine I think it's clear once you refer back to the definition yeah definition again keep definition in mind all right good good catch though thank you um okay person's liable this should go back to CRC because it really does we they need to talk to enforcement yep I um I agreed I agree with both of that and so did Len any anyone who feels strongly that we should tackle this no okay um separate from that though there were also some separate from their two comments on on a and C um I I think this was the attorney that suggest Right Lynn you you weren't like editing places no this is the attorney be struck yeah so I just wanted to check this with y'all and and see if this is if we're agreeing with that um I I think that you should leave e all the way from a to to before you get to D to CRC and then on D it looks to me like it's pretty straightforward I agree onless I did based on how they do the the ones above I think that's still D though or I think that's still the last it is so I guess I'd leave that whole section to see orc I think this part that I have highlighted is I think that clarifies it fine that's fine but I do think that all the above ones are this is where we get to the my my concern about persons in charge includes the owner so owners or person in charge persons in charge the definition includes owner and manager of the property and or manager of the property so it it includes both so I feel like to be in keeping with definition it should say persons in charge I can read that to CRC but that's if if I'm looking through this for for consistency it's inconsistent with the definition to repeat part of the definition in this I'll just add it as a comment see yeah and it seems that it really is needed because under person in charge the owner is included right it should simply say person in charge okay person or persons all right I'm GNA end okay okay yep uh all right we're on to F CR y' monetary penalties I think this is a good ad yeah except abatement um we're going to start I want us to start with the additions that they put before we get to the comments because the first sentence just is additions and then the second sentence is a big stricken that I think should go um I think this is these are good y all right this part I think should go to CRC um because I agree and I don't want to delete it without them having a chance to review this comment yeah I agree okay um and then I think I thought we could delete this this second part that they a public nuisance may be abated by all reasonable means the lawy said this is a duplicate yeah yes I agree okay all right um three F3 response costs I was looking at this and I just said yes ERC needs to do that part I did too it seems beyond beyond [Music] um wait hang on y George we're back to the issue which is in section four it says if more than one provision of this bylaw is violated each provision violated shall come constitute a separate offense so right that contradicts the other it seems to yeah doesn't it oh I'm freezing hang on what if it it's the shell that is is is it just a changing uh h I'm going to scroll fast don't get motion sick no sorry infraction is a violation of one or more sections of this bylaw and oh sorry my computer suddenly is lagging I apologize where where are we where are we oh here we are so this is under the context of enforc and penalties so why is it here at all is it it what's what's it trying to um is it determining it does nothing to do with response costs um it's what's what's it trying to say it's trying to say oh wait a second yes yes I think what it's what's saying if if you if they get um they get charged with a violation on Monday and they're supposed to clean it up and Tuesday comes and Wednesday and Thursday and it's still not cleaned up each of those can be a sep shall be a separate violation I agree that that's what the first part says yeah but the second part is what's throwing me okay um and and is it basically they're saying after day one okay wait so am I reading this right if it's after day one each provision becomes a separate offense each day or portion there of a violation exists shall constitute a separative and shouldn't this say a fraction infraction not offense yes well that's the problem none it's always offense um and not infraction and offense is not a defined term right so is this some sub grouping that has nothing to do with infractions but has something to do with enforcement and penalties that or is it do they mean that if you the lawyer earlier on seemed to suggest that these two constitute infractions though it doesn't say that because it's a violation of the bylaw in the sense that you fail to um meet this provision you fail to uh uh remediate or do what you're supposed to do so you're not only it's not only an infraction for the initial thing you did but now you're accumulating infractions right failure to remediate um right and is that but that's not what this says this calls it an offense um and so the issue seems to be with CRC and I think and what they what they intend okay so what I'm gonna write is is an offense different than an infraction this is not a defined term um if it is is an infraction the second sentence contradicts the definition the definition of infraction um and because CRC is going to get this we don't need to rewrite it but no we we just they need to clarify or explain to us what we're missing maybe we're just misunderstanding something but we don't see it okay all right so we will leave that here um I can sug leave it as a suggestion that we take this out because it is contradictory so that and I have it in my comment here I'm afraid if we take it out it might get lost in the show I yeah I don't think you should take it out okay it'll look at like a track change counselor at raised his hand yes I see thank you councelor sorry yes I'm just in agreement with uh coun Ryan okay um all right F5 this was just a rewarding I think it's fine yeah yeah that doesn't all right um I agree I agreed that they should put an intro paragraph but I think they need to do that yes um okay first and second in fractions G1 H I think this this is just wording this is just order of words I think so I'm going to accept that that's fine that's just an addition I'm going to add my comment in that I made before um about the this being redundant because I want I don't like I I guess we could just make the change but I feel like they put it in there really intentionally so I want to know they either need to separate out owner as a separate definition or it should only read persons in charge in this case the person the property owner could be different from the person in charge right that could be true in all cases though yeah but no in this case you have to deliver to all three but the but the person's in charge as defined could be the is it's defined as property owner and or manager of property couldn't it just say uh property owner or per or a other person in charge or or and other or no because they're saying that if there is a property owner and a property manager that both need to get the letter I think that they okay wait a second I think what they're say I'm sorry Anna no I'm saying I think what they're trying to say I I think that they we need to separate out property owner not to be one of the the things defined under persons in charge I think that it's leading to Too Much confusion well no I think that what