2026-10-13 - Select Board

Summary

Built from YouTube auto-captions (no speaker labels; names and figures are often garbled). Timestamps below are the caption timestamps shown in the transcript. The captions skip about three minutes between 2:59:07 and 3:02:05, during a resident's remarks on the drone bylaw.

Regular meeting of the Select Board on Tuesday, October 13, 2026 (about 6 PM, livestreamed by Westborough TV), chaired by Sean Keogh.
All five members were present for the votes (5-0 throughout; Patrick Welch recused himself from the retiree insurance discussion only).
The board adjourned into executive session at 3:45:00 (collective bargaining with the firefighters' union) and did not return to open session.
The main item was the first board-level review of three competing drone bylaw drafts ahead of the Special Town Meeting on October 19.

Time on topic (from transcript timestamps; approximate, includes side talk):

Topic	Minutes	Share
Unmanned Aircraft General Bylaw	109	50%
Retiree Health Insurance Plan Change	32	15%
Permitting Software Replacement	23	11%
Utility Analyst Position	6	3%
Office and Regional Dispatch Assistant Position	7	3%
FY2027 Town Finances	9	4%
Town Meeting Procedure Changes	7	3%
Downtown Zoning Plan	4	2%
Active Transportation Plan Conflict of Interest Request	1	0%
Amazon Prime Air Drone Hub	1	0%
Amazon Drone Federal Review Letters	1	0%
Other business	16	7%

Unmanned Aircraft General Bylaw

10:41-17:56, 1:46:42-3:27:40

Open forum: Roy Genay (17 Piccadilly Way; spelling approximate) spoke for the citizen group "Mass Blue Skies" (as transcribed). He said the board was evaluating a draft prepared with town counsel while the group's own draft was already a public record, and asked for "an article that has teeth" rather than a watered-down bylaw. His group's five key points: a ground-level takeoff and landing ban within 500 feet of residential or mixed-use parcels; an absolute ground-level drop-zone ban; a 150-foot employee safety zone from sidewalks, parking and entrances; a property-line noise cap of 55 dBA by day and 45 dBA at night; and enforcement with a $300 fine per violation, cease-and-desist orders by the police chief and Select Board, and a backstop of a restraining order from Worcester Superior Court. He said the group would offer its text as a floor amendment at town meeting if the warrant language was too weak, but preferred to avoid a floor fight.
James Badar (14 Asabet Drive; spelling approximate) backed the citizen draft or one "similar in spirit and in language", saying it covers commercial drones broadly (not only Amazon), includes injunctive relief and exemptions for first responders, and avoids regulating in-flight issues that federal law preempts.
Board discussion of Article 8 began at 1:46:42. Town Manager Kristi Williams explained why a general bylaw rather than a zoning bylaw: a zoning change needs a public hearing process, and zoning is grandfathered for projects already applied for, while a general bylaw has no grandfathering. Three drafts were before the board: (A) town counsel's version modeled on North Reading's bylaw, (B) the citizen draft, and (C) a blend by Shelby Marshall of A and B, drafted with the help of an AI tool and reviewed by counsel. Counsel's written comments arrived late in the day, so no clean draft was handed out.
Board members said their tests were whether a bylaw is appropriate, effective and legally permissible (Patrick Welch). Members argued over whether the goal is to regulate or to ban commercial drone delivery; one member said the community had said it does not want drones in town, while noting it may not be achievable. Mark Silverberg proposed asking the Attorney General's office to look at a draft directly and asked that a backup noise bylaw be prepared for the March town meeting if this one falls short. Town counsel was reported to be speaking with the Attorney General's office the next day.
Draft C was put on screen and reviewed section by section (packet pages 397-402; counsel's section-by-section review on 402). Points raised: the term "neighboring property" in 4C is ambiguous (the whole town or adjoining lots); a news-gathering and community-media carve-out is needed so Westborough TV can fly over public events (raised by Ian Johnson); section 7A (commercial UAS use with Select Board authorization) and the separate town-property section may be unnecessary or "need work"; the noise section should be tied to the existing zoning noise bylaw (8.3A) rather than copy it, and the word "commercial" should come out of "associated commercial ground facilities"; section 10 is redundant and comes out, section 11 may duplicate section 6, and the public-events protection in 11A should stay and be renumbered; fine amounts should be set by a Select Board schedule rather than written in the bylaw, each flight should be a separate offense, and the "each day" clause in 12D conflicts and should be struck; the Attorney General reference in section 14 and the effective-date section 15 should come out.
Mass Blue Skies sections 3 to 5 (ground-level takeoff and landing, drop-zone and noise provisions) were put on screen. Counsel had flagged them as bordering on zoning (a "residential buffer zone" has no definition in town bylaws) and as possibly preempted. Members and the citizen representatives agreed to drop the buffer-zone wording and apply the ban town-wide or to "private residence". Town Manager Williams noted the Attorney General can strike a provision without sending the bylaw back to town meeting, but usually does not offer replacement language, and warned that a bylaw that fails review leaves the town with nothing.
Direction to counsel: combine draft C with the intent of sections 3 to 5, pushing "as close to the line as possible" rather than the most conservative reading. Patrick Welch, who had wondered whether rushing was necessary, said he would rather be "safer than sorry" given the November 2 appeal hearing. Members asked counsel for a new draft, to be shared with the citizen group, and a follow-up special meeting on Thursday, October 15 at Memorial Hall at 6:00 PM to finalize the motion; copies must be printed on Monday. The citizen representatives said they will offer wording in advance and not spring amendments at town meeting.
Resident Christine Farmer (spelling approximate) urged the board to push back on the Attorney General if needed and to involve the Governor's office, citing support from the area's state legislators and lieutenant governor. A board member answered that outcomes with the Attorney General are not guaranteed.
No vote on the bylaw itself this night; the finalizing vote came on October 15 (2026-10-15 - Select Board).

Retiree Health Insurance Plan Change

48:57-1:20:39

Patrick Welch recused himself because his wife is a town employee.
Presented by Town Manager Kristi Williams and a staff member introduced as "Kim" (surname not clear in the captions) to start discussion; the board is asked to decide at its October 27 meeting, before the January 1 renewal. The town pays 75% of the retiree premium. About 575 retirees are on the Blue Cross Blue Shield Medicare supplement plan (a few on Fallon and Tufts plans).
Options: renew as is, about a 10% premium increase; Harvard Pilgrim on the same design, about 4% increase; or a modified Blue Cross prescription design, a move from a three-tier to a five-tier prescription plan, with a new $700 per person prescription deductible, 17% co-insurance on the third tier, 35% on the fourth and 25% on specialty drugs, and no cost sharing for preferred generics. The medical side stays with no deductible or copays. It would save about $654 per subscriber in premium and about $1 million for the town (figures as stated; garbled in places). The out-of-pocket cap on prescriptions is set by Medicare ($2,100 now, $2,400 in 2027); about 10% of subscribers (58) hit it this year, and about 70% of prescriptions are in tier one. Harvard Pilgrim's quote on the new design was not competitive. The advisor recommends the five-tier plan, and the Insurance Advisory Committee (union and retiree representatives) will be consulted next week.
Members mostly liked the savings but questioned fairness to heavy prescription users and the sickest retirees (Mark Silverberg said the sickest and most vulnerable should benefit as much as everyone else and suggested using part of the savings to offset the deductible; another member said he was not sure he could "sleep at night" with that result). Shelby Marshall asked staff to bring cost per prescription and per subscriber by tier, how many people would reach the $700 deductible, which drugs change tiers, and Harvard Pilgrim's comparison to be visible. Others stressed the savings to all taxpayers and that doing nothing means a 10% increase.

Permitting Software Replacement

1:21:00-1:43:36

Article on the Special Town Meeting warrant, presented by Community Development Director Fred Lonardo (spelling approximate) and IT Director Mark Stockman (spelling approximate). The vendor Catalyst will stop supporting the current PermitPro system (originally January 2027, extended to June 2027); the town issues about 4,200 permits a year across 52 permit types and has used electronic permitting since 2017.
Proposal: move to OpenGov (cloud-based, unlimited users and permits, room for 10 to 15 more permit types), used by all of Westborough's immediate neighbors except Upton and 11 of 15 dashboard communities. About $40,000 for migration of over 44,000 applications and 100,000 images; hosting and subscription about $22,000 more in FY2028 than PermitPro would have cost, a 2.5 year commitment, and 5% annual increases. The first six months cost about $68,000 to $70,000, of which the article asks $38,000; the rest comes from department operating budgets because free cash is not yet certified.
Members supported it. Shelby Marshall asked for a contractual guarantee of complete data migration; staff said the town will also keep a full copy of the database and images and will try to add a 100% guarantee. Others asked about backups and recovery, customization, departments using it, historic permits (pre-2017 records stay in a separate scanned-document system, spelled "laser fish" in the captions, with links) and an earlier go-live to leave an overlap; staff plan about a six-month migration aiming at July 1, 2027.

Utility Analyst Position

36:21-48:53 (shared with the next topic; the two job descriptions were taken together and the time is approximate)

Job description approved 5-0 for a Utility Analyst in the Department of Public Works (replacing the retiring utility billing position at the end of the year, reflecting the expansion into stormwater; moves from grade N10 to N13, a union position, absorbed by the DPW budget). Members asked whether the 30-hour utility position should be 40 hours.

Office and Regional Dispatch Assistant Position

36:21-48:53 (shared span with the Utility Analyst item above)

Job description approved 5-0 for a new Office and Regional Dispatch Assistant in the town manager and Select Board office (grade 2, non-union plan; title changed from "administrator" to "assistant").
The office assistant restores a position lost to budget cuts in July 2025; about 15 of the 40 weekly hours would be paid by the regional emergency communications center (the "REC") while it builds out, with a later amendment expected. Staff cited about 200 public records requests in the past year (previously about one a month) and two executive assistants leaving since staffing was cut. Members asked about the reporting line.

FY2027 Town Finances

23:54-32:24, 3:32:05-3:32:16

Treasurer-Collector Barbara Walls (spelling approximate) had the board sign the documents for a $72.8 million bond anticipation note rollover for school construction and feasibility projects (authorized March 2019, article 21). Bond sale on October 6 with five bidders; JP Morgan won at 4% (net interest cost about 3.52%) with a premium of about $348,000. Notes dated October 27, 2026, due October 27, 2027. Vote 5-0.
Timing change: borrowing moved from March to October so the debt budget for fiscal 2028 will be actual figures, not estimates. The rate was set after the September 16 Fed change; other communities came in between 3.8% and 4.4%.
Town Manager update: the REC went out for a $12.5 million bond and the paperwork was executed that day. Open forum: Kevin Barry urged the board to read the October 5 Advisory Finance Committee minutes on the fiscal 2025 audit findings.

Town Meeting Procedure Changes

3:37:44-3:44:50

Open forum reopened for Town Moderator John Arnold, who described four changes he will try at the October 19 meeting, following his listening session: speakers ask all their questions first and get at most one follow-up; he will rotate between speakers in favor, opposed and with questions rather than taking them in line order; he will judge whether debate can be terminated by whether roughly three voters on each side have spoken rather than by elapsed time; and parents with children can sit in the overflow room (child care, run by the honor society, still runs 7 to 9). A revised brief guide to town meeting will be posted on the town website. Several members welcomed the changes.

Downtown Zoning Plan

1:43:38-1:46:40, 3:27:42-3:28:12

Article 7 on the Special Town Meeting warrant, presented by a Planning Board member who appears to be its vice chair ("John Gil..."; name garbled) with a colleague named "Hazel". It is the same bylaw voters rejected in March, except for the floor amendment made then (townhouses become a special permit use) and a corrected reference in two places.
It returns because of a procedural error: the Planning Board hearing notice was posted for one week instead of two (the town clerk's office posting). The Attorney General has not ruled, so the town is proceeding as if approval were not given. The same presentation as in March is expected.
Motion to support Article 7 passed 5-0; the board held off on Article 8.

Active Transportation Plan Conflict of Interest Request

21:44-22:05

Open forum: Kevin Barry again asked for an agenda item on a conflict of interest concerning a member ("Don Burn", spelling approximate) of the active transportation plan group, noting Marshall had asked as well. It was not on this agenda.

Amazon Prime Air Drone Hub

3:31:29-3:32:00

Town Manager update: the town has added a drone page to its website (shared with the delegation and the managers and mayors of affected communities, and updated with the October 15 meeting and the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on the appeal on November 2). In open forum, Mr. Genay noted the Planning Board had continued its site plan review so the appeal could be heard November 2. A board member said residents at the "Bagels with the Board" session were generally against the project.

Amazon Drone Federal Review Letters

3:29:31-3:30:00

The board's communication to the congressional delegation and the FAA was deferred to the Thursday meeting because several letters were in progress and might change the board's text.

Other business

9:24-10:12, 18:02-23:49, 32:24-36:20, 3:28:12-3:29:20, 3:30:00-3:33:06, 3:33:06-3:37:40, 3:44:50-3:45:50

Open forum, other speakers: Joanne Aramini (7 Meadow Road) said the Planning Board's October 6 meeting ran nearly four hours and open forum did not start until after 10 PM, so many drone residents left; the Planning Board revised its open forum policy, but she wants forum earlier. She also asked about the Charter review goal (an action item for Ian Johnson, the Town Manager and John Arnold weeks earlier) and urged watching the Planning Board discussion of the downtown improvement plan and rotary. Kevin Barry also pointed to the October 6 Planning Board meeting: the Silver Hollow hearing (treatment of residents and the developer), the Kimley-Horn final report (in hand since July 15, recommendations deferred to November 10 or later) and open forum timing.
Veterans Day poppy display (Janet Clark's yearly display at the Rotary, November 4 to 11) approved 5-0. Easements for the Route 9 water main project (seven properties on Turnpike Road and Otis Street, authorized at the 2024 Annual Town Meeting) accepted 5-0. A civic gift account under the recreation director for civic events (precursor to a fall town meeting item for the 250th anniversary committee) approved 5-0.
The warrant for the November 3, 2026 state election was passed over, then signed after the Town Clerk arrived (early voting begins Saturday and runs through October 30 at Town Hall; Election Day voting is at the community center, 1500 Union Street). Minutes of September 22 and September 24 (open session) approved 5-0.
Town Manager update: Capital Planning Committee began meeting (community development presented); second round of interviews for the executive assistant; second meeting with the state-provided opioid settlement consultant. Issues and correspondence: a member asked for an update on a stormwater bill that drew complaints; a Bagels with the Board report mentioned drones, the community center alternates (keep any bill low enough to pass town meeting; see Multi-Generational Community Center) and unleashed dogs at a local park (name garbled); announcements on the Westborough Connects calendar, Row for Westborough, a VFW event and the Good Scout dinner on November 4.
Executive session to discuss strategy for collective bargaining with the firefighters' union (the statute citation is garbled in the captions), roll call 5-0, no return to open session.

Sources

Video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cfQ0PMjzZcE

Video

Transcript

These are auto-generated captions; names and numbers may be misheard.

Transcript

02:19Hey.

02:22>> Yeah. Thank

02:47you.

09:09Ready.

09:24Good evening. I bring this meeting of

09:26the Westboro Select Board to order. It

09:28being Tuesday, October 13th after 6:00

09:31p.m.

09:33This meeting is being livereamed and

09:36recorded by Westboro TV. Thank you,

09:38Westbrook TV. And with that, if you are

09:41able, please rise and join us in the

09:43pledge of

09:43>> allegiance.

09:47Allegiance to the flag of the United

09:50States of America and to the flag for it

09:53stands one nation under God,

09:57indivisible, liberty, justice for all.

10:04All right.

10:06Thank you everyone.

10:11With all our meetings, we begin with

10:12open forum. Does anyone here care to

10:15speak at open forum? Yes sir.

10:20>> Um is the standing one?

10:24>> Whichever one you want.

10:25>> Yeah.

10:31>> [laughter]

10:32>> Sounds good.

10:33>> Can everybody hear me?

10:35>> Who's this one?

10:38>> How about that? Oh, yep. Yeah, that is

10:39better.

10:41>> Uh, good evening. Uh, Ro Jane, 17

10:44Piccadilly Way. Thanks for giving us the

10:46opportunity to speak tonight.

10:48I'm here today representing uh Mass Blue

10:51skies and the hundreds soon to be

10:53thousands of Westboro residents

10:55organizing to oppose the Amazon delivery

10:58drone project here in Westboro. Last

11:01week, the planning board continued the

11:03Amazon site plan review so that the ZBA

11:05appeal could be heard on November 2nd.

11:08Uh, this of course clears the path for

11:10you to place a proactive public safety

11:12and public nuisance shield onto the

11:15October 19th special town meeting

11:17warrant. We know that your board is

11:19evaluating a draft developed with town

11:21council and we know that we have also uh

11:24submitted a draft to the select board

11:26which is a public record.

11:29Because we are speaking blind tonight,

11:32we are here to deliver a clear and

11:35urgent message from the voters of

11:36Westboro.

11:38We're not interested in a watered down

11:40bylaw that merely nibbles around the

11:42edges of a multi-billion dollar

11:45corporate delivery drone plan that will

11:47negatively, dramatically, and

11:49inalterably impact the town of Westboro

11:52and its residents for the worse.

11:55We need an article that makes an

11:56automated and commercial aviation grid

11:59next to our homes completely unfeasible

12:01to execute because it inherently creates

12:04a serious public safety risk and

12:07constitutes an ongoing public nuisance.

12:10If the town's if the town council's

12:12draft merely tweaks minor facility

12:14details without establishing absolute

12:16property line boundaries and

12:18protections, it will fail to protect the

12:20town. We strongly urge members of this

12:22board to inject five key pieces of the

12:25regulations and these are reasonable

12:27regulations that were done after a great

12:29deal of due diligence regarding the

12:32possibility of FAA preeemption and also

12:35striking down by the state's AG office.

12:38The first one is an absolute ground

12:40level takeoff and landing location ban

12:43within 500 ft of any residentially zoned

12:47or mixeduse zoned parcel. and not within

12:52500 ft of a public roadway. Number two,

12:55an absolute ground level drop zone ban.

12:58In other words, no cargo or packages

13:01dropped from an unmanned aircraft onto

13:04Westboro properties, which is inherently

13:06unsafe. Number three, a 150 ft

13:11groundbased employee safety zone so that

13:14the landing and takeoff zone on the

13:16Amazon site is 150 ft away from

13:19sidewalks for employees and visitors,

13:22parking lots and employee entrances for

13:24the safety of the employees and

13:26visitors. Number four, a strict property

13:30line acoustic noise cap enforcing a hard

13:33maximum noise limit of 55 dBA during the

13:36day and 45 dBA at night measured

13:38scientifically at the neighbors property

13:40line during landings and takeoffs.

13:43Remember, we're focused on ground

13:44operations, not on flight uh navigation.

13:49And number five, the enforcement

13:50framework. Each violation should be um

13:53met with a $300 fine per violation. Uh

13:57the town's bylaw should formally

13:59authorize the chief of police and select

14:01board to issue violation specific cease

14:03and desist orders for recurrent

14:05violations because of course we all know

14:07that Amazon can easily accept the cost

14:09of $300 per violation. They're a $2.5

14:13trillion company.