they're saying is there's a person charged which can actually be a tenant and but this notice would be going to the owner who I own it so it comes to me uh Lynn is the uh person in charge and she gets a copy and and I think that's uh reasonable I don't think because the owner doesn't necessarily know what's going on and so there's trying I believe if I go back into my CRC memory they were trying to say that both the owner the property owner and people in charge should be aware of what's going on I completely agree with you that both that should happen and that that's what they were trying to in what they were trying to say my issue is that their definition of person in charge I gotta okay all right I finally got it Anna sorry I wasn't explaining it clearly councelor I was wondering about the definition of occupants it is not defined owner is defined so yes it is it shouldn't be in persons in charge sorry Lyn yeah they gotta clean this up or we have to clean it up so I don't think so I get well I gotta go to the definition I can't let me it's up on the screen right now oh okay so that's fine go ahead owner is here person's in charge legal owner person any person having charge Care on management of property the it could be still the a property owner and then only one notice goes out and or a person who is authorized to act on their behalf with regard to the property so I I think that it would just clarify yeah I guess the thought is that there as you said number of you said now you could have a property which in which the owner is also the person in charge of the property right and then you can have a property in which the owner has absolutely nothing to do with the property um he has a person in charge of the property and in this case you clearly want the owner and also the person in charge um to be notified and what's going on that's why they mentioned both though you're right in some cases it may turn out to be the same individual it probably doesn't hurt uh at least in this context to have them just have them mentioned um because in some cases they separ yeah yeah whereas in the earlier case it seemed yeah it did seem sort of not needed but here we could I mean if we really wanted to be personic we could say and persons in charge if different than owner but I I'm willing to let it go I just I I find it confusing but I think I because I've been staring at this for a while and I think that keeping it in there does make the point of this stronger which is that everybody should be getting a notice and I I think that that's fair and also why shouldn't it just simply be the owner um because property owner is not defined but owner is okay yeah that's a good defined as the legal owner of record to a particular parcel of land blah blah blah blah so it would seem to be notice of infraction shall be delivered to all occupants maybe lowercase p yeah I don't or just owner or the owner of the property or owners I think lower case P property and then owners um Define term I don't know I want to go back to councelor at's point occupants is capitalized here as if it has a definition somewhere um but it is ter yeah so lower case it okay uh councelor I'm referring to comment a16 that speaks about notice of violations um going to occupants as well and that's why I don't know if lower case works as much as having a definition of who an occupant is my comments are not numbered can you clarify which comment you're talking about oh this is section E1 above also makes occupants liable yeah thank you um yes I mean doesn't this also have the strange consequence that you could be at a party behaving perfectly appropriately and yet somehow be held legally liable for the say somebody's fighting or somebody's urinating in the front yard um or somebody's selling or giving alcohol to an underage person um the fact that you live there I guess the argument is well that makes you liable but um well if you live there you can say hey don't pee on my lawn EXA responsible happens or you can say I'm sorry you can't serve that alcohol here this is an underage person you may not know the person is underage you're supposed to know you're supposed to be aware what's going on on your own well I think that this is I mean when you when you really dig into it this is really broad because it's saying that I know a c is saying person's engaging in the activity resulting in a public nuisance which makes sense to me but then a like George just said you could just be existing in the same place and get in a fight around you and I don't think that that's right I don't think that that's fair if you were not participating in it and you were not organizing or sponsoring the event yeah think of the fraternity we have a a fraternity um not actually it's in District Four now but it it's notorious for getting in in these sorts of situations and there are probably 40 30 or 40 people who live there at least um so they're all going to get a separate notice I mean yeah it doesn't make any well maybe that's the way it has to be but it seems like an awful waste of paper and uh you know let's I mean you could very well be somewhere else you could not even be uh at the residence when the event takes place right but now you're legally liable because there's I mean we have apartment that house hundreds of people there are there this bylaw and the rental registration bylaw have a they're like sledgehammers and I I think that there's yeah so so I want folks to yeah because I think this is this is a big this is massive and it's anti- student and it is anti-student we're getting now into the larger issue but in terms of clarity consistent and actionability um I don't think it's actionable well I don't think you can legally say all 200 people that live in this apartment building because it says all lands including all structures and fixtures therein it's not saying in the apartment of an apartment building it's saying the building so every single person if there is a a nuisance at one of the big apartment complexes that hous a 100 people well that's his comment that is a lawyer's comment at e yeah where is a e1a that that fre pointed out to us where we had occupants at the property capital O capital P um the lawyer's comment is the due process issue he gives the example of a two family home wor think of examples where it might be a student residence where it has you know many people living there legally um and uh you know they're all legally liable and they all get notices yeah it doesn't I don't know we have anyway he's raised that issue okay in A9 we might also just raise it here as well and ask about the due process implications y use the example of a fraternity I would think simply notifying the owner of the property and Andor the person and the person in charge would be sufficient um what's the point what is the point of notifying all the residents because the penalty now falls on the person who owns the property isn't that right I mean why should I if say I live in a house and we have a big party and we violate a whole bunch of laws um why should this bother me um because it's now the landlord that's that's on the hook I mean they'll come and lay the law down on us I don't know I'm I guess I'm trying to understand what the point of this is um Beyond just telling the owner of the property you've got to clean up your act if we do not think that this is actionable we have the right to strike it completely well I think we have a question about actionability and we'd like some paration yeah because you could deliver it to all occupants were you know that's it's act you can commit that act but but the word is it all the occupants within a the apartment where a nuisance occurred on duplex issue the duplex issue or the fraternity you know right or yeah because they cover the folks who were engaging even whether or not they live there I mean I mean I have someone who we we rent a room in our house and so say you're a renter and you're occupying a room in a house and they have a wild party and they get into all kinds of legal trouble according to this you're legally liable yeah though you're the renter even though you have no control over right because you're an occupant yeah I don't think that that's okay I don't think it's actually need that needs some qualification I we have talked that to death I have added a comment saying this is actual do we can talk some more I mean I enjoy it we're hyping each other up in a way that well at is best all right so we're gonna move kind of past this part I will admit I read this several times and was a bit confused by the strikethroughs um so if someone can add some clarity for me we're on E like one D or something because I'm GNA explain what the town attorney was trying to do here o sorry I basically think they were trying to put into a and b anything that fell in D the old D oh wait they were saying that for property receiving the first or second infraction it's the occupants the organizers and the people engaging but then with the when the property gets a third or more infraction that's the only time that the person in charge is brought in am I reading that right that doesn't seem right I think CRC needs to sort this out yeah well one says infra notice of infraction see to all occupants we've raised that issue property owners and persons in charge so they they get notice of first and second where are you seeing so that's G1 am I in the right place oh sorry sorry liable liable um I'm sorry so I'm getting lost okay so let me let me try to we're on E no you're good so we're on E is saying that for the first or second infraction in a year the owner is not liable or the person in charge is not liable but if a property gets more three or more infractions within a year that's when the person in charge and the owner becomes liable and the only way they're not liable is if they are trying to evict a tenant that [Music] tenant so basically our question I guess maybe this isn't our question maybe this isn't actionability or Clarity or consistency but the different the attorney set is taking out recommends taking that out and having the person in charge be liable from the start yeah they've they've gotten rid of the tear of first year second year whatever that I think this is crc's needs yeah to read that okay we're done with e on to F we already that's fine two abatement you know I said CRC but I think we can just accept that I think so too I actually agree okay I think it's I think in three the same thing is true we can accept it yep yep I'm just going to save this real quick because my computer keeps slowing down and I don't want to lose everything that we've just done I think that's Wise by the way I hate to say this but aren't we supposed to make our changes as track changes what if our changes are accepting track changes I think I don't know I didn't think so I thought we were I thought we just brought forward the the version at as right I think we can if we're accepting a track change then then it can you can it's like cleaning the document in essence okay for what it's worth though we have not added anything to this so if you would rather we can reopen the document from the start and just keep all of the suggested deletions from the town attorney we haven't deleted beyond that no I think we're doing the right thing just do continue like we are okay they can always look at what the town attorney sent oh yeah I have that totally um all right so I'm going to resolve that okay um this one which one are we on sorry F3 response costs uh I agreed but the reason why I'm saying CRC I I think we could take care of it except for that they said we need more information on the intent of this section yeah I think this is CRC yeah um that's the issue of offense versus VI bir versus um whatever infraction oh yeah hey we caught it before they did good work coming through on that um okay five that was fine no [Music] problem all right G is this inconsistent with the up with the stuff up above where they eliminated the one year and so forth um that was liability this is no okay all right fine you're right that's the difference but yeah I had I just did the same kind of so they wanted an introductory paragraph that's clearly a CRC thing yeah um did we already look at this or did they ask for that above too they asked for that above too I'm seriously Deja moment uh yeah I think s needs to do that oh this is oh my God it changed all my comments that I made before to author that's so annoying uh deleting it this was where my comment was before on owners vers person in charge I agree with all of the changes to oh this is an interesting change though there's a difference there we don't have a requirement on how timely the notices are delivered do we or are notices done immediately because if we change this one year from the date of the notice might be different than one Year from the date of the infraction if the notice is immediately I I assume that the um that these are all delivered at the moment that you know the people are hauled in or whatever happens yeah there in other words as close to the actual event happening as feasibly possible okay so are we comfortable with it being from the infraction not the notice [Music] do I read this correctly to state that you can meet the terms of of this item simply by posting a single piece of paper on the property yeah so you don't have to send notices to 15,000 people you post a notice on the property this was my question too because I don't think that that's an adequate way to reach property owners and persons in charge especially if they live in timb too right exactly so this this kind of got into a bigger question for me about and I understand why this goes with rental regge right because we need to know who the owners are and the managers are in order to deliver notices to them but I don't think that I don't think that compliance with this section is attained by posting the notice on property for non-owner occupied homes I agree because what it yeah yeah the original statement was may be it I'm sorry gonna need to move my computer I'm listening says may include so it just yeah it doesn't it doesn't actually it it would seem that the way originally it was written you could also post one on the property but that would not so compliance with this section may include posting is what they wrote oh that's interesting I didn't and then he inserted be attained and struck include so they had said it may include this but he said compliance can be attained simply by doing this um that's interesting it didn't show up as a track change well that's what I'm looking at in my text yeah no I believe you I just it's everything else has shown up as a track change from the legal team CRC needs to weigh in here but that would seem to be not what they would want and probably not what we