14:15And finally, that could all be

14:17backstopped by a temporary restraining

14:19order from Worester Superior Court if

14:21all those uh things failed. Our draft is

14:24meticulously tailored to avoid federal

14:26preeemption from the FAA and any

14:28possible striking down by the H's office

14:31by focusing on ground activities and

14:33regulations where the town does have

14:36jurisdiction. And the regulations focus

14:39specifically on public safety, public

14:42nuisance and noise, not zoning

14:44regulations where general bylaws and

14:47local police powers rule supreme. We

14:50want to resolve this tonight. It is in

14:52the best interest of this board and the

14:54town to adopt our robust loophole-free

14:56language right now. If the warrant

14:59language remains too weak to stop these

15:01delivery drones, our coalition is fully

15:03organized, equipped, and prepared to

15:05introduce our comprehensive texts as a

15:07formal motion to amend directly on town

15:09meeting floor. However, to avoid a

15:12confusing floor battle that divides and

15:14confuses voters, we ask you to show

15:16political courage and bold leadership

15:18tonight to stand with the Westboro

15:20residents and to provide voters with an

15:22article that has teeth and permanently

15:25protects Westboro's residents and local

15:27businesses. Thank you.

15:31>> Thank you.

15:33Next. Yes.

15:46Good evening. I'm James B. I live at 14

15:49Asabet Drive. Just a very brief words to

15:52echo what Rod just outlined. I'd like to

15:54offer my strong support.

15:59Try that again. My strong support for

16:02the draft bylaws submitted by Mass Blue

16:05Skies. Failing the select board's

16:08wholesale adoption of that draft, I

16:10implore the select board to adopt a set

16:12of bylaws that are similar in both

16:15spirit and in language. In other words,

16:17we need bylaws with real teeth. The MBS

16:21draft was carefully crafted and reflects

16:24the nuanced surgical approach that

16:26appropriately balances commercial and

16:28residential interests. Notably, it

16:31provides the town strong governance over

16:34commercial drone operations, including

16:36but not limited to Amazon's proposed

16:38Prime Air program while preserving the

16:40ability of other commercial drone

16:42operations such as real estate and

16:44construction applications to continue to

16:47be conducted in a reasonable fashion.

16:49The MBS draft addresses noise, privacy,

16:53safety, and related concerns. It

16:56includes st strong enforcement measures

16:58in the ability for injunctive relief. It

17:01includes exemptions for first responders

17:03and public safety entities. Just as

17:06important as what is included in the MBS

17:08draft is what is not included. These

17:11bylaws were crafted in a manner to

17:13withstand legal scrutiny, including by

17:16avoiding trying to regulate issues that

17:19are preempted by federal law, such as

17:21the FAA's jurisdiction over drones in

17:24flight.

17:25Also, the MBS draft is not aimed at

17:28Amazon, but rather it thoughtfully

17:30approaches the issue of commercial drone

17:32delivery as a whole. Let's remember that

17:34additional companies are announcing

17:36similar services in real time on an

17:39almost daily basis. I strongly believe

17:42that we have one shot at this. Select

17:45board members, please use the strongest

17:47language possible, such as the draft

17:49bylaws MBS submitted, to protect us

17:51against this invasion of our skies, our

17:53peace, and our community. Thank you very

17:56much.

17:57>> Thank you.

18:02>> Anyone else here for open forum?

18:08Yes.

18:20Joanne Aramini, seven meadow road.

18:23Did you all watch the planning board

18:25meeting last Tuesday?

18:26>> Can you put the microphone

18:28>> better? Thank you. Did you all watch the

18:31planning board meeting last Tuesday,

18:32October 6th? If you didn't, I suggest

18:35that you take a peek at it. Pay

18:37particular attention to the discussion

18:39about the downtown improvement plan and

18:41the rotary destruction. It's very

18:43concerning and I think the public should

18:45take a peek at it as well. There was

18:47also a discussion on open forum. The

18:50policy was revised for the second time

18:52since uh it was first issued on July

18:557th. This revision clarified that open

18:57forum when at the end of a planning

19:00board meeting would not be limited to a

19:03total of 10 minutes or three people. So

19:06that's a good thing. At the last select

19:08board meeting, I had requested town

19:10council send a letter to the planning

19:12board about open forum requirements

19:14which are clearly noted in your own

19:16policy and works very well. As you can

19:19see tonight, I'm not sure if this

19:21followup happened or not, but as I said,

19:23the policy was revised in a positive

19:25way. So I'll give you all the benefit of

19:27the doubt and say thank you for your

19:29leadership on this matter. However, open

19:32forum still remains at the end of a

19:34planning board meeting by choice of the

19:37planning board. At that meeting on the

19:396th, there were a lot of residents that

19:41came to the meeting that wanted to speak

19:43about the drones in open forum. Uh that

19:47meeting was uh almost 4 hours long and I

19:50think open forum did not start until

19:52after 10:00 and a lot of people left and

19:56could not speak. So open form at the end

20:00of a meeting is an obstacle to people

20:04voicing their opinions. And the planning

20:06board can say all they want that they

20:08want to allow people to speak, but their

20:10actions speak

20:13louder than their words. Which brings me

20:15to my last comment and question. There

20:17are some crazy things going on in this

20:19town and they're not good. And we need

20:21to get to the root of why. And I think

20:24that route begins in the charter. And

20:26about a month and a half ago, um, you

20:28know, it's one of your goals to address

20:30the charter this year. And about a month

20:31and a half ago, you had, I believe, had

20:35an action item that said that Ian, town

20:38manager, and John Arnold were going to

20:40get together and

20:43think up some next steps to begin the

20:45review process. And I haven't heard

20:46anything about that yet. And hoping that

20:48you can give us an update tonight. Thank

20:51you.

20:55Thank you. One more. Yes, Kevin.

21:07>> Good evening, members of the board.

21:08Kevin Barry, 8 Indian Pond Road. First,

21:10I want to give a good shout out to

21:11Westboro native Ian Seymour, who is

21:13currently a pitcher on the Tampa Bay Ray

21:15Rays pitching staff in the bullpen. Um

21:18he had an unbelievable season, a great

21:21postseason, was instrumental

21:23unfortunately in my beloved Yanks

21:25getting uh booted out of the series, but

21:26is what it is. Uh Ben Rice did hit a

21:29long long ball with him though, so

21:31fellow West fellow uh Massachusetts

21:33native, but good luck to [snorts] the

21:35season and West Bro native Ian Seymour.

21:37Um couple quick things. First, um again,

21:40I was frustrated and a little

21:41disappointed on the agenda for tonight

21:44that there's no uh agenda item uh

21:46addressing Don Burn conflict of interest

21:49and subsequent other items and issues

21:51specifically with the um his appointment

21:54on the active transportation plan. I've

21:56been requesting this for a number of

21:57different meetings as well as uh member

21:59Marshall has requested this to be an

22:01agenda item and hopefully you with

22:03respectfully put that on agenda item

22:05next week or next meeting. Um, next a

22:08couple things from meetings that you

22:09probably should take a look at. I don't

22:10know if liaison will address this later

22:12on, but first there was a act uh

22:14advisory finance committee meeting on

22:16October 5th on Monday. Um, on that there

22:18was an agenda item fiscal year 25 audit

22:21findings without going into depth. I

22:23think you should take a look at that.

22:25There's three and a half pages worth of

22:27meeting minute notes, but you should

22:28look at that. They did a deeper dive

22:30that was done here at this presentation.

22:32Some more intuitive questions were had

22:33about those findings and about the

22:35audit. So I recommend that you take a

22:37look at it. The other one is as uh

22:39Joanna recommended is the planning board

22:41meeting on uh October 6th. Three

22:43different items or agenda items you

22:44should take a look at. First is the

22:46silver hollow hearing. Um without going

22:49into depth, you should take a look at

22:50that because the way the residents and

22:52the applicant or the um uh developer was

22:55treated is disrespectful. It shouldn't

22:58be treated that way. You should take a

22:59look at how the conversation, the tone

23:00of voice, and the conversations that

23:02were had. It shouldn't happen that way.

23:04Um, obviously Joanne mentioned the

23:05Kimley Horn final report. You're waiting

23:08for the recommendations. They've had

23:09this report since uh July 15th and

23:13basically the excuse that they didn't go

23:15into it further and develop all those

23:17recommendations to you was it was past

23:18their bedtime. They were too tired. This

23:20needs to get taken care of and

23:22unfortunately it's not going to be done

23:23until November 10th because that's their

23:25next meeting but most likely won't occur

23:26then. And last but not least is the uh

23:29open forum discussion. All I can say is

23:31it's discouraging for residents because

23:33there's no reflection of when open forum

23:36is during that meeting and I for one we

23:38stood up at after 10:00 to address the

23:40at open forum. Basically the room was

23:43empty and there were plenty of people at

23:44the beginning that wanted to speak. So

23:45that needs to be addressed. Thank you

23:47for your attention. Bye.

23:49>> Thank you.

23:54Move to item number two in our agenda.

23:56Vote to approve and execute bond

23:58anticipation notes and general

24:00obligation bonds.

24:14Hello.

24:19[clears throat] This is Barbara Walls,

24:20the treasury collector for the town of

24:21Westboro. We're here tonight to sign the

24:25bonds for the ban that we

24:27[clears throat] could

24:29>> Could you just just so we can everyone

24:31can hear?

24:31>> Oh, sorry.

24:32>> Thank you.

24:33>> Uh my name is Barbara Walls, treasur

24:35collector. We're here tonight to have

24:37you sign the bonds for the rollover band

24:40for um the 72,849

24:44$46.91.

24:48Uh we had a bond sale on October 6th. We

24:52had five biders.

24:54Uh we got an interest rate of 4% with a

24:57net interest cost of 3.52.

25:03Uh JP Morgan won the bid.

25:07>> Thank you. And uh you need somebody to

25:10read the full below. Correct.

25:12>> Yes.

25:14>> Before that, any questions?

25:18Um just a really question for Christie

25:22or for John. Uh in our packet there was

25:24a note about timing

25:26an adjustment of timing. Could you

25:29clarify? I wasn't sure.

25:33>> Sure. Are you referring to the October

25:34borrowing now?

25:35>> Yeah.