would want but they're the ones that need to weigh in first of all um is that because that seems to change very much what they had in [Music] mind there's also the issue of the dating of it I I don't know what to say about that but um there's also notice as it stands right now you just take one single piece of paper have these four items on it put it on the front door and according on the front door could be just front put it on the base anyway just put it in the building somewhere and you're done that put it in the back shed yeah right that's um and by the way it has to have five lines because it has to say other for all the other ones that they don't list where you know joke just oh ha um okay so big issues I have big issues with this one I actually I don't think that this is clear or actionable I mean I guess supposedly it's actionable but I think that there's too much interpretation of it and I do not think that it is lined up with who they want to contact um I actually prefer this being the first notice not infraction because I don't think that if something goes wrong I don't think it's fair that someone be held I think that the notice date should happen on the date of the infraction but yeah I don't know I I I struggle with that one I don't I don't agree with the change to infraction anyone else have thoughts you know Anna you might be right for example if they have to bring in the sheriff's office or something it could take more than a day and yeah so I want to reject this one I ask quickly a process question yeah we send this to see see with our comments and things that they have to look at my understanding is that it comes back to us it does all right that's my understanding as well and then we look to see if they've actually responded to what we were concerned about and we have to do this again sure do okay I I don't need to have a life so that's why I thought this all should have gone to CRC to begin with yeah well so we're almost we're almost done y'all we're getting close I see the I see the light at the end of the tone page three out of five all right are we okay accepting these uh changes instead of response it should be infraction think so because response could mean anything um this is what this is just changed it it's it's a grammatical thing no because this would be the change um the it used to be that the owners and persons in charge were not liable until the third one the lawyer wants to change it so that they're liable from the start from this I'm gonna leave it for now because it depends on what cc decides to do um okay we've done this I think okay um um third infraction infraction or greater this is the same issue I think it should say notice because if we're measuring from the notice up here we have to measure from the notice down here yep I don't understand the difference between delivered and made doesn't it have any I'm gonna say something I think CRC needs to address in this which is that I think that they need to navigate property being apartment being dwelling as well as property because for this again you might be noticing so many people if you notice everyone on the propert everyone on the property councelor ete yes that's related to um something I wanted to mention which is that the property will be designated a Nuance property capitalized which implies it is defined but the is no definition and the property itself isn't liable for the infraction human beings are liable for the infraction not the property so I think at least there should be some kind of definition or some clarity on what nuisance property means y I think they I mean I guess like they're trying to Def Define it here by saying it's or more violations but it is undefined in definition section technically because you could argue that in a sense the entire bylaw is an attempt to State what a nuisance property is is which is that a property that's received three or more violations right right right and that might very well be appropriately placed in here under definition we also have the phrase corrective action plan capitalized repeatedly yeah there's no definition of that is that is there a reason is that like a term of art that's capitalized everywhere or is that it's it's used all throughout this section and there's absolutely no definition of it uh is there must be somewhere in here where it says what it is but unless it's somewhere in our rental bylaw so maybe that's it yeah so you know I think it I think it may be in there because you know like when somebody has a um a physical problem like with plumbing or something there's a corrective action plan I think it's in the rental bylaw we should have to every bylaw should have to Define the term in it because I wouldn't know where to go to find that definition I agree like it should be defined in this bylaw as well or at least the definition said like find in bylaw 3 blah blah blah blah blah so at first appears I think here at b b was it g2b I think that's the first time it appears then it appears multiple times throughout this section and I guess a question for CRC is does this need to be defined where is one supposed to find out what it means that's a nicer way of phrasing what I said uh could you does it need to be defined and uh if not where does one go to find out what it means or is it a term of art that everybody who does this sort of thing simply knows I mean we don't know it the average person wouldn't know it so we just yeah I think that's very fair okay um did we say what the time frame was for the meeting that they have to have with Town Hall I can't remember it says within the required time frame a meeting of town hall is scheduled but I I don't recall again I think that's all part of the r regist stuff it comes down below yeah it does well it Say nuisance property correction process oh five days okay so it's it's mentioned earlier and then defined later okay I will let it go then uh any other issues with two B okay B I felt like this needed to be disc CC needs to discuss this with the town manager that inspection services is going to be the as to who it's going to be y I think that's fa what was suggested to me um was inspection service services or it's designate well that would work that was but what if what if the town doesn't even want it to be Inspection Services this is the kind of thing that it's I it's this goes beyond what I think our charges the the attorney made the decision to suggest Inspection Services we don't know if that's the right I think that's a fair point it wasn't crc's ad it was the attorney's ad right um I'm going to leave that then in the other spaces as well yeah yeah okay so corre down yeah us true um I think sorry I just wanted to note I think that somewhere when there reaching the owner or property manager it needs to say via certified mail I don't think that I think I do too I agree I think that it needs to have that for when they're contacting property owner to make this actionable I don't think that it's fair to say post on the property maybe that's not actionability though maybe that's just me being pnic let's mention it and see what I think that seems appropriate yeah maybe the town does this as a matter of course but I think it should be mentioned okay so if we did that it would be this is expensive I know uh so what it could be is shall this is a bigger change than I don't I don't I want to ask if it's okay to make notice of infraction