25:36>> March. So we previously were borrowing

25:39in March which uh created a difficulty

25:42with budgeting as you know because at

25:45the December we didn't know what the

25:47next year's debt budget would be. We're

25:50always estimating relative to what the

25:52interest rate would be. So we discussed

25:54it and decided to move it to October. So

25:57our last borrow in March was for six

25:59months and then we went out to borrow

26:02again moving it to October. So it will

26:04continue to be October to October which

26:07allow us now we have our debt budget for

26:10fiscal 28. So when we put it in the debt

26:13in the budget books it will be actuals

26:15not estimates.

26:16>> Thank you John. Appreciate it.

26:19You have in front of you, by the way, um

26:21five documents uh in order. You have the

26:25note, the vote, the statement of no

26:28litigation and official statement, the

26:31tax certificate, and the significant

26:33events disclosure document. We've uh put

26:36them in I tried to move the signature

26:38pages to the front to minimize uh the

26:41flipping of pages. And you'll find that

26:43there are two copies for every

26:45signature, please. Sean, would you like

26:47me to read the vote? Oh,

26:48>> you want to go ahead? Sure. Go right

26:50ahead.

26:51>> I just had one quick question if I can,

26:53Sean. Yeah.

26:53>> Um, so I just wanted to understand, was

26:55the um was the rate determined um before

26:58or after the latest Fed change on

27:01September 16th?

27:03>> It was after

27:04>> and I'll just mention that we did we get

27:06par results from other communities that

27:09have gone up monthly and we received

27:11other communities just after this. The

27:13lowest other community was 3.8. 8 and

27:16there were as high as 4.4

27:19uh for comm there was two communities

27:21that were well above four that were not

27:24AAA rated. So um and then the wreck that

27:27we just recently borrowed for was a

27:29five.

27:30>> So it's definitely impacted interest

27:33rates the the current environment

27:35economic environment.

27:36>> Yeah, that's great to hear. Thank you.

27:40>> Okay. I the clerk of the select board of

27:46Oh, there we go. I'm right here.

27:49>> Yep.

27:50>> Okay. We hereby determine Is that where

27:52I'm going?

27:53>> Yes.

27:53>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You want to read

27:55it? [laughter]

27:56Okay. We hereby determine in accordance

27:58with general law chapter 70B that the

28:00cost of fail school construction and

28:02feasibility study projects authorized by

28:04vote of the town passed on March 16,

28:072019 article 21 being financed with the

28:10proceeds of a portion of the bonds

28:12defined below together with all the

28:14bonds and the notes of the town

28:16previously issued to pay costs of those

28:18projects. These projects does not exceed

28:20the portion of the total cost of the

28:22projects that is not being paid by the

28:24school facilities grants.

28:26And we Oh, sorry. And we hereby approve

28:30the issuance of notes and bonds to

28:32finance these projects under general law

28:34chapter 70B. further voted to approve

28:36the sale of 72,846,691

28:41at 4% general obligation bond

28:43anticipated notes known as the notes of

28:46the town dated October 27, 2026 and

28:50payable October 27, 2027 to JP Morgan

28:54Securities LLC at par and acred interest

28:57if any plus a premium of $348,000

29:0193565.

29:04Further vote that in connection with the

29:06marketing and sale of the notes, the

29:07preparation and distribution of a notice

29:09of sale and preliminary official

29:11statement dated September 29, 2026 and a

29:14final official statement dated October

29:176, 2026. Each in such form may be

29:20approved by the town treasurer be hereby

29:22are ratified, confirmed, approved, and

29:24adopted.

29:26further voted that the town treasurer

29:27and the select board be and hereby are

29:30authorized to execute and deliver

29:31significant events disclosure

29:33undertaking in compliance with SEC rule

29:3615C2-12

29:38in such form as may be approved by bond

29:40council to the town which undertaking

29:43shall be incorporated by reference in

29:44the notes for the benefit of the holders

29:46of the notes from time to time. further

29:49voted that we authorize and direct the

29:50town treasurer to establish

29:51postisssuance federal tax compliance

29:53procedures and and continuing disclosure

29:56procedures in such forms as the town

29:58treasurer and bond council deems

30:00sufficient

30:02or if such procedures are currently in

30:04place to review and update said

30:06procedures in order to monitor and

30:08maintain the tax exempt status of the

30:09notes and to comply with relevant

30:11securities laws. further voted that any

30:14certificates or documents related to the

30:16notes collectively the documents may be

30:18executed in several counterparts each of

30:21which shall be regarded as an original

30:22and all of which shall constitute one in

30:24the same document. Delivery of an

30:26executed counterpart of a signature page

30:29to page to a document by electronic mail

30:31in a PDF file or by other electronic

30:34transmission shall be as effective as

30:37delivery as a manually executed

30:38counterpart signature page to such

30:41document and signatures of any of the

30:43documents shall be deemed original

30:45signatures for the purpose of the

30:47documents and all matters relating there

30:49too having the same legal effect as

30:51original signatures.

30:53further voted that each member of the

30:54select board, the town clerk and the

30:56town treasurer be and hereby are

30:58authorized to take any and all such

30:59actions and execute and deliver such

31:01certificates, receipts, or other

31:02documents as may be determined by them

31:06or any of them to be necessary or

31:08convenient to carry into effect the

31:09provisions of the foregoing votes.

31:11>> Second.

31:13>> Right. Thank you. Any questions? All

31:16those in favor?

31:18Five to zero. Thank you very much.

31:22signing

31:41four.

31:57That's okay.

32:08All

32:24right.

32:26Thank you. Um, so item number three,

32:29warrant for the 2026 state election. Um,

32:32we're going to pass over that until

32:34later. Our town clerk is currently

32:36across the street doing the civic

32:39leadership academy. So, she will be

32:41stopping over later and we'll we'll pick

32:43that item up at that point.

32:45>> Do we have to read that into the record,

32:46too?

32:48>> Uh, no.

32:51So, we'll move to item number four, the

32:54permission to place items on the Rotary

32:56for Veterans Day.

32:59Thank you again to Janet Clark who was

33:02requested to a dist install a display uh

33:06in the hor horse trough um for Veterans

33:10Day and uh I I'm sure everybody's

33:13familiar with it. She does a tremendous

33:15job on both Memorial Day and Veterans

33:17Day each year. Um any questions,

33:21concerns? Somebody want to make the

33:22motion?

33:24>> Sure. I'll move to approve for the the

33:26installation of a Veterans Day poppy

33:28display in the Rotary from May 18th.

33:32>> Nope. Nope. Not in the room.

33:33>> No.

33:34>> Oh, this says May. Sorry.

33:35>> Yeah.

33:36>> Is it October 18th?

33:38>> It is. [clears throat]

33:39>> No, it's November

33:40>> November

33:41>> 11th is Do we know the dates?

33:43>> Yeah, it's in the

33:45>> that she wants

33:45>> her email.

33:47>> Sorry.

33:52I guess it's I shouldn't say in the

33:54road. We'll just say

33:57Veterans Day poppy display because it's

33:58adjacent

33:59>> as requested

34:00>> November 4th to 11th.

34:02>> Okay. So, move to approve the

34:03installation of a a Veterans Day poppy

34:06display as requested from November 4th

34:09to November

34:11>> 11th.

34:12>> Second.

34:14>> All right. Questions? All those in

34:15favor? Five to zero? Miss. Clark. Thank

34:18you very much.

34:23Um item number five, easements for Route

34:259 uh water main improvement project

34:29including uh there are seven listed

34:31here.

34:37Um they've all been executed by the

34:40property owners and now ready for our

34:41approval

34:43um and execution by the board.

34:47Let's see. These were um authorized

34:50during the uh March annual town meeting

34:53of 2024.

34:56>> Would you like a motion?

34:57>> Yes, please.

34:58>> Okay. I would move pursuant to article

35:0012D of the 2024 annual TW meeting to

35:03accept and execute the grants of

35:04temporary easement for the properties at

35:07293 Turnpike Road, 295 Turnpike Road,

35:11297 Turnpike Road, 300 Turnpike Road,

35:14306 Turnpike Road, 330 to Turnpike Road,

35:18and 64 Otis Street.

35:20>> Second.

35:22>> Any questions?

35:24All those in favor? All right. five to

35:27zero.

35:28Thank you to our Department of Public

35:30Works.

35:32Um item number six, the establishment of

35:35a civic gift account. So this is a

35:39precursor to an item that is on our uh

35:42fall town meeting warrant related to the

35:45250th anniversary committee. And this is

35:49the gift account that those funds would

35:51be transferred into if approved at fall

35:55town meeting. Uh questions from anyone?

36:00Motion?

36:01>> Go ahead. I would move to establish a

36:04civic gift account to be expended under

36:06the direction of the recreation director

36:08for the purposes of supporting and

36:10funding costs associated with holding

36:11civic events.

36:12>> Seconded.

36:14>> Okay. All those in favor?

36:16five to zero. Okay, thank you very much.

36:21Item number seven,

36:25two new job descriptions for the board's

36:27review. One is um both of these or one

36:32of these within the DPW and one within

36:34our regional dispatch.

36:37Um

36:41one of those being a a new position. Um,

36:45do you want to write a little background

36:47on

36:47>> Kim? Can speak to that. Sure.

36:49>> Thank you very much.

36:49>> Um, we can start with the the existing

36:53position within the DPW. It's currently

36:57a utility billing position. Um, the

37:00exist it is an existing full-time

37:02position. The incumbent will be retiring

37:04at the end of the calendar year. So, as

37:07we do, we reviewed the job description

37:10and particularly in light of the

37:12expansion of our utilities with storm

37:15water. Um, and just some additional

37:17complexities, the job description was

37:20updated to include responsibilities that

37:23the position is currently taking on and

37:25some new things that have been added

37:26with the expansion of the utilities.