of a public nuisance shall be delivered to all occupants which may be attained by posting notice on the property comma property owners and persons in charge via certified mail I can live with that again we're back to sending certified mail to an army of people no that's just property owners and persons in charge that's what I was saying if we say okay all occupants okay go ahead sorry my computer is going very very slow I'm not typing this slow I typed it like 30 seconds ago is that why you turned your video off yeah I was hoping that would help it not be so weird it's not that I didn't want you to see my face I think it's because the dog's sitting on her lap mine is off because I'm shoving french fries into my mouth and remember remember we're being recorded oh yes dinner does this sentence that I just edited I'm going to leave these edits in for CRC to see yes um and I think we should add it here in section two as well no that's oh yeah there you go sorry um then we would delete hypothetically this section oops sorry this part from both sections are people comfortable with that change so I took I would delete this because it's no longer true and maybe later if you don't need it but I hi Carol okay um but you're going to leave it in so the see I'm leaving it in so they can see yeah okay the notice shall include the following okay we already talked about that I guess uh each day a portion thereof Inspection Services now we're back to CRC again yep I think this is a fair deletion I don't think they can guarantee a meeting within two weeks that's up to the town I mean I I get I can see I guess I'm gonna I'm not going to say it's I'm not gonna fight it okay um kind of just through all of this it's all just the changes to I think this is a fair addition corrective action instead of just plan except the word separate yeah c c says failure to implement the corrective action plan within the time frame is a separate violation of this bylaw violation of this bylaw is an infraction so is a separate infection yes and I agree with you but I also feel like that's confusing and I don't know why I find it confusing so you're saying it should be it should just be changed to infraction because even above if I find the proper place infraction is used already yeah I think you're right I don't know why I'm stuck on it but I know you're right okay um that's a 3 A2 within 10 days of the date of the notice the owner of the or designate shall submit a corrective plan to the town which shall indicate the ways the owner intends to take control of the property so that it does not accumulate more infractions great thank you um this is the attorney missed this one should I add a comment saying Inspection Services question mark yeah I'm I'm just saying I got two that the attorney missed okay um again with infraction the the number of infractions is mounting here intraction interractions interractions deed to create something new being creative uh right you get to number 10 it's an interaction see I am awake yeah this is how we see if people are actually their meeting materials you put something silly in the middle okay um e that's the same thing we had before is this the department well here it's the department acting yeah pagent of the Town whereas in the other cases that's what they should do we've done that in other bylaws we Define the town as Inspection Services or there does like they could they designate yeah councelor there's a lack of clarity on E told an owner May request the town remove the Nuance proper designation if the property has not received an infraction yep I think something is missing there because you don't receive an infraction you commit an infraction and you receive perhaps a notice yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah received notice of an infraction yeah um yeah okay okay good on us with those changes all right H last one I I I guess I'm the one that said accept but leave this for CRC yeah that's fine I was fine to accept it I I'm just rereading again okay yeah I mean I think that severability Clause we have in pretty much every bylaw I think we should have suggested putting it in if the attorney didn't I think we should just accept this to be honest with you yeah it's in so many others and it's yeah there's one just a general one in the bylaws itself that applies to the entire bylaw yeah okay there it is we are not going to vote this clear consistent and actionable tonight no but we are going to vote to send it excuse me enough of that do not tell me what we're gonna do when I'm about to tell you what we're gonna do hold the Mutiny seriously G to declare you a nuisance property all right so um we are going to vote to send this to CRC with the change that we've made for their review um and they will then they will be sending it back to us once they've completed that review well changes that we've made but also uh for them to review sections that we felt we couldn't address yes yeah all right so I moved to I don't know if it's an official referral I don't know if go can refer things formally can we sure sure okay Athena's gonna kill me when she reads sees this recording uh I move to refer bylaw 3.26 nuisance property as um as Modified by go on May 23rd 2024 to CRC for review of changes and questions from the town attorney second on thank you um all those in favor Pat hi hold on do you want to say and return it to CR to go because it they can't they can't it's still with us right okay all right to be return modifying my motion to add the following to be returned to go for further review for clarity consistency and actionability councelor ETA you seconded my motion do you accept that change I accept it thank you now I will call the vote Pat d'angeles hi councelor Ryan hi Lyn Grier I coun ET I and I am an i as well okay thank you I will send this to Pam tonight all right folks it is 88m here's what we are going to talk about for the remainder of our time together we uh Lynn it was requested at the council that Lynn continue followup on the um Retreat priorities and the goals so we have a half an hour left we are going to be taking 15 minutes to give to uh and then we are going to take 15 minutes to go through the um resolution that we have at our next meeting I am anticipating our next meeting is June 6 Pat to answer your earlier question I am anticipating that hopefully the uh we are trying to meet with the folks who um with the former chair of ahra to talk about the charge before it comes to talk about the attorney recommendations um and so we want to do that before go digs into it um and so depending on when that meeting gets scheduled it will either be on the agenda for the 6th or the 20th but it it's on the the drafts for those um and if we can meet with her earlier it will be on the 6th uh we have scheduled that meeting oh did she confirm um I have to look go ahead please I'm sorry so I wanted to answer Pat's question as to when that would be coming up um and that is that is the answer it's either the 6th or the 20th um and um open the window Pat any questions on that no no that's fine okay thank you and it's dependent on the meeting with the original committee members yeah yeah uh not the original committee members sorry just the former chair of that Comm yes okay yeah yeah I need to write this to constituent former chair we are meeting on the fth at 2 o'clock okay I'm gonna you're taking her out early who's we I'm Sor I'm talking about my dog um that was hilarious uh we is myself and the council president ah okay fine council president as council president me as chair of go thank you uh has Paul sent out the um KP Law's response because I would like to see it uh irrespective of when you're meeting with the ah person thought he sent it out I thought he did too okay I'll I'll send it to you again Pat I I'd appreciate that I have I can't see I'm having trouble finding I'm not keeping up yeah he sent it to the Town Council on May 10th I'm forwarding it to you my God as a um note thank you I apologize does anyone else need me to send it so that they have it at the top of their inbox no it'll be in the packet okay um um and I believe that it can be my understanding Lyn can you correct me if I'm wrong that it may be shared even though it's labeled attorney client privileged yes oh it may okay great so you're you're clear to talk about yeah yeah um okay so any further questions on upcoming agenda item items we've got a bunch of meetings coming up for interviews um yeah Lynn can you give us an up yeah I will and then we'll go right into goals I just wanted to give an update as as we get nearer to that Marathon week and what it's sort of shaping up like because we will need to post the meetings well we need to go ahead and post the meetings but I will tell you that at this point I'm only seeing us approaching seven complete applications you mean seven at that point in time yeah okay and the deadline's tomorrow deadline is tomorrow and I've sent everything to everybody and I reminded that now wait a minute is the deadline tomorrow no no it's the deadline is hang next Wednesday hold on let me check this I've got itop Wednesday the 11th no I'm sorry um I'm checking it right now um SOI and sign up for interview deadline tomorrow is the 24th yep yes and right now we're looking at only seven completed applications what there's nothing we can do about it no voted the poll sufficient with 19 and um and only three have officially withdrawn okay counc um could you expand on uh not being able to do anything seven is less than nine yeah um and yeah it also gives us no choice I mean which basically they they get appointed just by virtue of having filled out so what I mean by we have we we can't do anything is that our only decision point to extend the process is determining the pool sufficient and the pool is determined sufficient before sois are in it's just the calfs that we receive so there isn't a stop there's no measure for us to say we don't have enough actual applicants we need to go back out at this point in the process there's no mechanism for that that I'm aware does anyone else yeah yeah we're starting to talk over each other a little bit so let's go to hands and I'll I'll follow that rule to and raise my own hand does does anyone know of any other mechanism by which or councelor I don't know but we could test you know is there a way to reind what has already been done [Music] and start a clock again because if it remains at seven then there isn't even a point to having interviews who might as well just accept the statements and have that as the public document of whatever is necess necessary to hold them to the posts that they are going into counc Ryan you could I think with vote of your colleagues here extend the SOI deadline um another week I think that I don't see why we couldn't do that and inform the council at the next meeting that that happened you could go to the council and say we deemed the pool sufficient but after putting out our request for sis we do not have a sufficient number even to fill the committee um and so that's a problem and we need Council advice we need the council to tell us what they want us to do or we could just go ahead and and basically as as as Council ET has just said essentially we can do away with the interviews we can do away with everything and just appoint seven people go back to the council and say we need two more Len just because a person interviews or has submitted an SOI should not mean that they are automatically accepted onto the committee there there have been instances and uh where a vacancy remained open even though there was a candidate and the candidate was rejected you can have a failed search yeah yeah and we have criteria for selection and if we looked at the candidates that have so far made an effort um they may create a problem just on those grounds I don't know anyway councelor yeah um I'm thinking also about the legitimacy of the process going forward as whatever ends up being the end product if we have things the way they are um that might become an issue MH Glen I think we should extend uh till um but we have to post them 48 hours in advance is that right we needed to we need the reason why we set that date the way we did was that Athena needs um to post the meeting on Tuesday the 28th right uh that's a week beforehand and so um and Monday is a holiday she needs to post it she needs to post the s sois a week in advance and the meeting for the interview the meeting for the interview well really so prior to our um the S need to be posted they get posted with the meeting I see okay thank you well so if we extended to uh noon on Tuesday I mean because my next move is going to be to call people and just say are you in or out right um all applicants SOI shall be posted at the town website at the same time at least one week in advance of the meeting at which the interviews take place the sois shall also be attached to the public meeting posting to provide additional access to the public so hypothetically we don't need to post the meeting we just need to post the S sois but they typically are just they go together I think we should post the meeting and the sois on the 28th um and we should give an extension till noon on the 28th I want to confirm with Athena that that's yeah possible before voting to do that well we have to vote and then she can just tell you no you can't because we won't be meeting again but oh that's right we did we didn't give it time did we oh oh wait you're saying sorry you're saying extend the SOI deadline to Tuesday the Tuesday the 28th at noon gives us till the end of the day to post the meeting Memorial Day weekend which may be a complicating factor for many people absolutly may not be here or simply will not have the time or be traveling God knows what so but they already don't I mean yeah I guess that doesn't really matter because the deadlines Before Memorial Day weekend right now we're now extending it through memori if we did yeah but I don't think one it may trigger people Lynn you said you'd be willing to call people it might trigger to get them in uh in advance before they leave and that also gives them uh some time over the weekend not everyone is going away and doing all kinds of things we have to the reason part of the reason of this I'm just I'm have the policy up if we extend it to no on Tuesday or whatever all the s sois have to be posted at the same time so so we can't see what's already been returned yeah per the policy that per the so I I want to correct myself there's only five completed applications heuse my French holy crap and I will just tell you on the day right the day after our last meeting I spent probably four hours getting this thing out oh I'm so sorry Lyn no it no I'm not complaining I'm just saying that it's you know we did it on