37:29So, the position will remain a full-time

37:31position. It is a union position and our

37:34intention would be the new job

37:35description goes into effect when the

37:39incumbent retires and we fill the

37:41vacancy.

37:44It does result in an increase in the pay

37:46grade. Um based on using our factor and

37:49evaluating it relative to other union

37:51positions, it is proposed to increase on

37:53the pay scale. We believe that we've had

37:57conversation with um DVW director and

38:00they're able to absorb that in their

38:02current budget.

38:06>> Right. And I imagine although the

38:08current position is a lower pay scale,

38:10the individual has been in there for a

38:12while, so it's at a higher step.

38:15>> You are correct.

38:16>> Okay. Uh questions regarding that job

38:20description.

38:23I think just a as a general question,

38:25Kim, um it's a it's a change of three

38:29steps. Um I don't know how how common

38:34that is. Obviously, we've looked at

38:37that. I'm not really sure what my

38:38question is. It's just it was a little

38:39surprising to go from 10 to 13. Um

38:45[clears throat and snorts] we don't use

38:47the other We have positions classified

38:50at grade 10. We have positions

38:51classified at grade 13. We don't have

38:53anything at the other classifications.

38:56>> Okay.

38:57>> Frankly, it's likely a function of us

38:59needing to look at that scale and

39:00upgrade it.

39:01>> I got it. Okay.

39:02>> But where it fits in terms of both the

39:04pay and the responsibilities would be

39:06N13.

39:08>> Okay.

39:11>> Yeah. Thank you uh Kim for presenting

39:13this. Um my question is around um just

39:17the additional workload. It's a

39:18significant um as the edits show in the

39:21uh job description, there's a

39:23significant changes in the description

39:25of the position to clarify what they're

39:26currently doing plus this additional uh

39:29workload. I'm just curious, this is a

39:3130hour position versus a 40-hour

39:33position. What do you anticipate or what

39:36is the anticipation in regards to the

39:37addition the additional workload? Will

39:40the individual, regardless of the N10 to

39:42N13 pay scale increase, be able to

39:45handle this additional workload? And if

39:48not, should this position be considered

39:50for a full 40 hours?

39:54>> Um, this is what was proposed by the

39:56department, so I'm going to rely on what

39:58they submitted.

40:00>> Okay, that's good to hear. Um, and then

40:03Shelby, your question was the same as my

40:05other question. That's all. Thank you.

40:08>> All right. Um guess we can do these both

40:11at the same time maybe. Um do you want

40:13to go through the second one?

40:16>> Y

40:17>> sure. The second position um is a it's a

40:21new position. Um, but I will remind the

40:23board that this would add effectively

40:26add back adds back a position that our

40:29office had to support positions

40:33um until we had the budget reductions

40:35with the start of fiscal year 20

40:406 in July 2025. Um, the management

40:44analyst position was one that was

40:46eliminated as a full-time position. we

40:49retained uh some funds to convert that

40:53to an internship type of position. Um

40:56those funds are currently available for

40:58this fiscal year because we have not

41:00hired anyone into that role. But as we

41:04have um

41:06the workload really necessitates having

41:09a second person in the office. Um in the

41:12responsibilities you've seen this is

41:15much of the administrative support work.

41:18We have um licensing coming up. There

41:21are a number of things that are more

41:23administrative in nature that we

41:26anticipate this position taking on. And

41:29then we would retain the executive

41:31assistant role to um I think as you saw

41:34with our um when Amanda was here that

41:38took on some more project and some other

41:42things like taking on civic leadership

41:44academy we were able to restore it. So,

41:47we think that having those two positions

41:49would allow us to restore some of the

41:51things, return to the um regular

41:54production of the newsletter. There's a

41:56lot of communication that would then um

41:59sit with the executive assistant role.

42:02Um and just some additional support with

42:05um traffic into the office, uh

42:08responding to phone calls, emails,

42:10things that um we've had some really

42:12good insight into what that workload is

42:14uh given that it's been vacant for the

42:16past uh six weeks.

42:20>> And additionally, this um is supporting

42:23or proposed to support the wreck, the

42:25regional emergency communication center.

42:27Just so at this point we are um

42:30anticipating about 15 hours of the

42:32position. It's 40 proposes 40 hours with

42:35about 15 hours a week being supported by

42:37the wreck. Um Christy can speak more to

42:40that. They haven't formally approved

42:41that but they have indicated support for

42:44doing so. Again the wreck has its own

42:46board of directors. They have meetings.

42:48They have administrative workload as

42:50they're going through the project and

42:51the grant um grant reporting

42:54requirements. this position would pick

42:56up some of that administrative uh

42:58function.

42:58>> Yeah. And Christie, how would the budget

43:00be? How how does the budget get

43:02reconciled given that um workload that

43:05would fall under the wreck? Is it

43:07similar to like kind of some of our IMA

43:09agreements like where we have [sighs]

43:12um shared responsibility to re be

43:16reimbursed?

43:17>> Yeah. So, the wreck would pay um would

43:20pay the 15 hours a week for the

43:21position. I think as we get into

43:24construction, we might re need to

43:26re-evaluate that because I think this

43:27position might do a little bit more work

43:29potentially and also help the executive

43:32director um go through the interview

43:34process as an example when they're

43:35trying to staff up. So um I think it's

43:39important to understand that there's

43:40definitely an there's an offset now of

43:4215 hours. There might be a bigger offset

43:44as we look at fiscal 28, but but

43:47eventually the wreck will have its own

43:49administrative assistant position

43:51probably sitting at the Harvey building

43:54and we would hope to retain this

43:55full-time position. So, just one thing

43:58to add is that um we've we've had two

44:00executive assistants leave since we've

44:02reduced the staff level and that's one

44:05item that's been identified as a reason.

44:10>> Thank you.

44:12Final comment. Um, in your packet,

44:14>> you just speak in the microphone.

44:15Thanks.

44:16>> In the packet, um, we have a different

44:19title. We'd actually propose that the

44:21position be titled office uh,

44:24coordinator instead of administrator.

44:27Office and um, I'm sorry, office

44:30assistant.

44:33Office and um,

44:35>> regional dispatch.

44:36>> Regional dispatch assistant.

44:41And so I just noted I'm sorry

44:44>> just say that. So right in our packet

44:46says administrator you want to be

44:48assistant though.

44:52>> Okay.

44:54>> My question was around the reports too

44:56which is the fields blank right now. Um

44:59how do you anticipate the reporting

45:01structure to be work for this?

45:02>> That was just an error on my part. It's

45:04me.

45:04>> It's you. Okay.

45:08>> Yes. Yeah, I I just had a comment is

45:10that um I think it's um important that

45:13we add this um position back. It's

45:16something that I've received

45:18[clears throat] numerous comments of

45:19folks that have been concerned because

45:20of lack of coverage in the select board

45:23and town manager's office. And I know

45:25that at times we've had the town manager

45:28or the assistant town manager sitting at

45:30the desk as a and answering phone calls

45:32as a role that has been played by an

45:35executive assistant or the

45:36administrator. So I I know we all voted

45:39to do it in times of budget need, but I

45:42think we've seen um the impacts of that

45:45gap. So I am fully supportive of this

45:47and I think um it's important for the

45:49community to provide that service.

45:51>> We've also had a big increase in public

45:54records requests with that which that

45:56position is responsible for. So we've

45:59received about 200 in over the last year

46:01which is significantly more. and we used

46:03to get maybe one a month.

46:07>> Yes.

46:08>> Yeah. I'll echo everything you said,

46:09Ian, and I'll just add another comment

46:10that I think it's incredibly important

46:12that we have a nice um continuity

46:15between the town manager's office, our

46:17office, as well as the new wreck. And I

46:19think this will help that foster that as

46:22well. So, um thank you, Kim, for putting

46:24this together, and I look forward to the

46:25position being filled.

46:28>> Just Oh, quick question. Yeah, just a um

46:32so it's supporting the wreck. Once the

46:34wreck is fully up and running, then what

46:37happens?

46:38>> So the wreck would have its own

46:40full-time administrative assistant, I

46:42expect, and then we would hope to retain

46:44our own position. As far as the

46:46individual that we hire, I think it

46:48would probably be up to them.

46:50It would have to figure out that that

46:52time whether or not they moved to the

46:53wreck and then we filled or vice versa.

46:56This position would then just sort of

46:58stop being partly supported by the W,

47:01>> right? It would be fully supported by

47:02the town.

47:03>> Okay, got it.

47:04>> Would that come back in for another job

47:06description?

47:07>> I don't Well, I I guess we would have to

47:09amend the job description to remove the

47:11wreck responsibilities.

47:12>> Okay.

47:12>> Yeah. Okay.

47:13>> Thank you.

47:14>> Uh you had mentioned in the beginning

47:16that this um we previously had the

47:18management analyst position. I didn't we

47:21don't have a red line in our packet. So,

47:23are we pulling forward some of those

47:26responsibilities from that?

47:28[clears throat] No, we're not. It seems

47:30very administrative.

47:31>> It's very administrative. Okay. Yes. Um,

47:33some of the management analyst uh

47:36responsibilities

47:37went into that executive assistant

47:39position that you approved less

47:41>> and the projects that Kim was

47:43referencing kind of. Okay. Thank you.

47:44>> Yeah. This this to me reminds me of what

47:46we previously

47:48>> previously had as a position

47:52>> years ago.

47:52>> Yeah. So, we used to have two at the

47:54same level. Now, the executive assistant

47:56would be a little bit higher.

48:01Would

48:01>> like motion?

48:02>> Yes, please. So I would move to approve

48:05the utility analyst job description as

48:07presented and to classify the position

48:08at grade N13

48:11and further move to approve the office

48:14and regional dispatch assistant position

48:18as presented and to classify the

48:20position on the non-UN plan at

48:25grade H2. Did I get that right?

48:27>> Grade two. Yes.

48:28>> Second.

48:29>> Grade two.

48:30>> Okay. Any further questions?