time and um I've sent one reminder uh and I'll send another reminder and make phone calls tomorrow did we say a time on Friday that they were du no let me see what I sent because I'd be more comfortable saying 5:00 pm on Monday than noon on Tuesday uh can you do I guess but I'd be more comfortable giving Athena the full Tuesday that makes sense on them does that make sense okay thank you because we're already taking one day away from her hypothetically but she's not working Monday I said that's what I'm saying p.m on May I said 5:00 pm May 2 four so you want to say We'll extend it till 5:00 p.m. on May 2 7 7 that's fine God I hope aa's okay with this I do I really don't like doing this without her being able to say okay just because of the workload issue yeah we're changing her demands without her that is without her input yeah I'm uncomfortable with that um but I don't know what else to do well I'm going to try I'm going to make the phone calls tomorrow so I'm I don't want to advertise the deadline but I feel like we just need to have a more a better applicant poll okay um I mve to uh change the deadline for state of interests being uh returned for the charter Review Committee 2024 to 5:00 P p.m. on Monday May 27th is there a second second thank you and I'm GNA call the vote I am an i counselor ete I Pat dangeles I councelor Ryan I ly grimer I all right I will if Athena wants to teach me how to do it I will do it that would take longer okay um Lynn we we've got a little bit of time for you I only need a little bit I'm going to show you an example okay was that we just made that vote because the charter Review Committee wasn't on the agenda sorry I'm just now panicking um it was a a vote we had make had to take unexpected Topic's not reasonably anticipated it was a topic unanticipated thank you okay on the screen you'll see the following this this is just an example of what I want you to look at I'm then I'm only going to show you this one this is the very first goal okay on the left in the yellow is how people rated it and the message I gave people back so in this case you saw this one up here use a climate lens when making budget decisions Etc and then I made notes from our Retreat ongoing see the budget okay then I got down to this one which is uh what was holl yes I got down to this one okay and I clearly can see some people are much more interested in waste huler other people are much more interested in solar Etc and so I'm suggesting not break up the goal but break up how people rate it with in the goal and that and so the message back to people would be on this particular one rate them based on the sub goals and if you have another one you want that we haven't mentioned here fine because it's said other okay um and then but I'm going to suggest that we not bother to rate the ongoing ones it's only the ones where I see us you know having to spend a lot of Staff time um and I guess what I'm just asking is that you um trust me with your judgment to go ahead like this I was looking for feedback we don't have a lot of time but what I'm trying to do is get a little more granular in a couple places where we've like this one where it has three different options under it waist huler solar whatever later on for instance under cap there's going to be a lot of confusion because people aren't going to know what to say about the library anymore and you know this this is not a static document this is a evolving document so any thoughts on that I think this is looking at this is why it reaffirms why I feel so strongly that this committee needs to change and improve the proc recommend changes to the process of the evaluation because when what we end up with are goals that are all over the place in scope ly I think that your response is maybe the best thing that we will get with these goals as they are framed but I think that we I I understand that there are other things that are also prioritized but for me that's why the evaluation is really important to to dissect and and fix because we're creating something that's not able to really be prioritized in my mind because there there's such different Scopes within they're not parallel statements exactly so you can't prioritize right and it and it should be something that we can prioritize for Paul in terms of making our expectations clear Council George so again we have the process of setting goals and we have the process of evaluating the town manager these are two separ things correct now I realize we evaluate the town manager largely though not exclusively on his ability to meet the goals the council has set but there are other things that we evaluate the town manager on besides that so here we're looking strictly at how we establish the goals this is about reviewing the process for creating the town manager goals document it it is but it's it it goes just a step further and that is within the town manager goals how do we prioritize okay and if you'll remember when I first had people do this they rated within the goals and then they rate it external to the goals and I'm still working through that piece but I would like to bring this to the Council on the third with the purpose of trying to clarify the goals for for this year yeah to have the council say okay fine send this out and then I'll have people fill it in and then on the 17th I'll bring back the results Anna I call on me thank you fine don't call on you then I was distracted sorry I was looking because George I don't think that what you said is really correct the evaluation is the goal is on only the goals that is what we evaluate on and and the document reads the town I'm I'm pulled it up from 2023 you know the um Town manager was asked to make progress on 13 ambitious and interrelated policy goals and management goals um the Town Council was only prioritizing the policy goals we didn't look at the management goals for for this document but our evaluation and our goals are the same shaped by that that yeah there's nothing different in our evaluation so under management if I go back and read it there would be you know and his communication with the public his interaction with his department heads um his ability to uh blah blah blah that's all under management and that's already there okay we didn't we're not prioritizing management goals understand I understand but it's there and the point is but it's there it's framed as go the basis of our evaluation process yeah all right so I think that's that's what's driving my and and all I'm trying to accomplish with this is to prioritize within the goals within the policy goals policy goals right okay all right well okay done okay thank you um all right folks we're going to move to oh my gosh the number of tabs when I tell you the number of tabs we are going to move to the paint stewardship resolution and we're going to do it in eight minutes everybody ready yep um I am currently opening the file that I had opened but it didn't download sorry everyone get your notes ready Shake It Out get your best best and brightest George already okay hang on I was very small point but I would think just from the point of view of of the look and the logic the footnote should not be under the word and so footnote one should come after expected in footnote whatever foot whatever footnote 2 is after similar rates and so on with any other footnotes right now the foot note comes after and Oh I thought I changed that well maybe you did maybe I'm looking at an older document and if you did thank you and or maybe it's not that important I thought I changed it because that I noticed that too but if I now is people looking at the document I'm looking at the document that was in the the packet no no yeah no I'm I'm oops and it says then one and then foot Noe so that should be moved this a small thing should be moved she didn't in the again it also makes claims that I mean at this point maybe it's just not worth debating but um it doesn't have the right one in the packet does it the wrong one in the packet all right so there's another one okay that's it I went to the packet that's what which you should have well it could be in SharePoint I didn't didn't get why don't you no it's not it's not the right hang on give me a second okay all right so if you can put the right one on the screen I will stop looking at this one and look at the one on the screen and I take it you already caught that so it's great I did and I'm Sor right minor thing this is the one I sent in um so apologies for hang I got to pull the right one up yeah cuz I I would I I pricity it as sponsor hopefully this looks better thank you yep all right I'm gonna ask you if you could make it a little larger I surely will that's that's fine no I I'll make it bigger it was okay is that good yep okay um so I apologize folks that the incorrect version was in the packet this is the this is the correct version um George I move those footnotes good thank you uh all right line by line first where as any notes no okay o sorry second where as any notes C just a question um 30% do we usually go with the symbol or go with percent uh I think if it's over 10 we do and if it's under 10 we write the words okay that's my understanding from my I think way back in APA citations but I okay thank you this very validating that someone said I was I was right in my remembrance of that uh third whereas it's been a while since I wrote my Master's Theses fourth whereas fifth whereas the change from the one you're seeing is that I took out there was this either a second wouse or it was at the end of this one oh I'm G to start my video again uh that said it was very popular or something like that right yeah because it wasn't provable um so well here it says it's been demonstrated but again we take it on trust I'm sure it's true I'm sure it's true but I just yeah it's um if you are uncomfortable with it we can say paint stewardship laws have been enacted in our neighboring States if you're if you feel like that would be and have makes it makes a claim of fact that you know we just either accept or we ask that there be some you know reference to a document that says these have been effective whereas if you simply state that they've been enacted that's a statement of fact that's that I don't need to have that verified I assume that it's truthful and uh so that's the my only concern and that it's I don't know is that Clarity consistency or actability I don't think so it probably is more a matter of discussion at the council level which I don't really want to get into but that that's my only thought so yeah I'd probably leave it and just if I want to make a point about it I can raise it at Council okay anyone else feels strong unless someone else feels that it's it's not Clarity I would just do it here I would I also I think as one of the sponsors and Pat's another sponsor so I'll ask her thoughts if we we I am okay saying paint Stewart ship laws have been enacted in our neighboring states of Connecticut RH Island Maine Vermont and New York excellent that's what I would suggest that's a substantive change so that's up to you guys I I'll go along with it but I feel like it the information has shown that they've been effective in the states where they've been enacted so I don't know I think well then why not reference course that tells me that I mean I don't I have no idea right well we don't have a footnote on this one I know and I'm not trying to make work for you but it makes a claim that you can change it if you want n all right we're gonna leave it because I think we're gonna leave it and and if I want to raise it I want to raise it counil yeah I think that's Pat and I will come prepared with Legion from these states smack me down all right giving us time you're just giving us time to do our homework okay that's all right uh next one whereas municipal waste management systems right fine uh Mass Municipal Association that's great thank you uh where is legislation I'm gonna spell out I'm gonna make a change here I'm gonna say Massachusetts I didn't turn on track changes sorry okay that's fine just do it yep uh now there for uh punctuation are we doing semicolons I'm sorry I'm afraid for this we semicolons not commas is that correct all the way through the document yeah it's semic yeah I'm sorry but it's until the last one yes the last whereas you got it okay we just missed one or two everybody else good for you okay uh this should say that we right the ammer toown council we yes that's right okayama yeah oh yeah thank you then would it be urge or is it urges we the council urge it's a collective favorably okay yes it further resolved another one same changes before added the two commas added we and and [Music] changed uh just one tiny thing you've got your uh quotation marks in that third line at the very end that should be above right and act it's you have it below for some reason it should be raised to the top right yeah tiny just yeah well it was just missing there were two comment Oh missing I see okay fine and okay okay okay maybe we should urge the committee to come up with the unified Bill I'm sorry just it's late yeah and that Erin's name has his hand up oh sorry coun I'm sorry yeah the top Marin doesn't appear to be the same as the order like that go um I we don't put another thing in there we don't no we just yeah just we just do that y okay and somehow another in doing that you broke up your paragraph pull it back there there's an extra space under the last whereas go up oh yeah yeah yeah and that that does beautiful okay I don't think I I don't think I fixed CC's concern but that fixes it it just looks more like it does you're right yeah it was 0.5 or 0.75 you guys are amazing eyes younger eyes okay I'm prepared to make a motion thank you George please do if you can scroll up for me um I move to declare the resolution and supported paint stewardship legislation to be clear consistent and action can you modify your motion to say as Modified by go as Modified by go thank you I'll second that second okay go ahead thank you um all right calling the vote Lynn hi uh councelor Ryan hi Pat d'angeles hi councelor I and I am an i as well all right y'all thank you so much we knocked a lot off our list today and um I will send this to Athena to bring to the council um we are going to be meeting again on June 6th stay tuned we're meeting again on June oh yeah sorry we're meeting before that because we have 17 interviews meeting again on June 4th thank you I apologize okay and Athena will post those that's why it's suring me they're not posters okay um I will see you all next week for interviews I move to adjourn thank you do I have a second second Ryan awesome all right Lynn hi I am an i counselor Ryan hi amazing Pat dangeles hi superb councelor hi well done thank you everyone have a great night thank you Carol