48:32>> Oh, just a comment. it. And it says in

48:35the description, grade H2.

48:38Is that a typo?

48:40>> We'll correct it.

48:41>> Okay. I just want to make sure I wasn't.

48:43>> So, it is grade two in the motion is

48:45correct. Okay. Thanks.

48:48All right. We have a motion and a

48:49second. All those in favor?

48:51>> Five to zero. Thank you very much. Thank

48:53you, Kim.

48:57Okay. Item number eight, discussion of

49:00proposed insurance change for retirey

49:03health plans. And I think

49:05>> Mr. Chair, I'm going to recuse myself as

49:07a result of my wife being a employee of

49:09the town. Um, so I'll step away from the

49:12dis.

49:12>> Yeah. Thank you, Patrick.

49:24I'm just going to see if I can project

50:03Um,

50:07got it. So, in your packet, you have

50:10some materials. What I wanted to preview

50:13tonight, and this is to start the

50:15discussion um in anticipation of asking

50:17the board to make a decision at your

50:19meeting on the 27th around retiree

50:23health insurance renewals or our

50:24Medicare plan renewals, which renew on

50:27January 1st of every year. So, you may

50:30remember we had some discussion last

50:32year. We had a significant increase in

50:34our premium and we had identified um

50:38several options of things that we

50:40required further research and

50:42exploration but things that could be

50:45changed in our plan design that could

50:48benefit both the retiree the subscriber

50:51as well as the um town because we pay

50:55the town pays 75% of the retiree

50:58premium. So, working with our

51:00consultant, they

51:02>> can you just raise that? Sorry. Nice and

51:04tall.

51:04>> I feel like I'm live. Okay,

51:06>> that's much.

51:07>> So, we had um our consultant received a

51:10quote from our current carrier for our

51:13most um populated plan, which is a

51:16Medicare supplement plan through Blue

51:18Cross Blue Shield. We have approximately

51:21we hover around 575

51:24subscribers on that plan. We offer

51:27Fallon and TUS plans but they have much

51:29smaller I think one is a handful one may

51:32have 19 subscribers. So the most

51:35significant in terms of enroles and cost

51:37both to the subscriber and the town is

51:40the Medicare supplement plan.

51:43So our renewal for the plan as is from

51:46Blue Cross is approximately a 10%

51:49premium increase.

51:52We also went out to Harvard Pilgrim.

51:55They quoted the same plan design. It's

51:58around a 4% increase.

52:01Blue Cross Blue Shield also provided a

52:03quote for a plan that results in

52:06significant savings to both the

52:08employee, the retiree, and the town by

52:12making changes on strictly the Medicare

52:15p the prescription

52:17side of the plan. So in your packet you

52:20had a table which I have up on the

52:23screen that shows the current plan

52:27structure where we have a three tier

52:30prescription plan and as you may recall

52:33this is a change the 35%

52:37uh co- insurance was added at the

52:39beginning of this calendar year.

52:43If we continue with that, that results

52:45in the approximate 10% increase across

52:49both the medical component and the

52:51prescription component. The alternative

52:54that was uh quoted results in

52:57significant savings and it changes the

53:01prescription from a three tier to a five

53:04tier plan.

53:06It introduces cost sharing at the the

53:09co- insurance at the third tier at 17%.

53:13There's a 35% and then a 25% cost share

53:17on the specialty drugs.

53:20We also would move to no cost sharing

53:23for the preferred generic drugs.

53:26The piece that this does introduce that

53:28we don't currently have is the $700

53:32deductible for prescriptions.

53:35However, the reduction in premium would

53:39yield approximately a 654 savings to the

53:43employee. So, you're weighing the

53:46reduced premium for some individuals who

53:49don't have uh heavy prescription,

53:53don't bear a lot of the prescription

53:55cost, they potentially save money. other

53:59individuals may break even. And then

54:02similar to what exists today, there is

54:05actually a cap on the out-of- pocket

54:07prescription expense. Uh the current

54:09year it's set at 2100. It goes up to

54:122400 in calendar year 27. That's not set

54:16by the town. That's not set by the plan.

54:17That's set by um Medicare.

54:20So there is some protection there as

54:22well. So, you're potentially increasing

54:26um

54:28you're you're adding a deductible that

54:31doesn't exist today, but you're um let

54:34me jump to

54:37uh you're saving approximately $654

54:41per subscriber in premiums. And there

54:45are some safety nets for individuals who

54:48may find themselves, it's human

54:49condition, things happen, they may have

54:51a um higher uh prescription expense and

54:56they would be capped at $2,400.

54:59Um in the lower right hand side of this

55:03slide, it shows what our current

55:05utilization has been on our current

55:07three tier plan. And you'll see that

55:10about 70% of the prescriptions um are do

55:14fall in tier one. So those are likely to

55:16fall in the lower tiers. So potentially

55:19no cost or low cost if we move to the

55:23new uh structure.

55:27Um one of the things we will do is have

55:31a conversation with the insurance

55:32advisory committee. We are scheduling a

55:34meeting next week. While they are not

55:37required to um to weigh in or you're the

55:41board is not required to negotiate uh

55:43retiree changes with the unions, we have

55:46historically shared the information with

55:49the insurance advisory committee which

55:51is our union representatives as well as

55:53a retiree representative and then

55:55brought any of their concerns or

55:57feedback back to the board for your

56:00consideration when you ultimately make a

56:02decision. So what we envision at this

56:04point, we'll have the conversation with

56:06the insurance advisory committee next

56:07week and then we'll come back on the

56:0927th and ask the board to uh make a

56:14decision. Uh at this point the

56:16recommendations uh from both from our

56:18advisor is to adopt the five tier plan.

56:23Um we did ask Harvard Pilgrim to quote

56:26this plan. they did um and there was not

56:29any savings over the way our current

56:32plan is structured and they went back

56:34and confirmed that that was correct and

56:36they said yes they just they can't they

56:38couldn't be competitive what blue with

56:40what Blue Cross Blue Shield offered.

56:43So, my uh intention tonight was to

56:46introduce this. You had some materials

56:47in your packet to get a sense if you

56:49have any um questions that I can take

56:52back to our consultant. Um things that

56:54we can be prepared to have answered or

56:57discuss when we meet when you meet on

56:59the 27th.

57:03>> Thank you, Kim. Uh questions.

57:10Oh, so the $700 deductible, that's

57:15that's not per prescription. That's just

57:18per subs

57:20per patient.

57:21>> Correct.

57:22>> Okay.

57:22>> Per subscriber. The Medicare plans are

57:24per subscriber. So if it's a if it's

57:27spouses, there's two plans and that's

57:29per individual.

57:31>> Well, that's a good thing. Um, so my big

57:35concern with this, I love that we're

57:37saving the town money, obviously. Um,

57:40and I think it's good that we're saving

57:42most, you know, 75 70% I think you said.

57:47Um,

57:48>> 70% of the drugs prescribed over the

57:50past 12 months have been in tier one of

57:52the current plan. So, they've been the

57:55um, right now they're the $10 co-ay

57:57generics. I I guess we're saving a lot

58:01of the retirees money, but the retirees

58:03that are heav heavily using

58:05prescriptions would not see really any

58:08savings. And I just would like to see a

58:10way for us to save everybody money cuz I

58:13feel like

58:16I'm not sure how fair that is. I got to

58:18think about that.

58:19>> The ones who have heavy prescription

58:21costs do have the protection. Their

58:23their out-of- pocket maximum is present

58:26day 2100. that will go up to 2400 next

58:30year. So, anyone who has exorbitant

58:33costs, prescription costs, once you hit

58:362400, they've reached their out-of-

58:38pocket maximum and they no longer have

58:41those out-of- pocket payments.

58:43>> And that's on either plan.

58:44>> That's on either plan. And today we know

58:48um I think we had about

58:51about 10% of our subscribers this

58:55calendar year have hit that $2,100

58:59out-ofpocket maximum

59:09>> question. Um,

59:12if I'm reading this, although it went

59:14going from three tier to five tier right

59:16now, our first tier, that tier one is

59:18$10 they pay in many cases that will go

59:21to zero that they will pay in this new

59:23one or it could go to $3. So either of

59:26those is saving them

59:29>> correct

59:30>> money and that was where the 70%

59:33of ours are on

59:34>> correct

59:35>> the tier one.

59:37And some of those those would still be

59:39subject to the deductible, but when you

59:42look at many of the prescriptions that

59:44are in those, it may be a couple of

59:46dollars.

59:53And just just one thing I want to note

59:56if um I circled the prescription portion

1:00:00of the table, but our medical portion of

1:00:04the Medicare plan does not have a

1:00:07deductible.

1:00:11This only applies to prescription. We

1:00:13haven't proposed adding one. So it

1:00:16continues to be a very rich plan even

1:00:18with the um moving to the five tier and

1:00:22adding the deductible.

1:00:24This is a very rich plan.

1:00:28There are no um

1:00:33there are no

1:00:35inpatient co-pays. There are things

1:00:38listed at the top that you'll see. There

1:00:40are some co-pays under the Fallon um

1:00:43plan that don't exist under the

1:00:45supplement plan.

1:00:53>> I may have missed it, but how many of

1:00:55the 573 members are currently hitting

1:01:00>> 58

1:01:01>> the 700 10%? So 58

1:01:06>> are hitting

1:01:06>> and we're are hitting

1:01:08>> we're estimated savings of a

1:01:10>> are hitting the $700

1:01:12>> hitting the 2100.

1:01:13>> Oh, they're hitting the 2100.

1:01:15>> They're hitting the 21. They're hitting

1:01:16the out of pocket.

1:01:17>> That $700 would affect them the 58 or

1:01:20would it affect more? Some of

1:01:22>> some people I assume aren't hitting the

1:01:242100 but would be affected by the

1:01:27deductible.

1:01:28>> So maybe double that. I I can ask our

1:01:32consultant if they can provide.

1:01:33>> Reason I say that is

1:01:35>> even if we paid

1:01:38that deductible for all 573

1:01:41members, it would only be $400,000 and

1:01:43we're saving a million.

1:01:46>> A little bit less than that potentially

1:01:48if our numbers stay roughly comparable.

1:01:52>> Okay, I'm I'm going to leave it alone

1:01:54for now.

1:01:55>> You're what? Mark, I didn't hear you.

1:01:59I didn't hear the last comment.

1:02:00>> Even if we paid I said I'm going to

1:02:02leave it alone for now. We're not voting

1:02:03on anything tonight. So I just

1:02:08>> I just don't like the fact that some

1:02:10people are getting all these savings and

1:02:11some people on some of our retirees are

1:02:13not getting any savings.

1:02:16>> I guess it it's hard to say at this

1:02:18point, right? So if you are if right now

1:02:22if you're hitting the maximum so if

1:02:24you're in that 10%

1:02:27you're paying 21 now currently it's 2100

1:02:31um in next year be 2400 so potentially

1:02:35those folks would also be hitting the

1:02:372400

1:02:39but they would be paying 700 less

1:02:43in their monthly

1:02:44>> correct

1:02:45>> charges. So the net would be $1,700.

1:02:51>> So So if you're hitting the maximum,

1:02:54you're saving $700 next year, right?

1:02:58It's I guess it's those who aren't

1:03:00hitting the maximum,

1:03:03but whose um prescription costs may be

1:03:06going up. The question is, do they go up

1:03:09more than 7? you like if they're paying

1:03:11a th000 and they're 2,000 next year then

1:03:14potentially

1:03:17that's costing you an extra $300. I

1:03:19guess it's so it's hard to determine but

1:03:23I think it's a it's hopefully a smaller

1:03:26it's a small subset.

1:03:31>> Okay.

1:03:34Yes. Um can I know it's not in the

1:03:37prescription but if I look

1:03:39above and maybe just help me explain it.

1:03:42So

1:03:43for the regular healthcare the out of

1:03:45pocket maximum

1:03:47right [clears throat] now is 3400

1:03:50and for this one is none.

1:03:52>> Where are you? I'm on line

1:03:57out of pocket maximum sum of co-pays

1:04:00up above just above the uh yellow circle

1:04:03here.

1:04:07Does that mean under this plan that

1:04:11there is no

1:04:14out-ofpocket maximum? If we go here,

1:04:18>> um, if you look at the plan design, look

1:04:20above that, there are no out-ofpocket

1:04:23costs for any of those. I it from

1:04:26there's no deductible. Um,

1:04:30there are no inpatient co-pays,

1:04:32outpatient co-pays, the routine care.

1:04:36Um, so if you look at everything listed,

1:04:40there are no out-ofpocket costs

1:04:42associated with any of it. So

1:04:43>> it's none. None because it's zero and

1:04:45that's all on the medical side above

1:04:47there.

1:04:48>> Yeah.

1:04:50>> Correct.

1:04:51>> Okay. Thank you.

1:04:56>> Whereas if you continue where you have

1:04:58the 3,400 and if you look above there

1:05:00are a number of categories that have out

1:05:03of pocket have co-pays.

1:05:10>> Okay. So, so our expectation is the

1:05:12majority of retirees

1:05:15benefit from this plan.

1:05:18>> We believe so with the understanding

1:05:20that it is sometimes hard to predict

1:05:23what happens with the human condition.

1:05:25So there will be certainly will be some

1:05:28individuals who may find themselves with

1:05:31higher costs but as for many individuals

1:05:35they will benefit.

1:05:40One of the other things the plan is also

1:05:43able to do is to help where there are

1:05:46out-ofpocket

1:05:48expenses um or out-of- pocket costs

1:05:51related to prescriptions.

1:05:53um they're able to direct people how to

1:05:56get some of the rebates or reduced cost

1:05:59when you go to the pharmacist. There are

1:06:01a lot of ways to reduce those costs and

1:06:03they've been trying to work with

1:06:05individuals to help them to inform them

1:06:08and make them aware of that.

1:06:13>> Any other questions?

1:06:15>> Yeah, have a couple. Thanks. Um so

1:06:17thanks for bringing this forward Kim and

1:06:19for the um various information points

1:06:23here in our packet. Just to go back to,

1:06:26you said initially Harvard Pilgrim

1:06:28offered a 4%

1:06:30premium savings, but then you said when

1:06:32we asked them to go look back at it,

1:06:34they couldn't compete with what Blue

1:06:38Cross was offering in this um what we're

1:06:40referring to as the

1:06:43um

1:06:45modified

1:06:47pharmacy plan. Can you explain that?

1:06:51their costs.

1:06:54>> Initially you said they were 4% less

1:06:56than Blue Cross, but then something

1:06:58chang

1:06:58>> the current plan design change. So if if

1:07:01we move to Harvard Pilgrim and stayed

1:07:04with the current plan design change,

1:07:06which is the lefth hand column,

1:07:07>> okay,

1:07:08>> they're pre it would be about a 4%

1:07:10increase.

1:07:11>> Okay,

1:07:13>> they would not be competitive. If you

1:07:16look at basically the second column in

1:07:17the table, their um

1:07:22their cost was around $180 per month for

1:07:26the prescription portion

1:07:29>> and that drops down to I think it's

1:07:31$25$26

1:07:32under the Blue Cross plan.

1:07:35So I think for comparison purposes if I

1:07:38were the uh in advisory council I would

1:07:43want to see that information as

1:07:46because we're sort of if we don't

1:07:48include it we're eliminating it even as

1:07:50a consideration.

1:07:51So because we could kind of offer a Blue

1:07:54Cross Medex current Harvard Pilgrim

1:07:58like but at a 4% savings. So I think

1:08:02that that should be

1:08:04visible. Um so that would be one

1:08:07suggestion. Um the other um couple

1:08:12questions I had and I'm not asking you

1:08:14to to include it but if we could get

1:08:16this information it may be helpful to

1:08:18the advisory council as well. Um

1:08:21uh one is the

1:08:25um the projection

1:08:28projections of based on current um

1:08:32pharmacy utilization

1:08:35impacted by the changing of the tiers in

1:08:37this new plan.

1:08:40So we have our current utilization.

1:08:44Again, we never know how formularies are

1:08:45going to change yearover-year, but well,

1:08:47actually, this tells us what those

1:08:48formularies are, right? And

1:08:50>> these are Medicare. Uh, yes,

1:08:54>> because these tiers, so the tier um

1:08:57preferred brand, non-preferred, and

1:08:59specialty

1:09:01beneath those headers, Blue Cross

1:09:04already knows what meds are in there,

1:09:06right? So, I'd like to see of the

1:09:10current utilization for 2026,

1:09:14what meds like the the comparison of

1:09:18what ones are going to be kicked into a

1:09:20lower or higher tier and what is the

1:09:23approximate

1:09:25um cost per

1:09:29just think about how I want to see this.

1:09:32Um,

1:09:35I don't know if we can see both cost per

1:09:38prescription difference as well as cost

1:09:42per subscriber difference because, you

1:09:45know, you could have one subscriber

1:09:47receiving several different expensive

1:09:50medications.

1:09:51>> Correct.

1:09:52>> So, I' I'd like to be able to see it

1:09:54both ways. the difference in the cost

1:09:56per prescription as we move into those

1:09:58tiers as well as the cost per subscriber

1:10:02with those changes.

1:10:05Um I think this was already asked but

1:10:08just to layer on to that um

1:10:10understanding how many individuals based

1:10:13on current utilization would hit the

1:10:15$700 deductible

1:10:19based on current utilization.

1:10:22How many in this new plan would hit that

1:10:23number? I think that would be helpful to

1:10:25actually see. I don't think we, you

1:10:28know, we see the 20 2100 representing

1:10:3110%, but we don't know. We're sort of

1:10:33guessing how many would hit that 700.

1:10:38Um,

1:10:40and I have one more question. Trying to

1:10:41understand my scribbling here. Um

1:10:51um

1:11:00oh um

1:11:03so we have in the green uh can you go to

1:11:07scroll to the green one please? down in

1:11:09the lower right hand side there you have

1:11:12pharmaceutilization for the past 12

1:11:14months you have number of scripts. It

1:11:16would be helpful to understand

1:11:18um what is the cost per script in each

1:11:22of those tiers

1:11:24and then the cost per per subscriber. So

1:11:28just kind of build building out that

1:11:30little box on the right.

1:11:35So I I would just say at a high level

1:11:39the new plan sounds great. Having spent

1:11:41a lot of my life in this space, I am

1:11:45acutely skeptical about if it feels too

1:11:49good to be true. It's too good to be

1:11:50true. So I'm kind of like I mean it

1:11:54sounds great. I want to be excited about

1:11:56this. It looks great on paper. I'm just

1:11:58a little worried about the answers we

1:12:01don't have. So that's really why I want

1:12:03to drill into understanding kind of what

1:12:05are the unintended consequences of this.

1:12:09Um

1:12:12um and we'll continue to the plan would

1:12:15be to continue to offer the Fallon and

1:12:17TUS plans. Is that is that sort of

1:12:19>> Yes.

1:12:20>> Those are still on the board. Okay.

1:12:25>> Yeah. And I and I Mark I understand what

1:12:27you're saying in terms of we offer

1:12:29savings on the medical premium side but

1:12:31then those that are utilizing more

1:12:35pharmaceuticals

1:12:36you know they they don't get that

1:12:38benefit of the difference and painting

1:12:40with the broad brush I'm going to guess

1:12:42that most of our senior

1:12:44retirees are using you know actually

1:12:49that would be really helpful to

1:12:50understand of all the subscribers

1:12:53how many scripts per subscriber on

1:12:57average.

1:13:00>> Yeah, I'll ask.

1:13:02>> I was going to throw out a number, but

1:13:04it would just be a guess and who cares

1:13:05what I have to say about that. So, thank

1:13:07you.

1:13:07>> Just understand. So, so you're asking,

1:13:10so we have 550 retirees. So, this will

1:13:13be a grid of 550

1:13:15people. No.

1:13:16>> What they're paying each?

1:13:17>> No, no, no, no. Just at like an average.

1:13:22>> Okay.

1:13:22>> Yeah. Across those tiers, Ian. So like

1:13:25in tier one. So this represents X number

1:13:28of scripts and the average cost of

1:13:30script in tier 1, tier 2, tier three.

1:13:34[snorts]

1:13:35I want to just see what the change is

1:13:36going to be if we're status quo today

1:13:39versus who's impacted particularly the

1:13:42cost um when you get into cost sharing

1:13:44at 35% of a non-preferred drug or 25% of

1:13:47specialty. I mean those you know one

1:13:50drug can cost.

1:13:51>> Yeah, we did implement the 35%

1:13:54with tier three. And I can tell you we

1:13:58initially we got a couple of calls

1:14:00people it was more needing to understand

1:14:02what that was than calling because there

1:14:05was a concern or the the impact. So um

1:14:10obviously there that doesn't mean there

1:14:12hasn't been a financial impact. We just

1:14:14haven't had a lot of um negative

1:14:16feedback about that since we implemented

1:14:18it.

1:14:18>> Yeah. And I mean, you know, some of

1:14:20these specialty drugs can easily cost

1:14:23five, seven, 10 grand per dose depending

1:14:25upon what the drug is. And 25% would get

1:14:28you pretty close to maxing out.

1:14:30>> So there is a safety net there. I

1:14:32appreciate that. Um, but I think again

1:14:34just understanding the

1:14:37impact,

1:14:39preparing as much as we can for what

1:14:41that impact would be so that we can see

1:14:43the distribution across medical versus

1:14:45pharmacy. And are there true savings

1:14:47there or is it sort of net net? But this

1:14:49creates an opportunity particularly for

1:14:51new retirees kind of rolling into this.

1:14:54So thank you.

1:14:56>> All right. Thank [clears throat] you Sh

1:15:01I'm sorry. Just so so I understand it

1:15:04better. So um

1:15:09we do nothing. Stay in the same plan 10%

1:15:12increase town and employee.

1:15:14>> Correct.

1:15:15Um,

1:15:17we go to the this new plan.

1:15:22You introduce some things which I think

1:15:24Shelby's asked for. It is a $700

1:15:25deductible, but employees in essence

1:15:29save

1:15:30654. So, of that, so potentially a 46

1:15:37for those that hit that it's $46 more.

1:15:42But there's also we're saving them the

1:15:4510% increase.

1:15:47>> Correct?

1:15:47>> I guess I'm trying to put my hands

1:15:48around. It sounds It does sound like

1:15:50like a really good deal that we

1:15:52[clears throat] do nothing, they're

1:15:53paying 10% more.

1:15:56We do this, we're cutting it. It's going

1:15:58to benefit them. It's going to benefit

1:16:01um many of them. But if they hit that

1:16:04$700 deductible, it's they'll pay an

1:16:08additional

1:16:09>> correct

1:16:10>> $46

1:16:12before they hit that deductible, right,

1:16:13>> from their savings if they had

1:16:15>> correct.

1:16:16>> Um,

1:16:17>> so and this is only looking at because

1:16:20in the past we've talked about other

1:16:22things. So given the significant cost

1:16:26increases that we've seen and we've had

1:16:29conversations about whether or not

1:16:30they're sustainable, we've talked about

1:16:32other things making tweaks. We stayed

1:16:34away from proposing any tweaks on the

1:16:37medical side. Um again, having no

1:16:40deductible there, having no co-pays is a

1:16:43significantly richer benefit than you

1:16:46see in many of these plans. We also had

1:16:48talked at one point about looking at the

1:16:50cost sharing. Um, we have a current cost

1:16:52sharing structure of 2575 which mirrors

1:16:56what we have for our active employees.

1:16:58Um, the other thing I wanted to mention

1:17:00is the $700 deductible for our retirees

1:17:04who maybe have been retired for a while.

1:17:07This would be new if they've been on the

1:17:09Medicare plan, but our active plans have

1:17:14um deductibles. The individual plan is

1:17:16500. The family plan is a thousand if

1:17:19it's our HMO. So, the concept of a

1:17:21deductible and looking at the costs for

1:17:24for those folks who might be soon to

1:17:26retire is something they're used to

1:17:28seeing.

1:17:30>> And just one final thing if I may,

1:17:33>> Sean.

1:17:34>> Yes.

1:17:34>> I'm sorry. Um,

1:17:37so

1:17:40and I hear Mark saying taking care of

1:17:42our retirees, but if we go to the new

1:17:44plan, that also is saving

1:17:46all taxpayers here because we're saving

1:17:50our tax. It won't it's not a ton, but t

1:17:52this is be a chance to lower basically

1:17:56our budget for insurance. So, it's going

1:17:58to lower

1:17:59>> correct

1:18:00>> taxes for the entire town.

1:18:07So, I am all for saving taxpayers money,

1:18:11right? You know that. Uh, and I'm all

1:18:12for saving the retirees money. And I

1:18:15think a $700 deductible on the face of

1:18:18it is manageable, right? But the people

1:18:21who don't get any benefit from this are

1:18:25the sickest people. It's that's the way

1:18:28I see it. I don't maybe I'm wrong and

1:18:30maybe if you max out to the 2400 you're

1:18:32going to max out anyway but the sickest

1:18:35and most vulnerable people should be

1:18:37getting as much benefit as the rest of

1:18:39us, right? And if the town's saving a

1:18:42million, right? Well, you could pay the

1:18:44whole $700 deductible for all 570

1:18:48members and you wouldn't need to, right?

1:18:49But you could for $400,000.

1:18:52So, couldn't we save 600 and maybe put a

1:18:55little aside to help the people who

1:18:57really need it? Like I there's going to

1:18:59be a large proportion of retirees who

1:19:02don't even get prescription drugs, let

1:19:05alone hit the $700 deductible. But there

1:19:09are going to be some for who are not

1:19:12going to see any savings from this and

1:19:14they, you know, yes, I guess maybe we'll

1:19:18just say fine, you're not going to it's

1:19:20not going to cost them money and you

1:19:23know, but I don't know if I

1:19:24>> Yeah. No, I hear I definitely hear you.

1:19:26I mean, my grandfather always used to

1:19:28say it's whether you eat at night or

1:19:30sleep at night. And I'm not sure I can

1:19:32sleep at night with this result. So, um,

1:19:35but

1:19:37it'll free up some some money for, you

1:19:40know, hopefully reducing the tax rate.

1:19:42So, right.

1:19:43>> But I guess the the offset is that if we

1:19:45do nothing, we're they're going to pay

1:19:46more now than they're paying today.

1:19:49>> Well, we do nothing,

1:19:51>> right? I just would like to get creative

1:19:52with it.

1:19:55>> Yeah. And I I also want to Kim thank you

1:19:57and whoever else has been been involved

1:19:59with this for the taking it back as we

1:20:02had asked and bringing this forward

1:20:05because I mean these are obviously

1:20:07really tough decisions where everyone's

1:20:08hearing this debate but it is we're

1:20:12constantly asking our town manager you

1:20:15and departments where can we save money

1:20:18and this this is an opportunity to do

1:20:20that and um you know we may have to make

1:20:24a tough tough decision here. So tough

1:20:28like heart decision. That's what I mean.

1:20:30Thanks.

1:20:31>> Well, thank you. And and interested in

1:20:33hearing from the insurance advisory

1:20:35committee.

1:20:35>> Absolutely.

1:20:36>> As well their thoughts on it.

1:20:38>> All right. Thank you.

1:20:39>> Thank you. Um

1:20:43with that we'll move on to nine Patrick

1:20:48which is uh the October special town

1:20:50meeting warrant uh including permitting

1:20:53software downtown zoning the amended

1:20:56general bylaw and then um we'll consider

1:21:00our support for articles seven and 8.

1:21:03Um with that uh if we start with the

1:21:06permitting software

1:21:20thank you for entertaining us tonight.

1:21:22My name is Fred Lonardo community

1:21:24development director for the town. I'll

1:21:26be presenting this with uh Mark

1:21:28Stockman, our IT director for the town.

1:21:34Look at that. He's quicker than I could

1:21:36even talk. [laughter]

1:21:38>> The IT director.

1:21:40So, uh, just as a little way of history,

1:21:44uh, Mark and myself actually started to

1:21:47investigate this eight eight months to a

1:21:49year ago, and we had originally intended

1:21:52to put it on the March town meeting

1:21:56uh, and follow the regular financing

1:22:00uh, avenue, if you will. But we had

1:22:03originally had heard rumors from Callus,

1:22:05who is the company that oversees Permit

1:22:07Pro, actually uh has the the software

1:22:10program we use for electronic

1:22:11permitting. They had originally kind of

1:22:13had a whisper that they were going to no

1:22:15longer support the software. Well, that

1:22:17whisper became reality. I'll get into

1:22:20that in a minute.

1:22:24Put my glass on so I can see.

1:22:28So presently uh if you would go to the

1:22:31website, our town website, we have host

1:22:3452 different types of permits throughout

1:22:36the different departments. In the last

1:22:38two years, we've averaged 4,200 permits

1:22:41a year. So we have a significant

1:22:43presence of electronic permitting

1:22:46through our system. Uh we started we

1:22:50actually uh started the program in 2014,

1:22:53but it wasn't really fully implemented

1:22:55until 2017. So we've been on electronic

1:22:58permitting in full force at least to a

1:23:01large part starting for last 10 years

1:23:04approximately. So that's why we've

1:23:06gotten to a point where we have quite a

1:23:08few departments and permits on that

1:23:10software program.

1:23:13Uh so what what we were informed through

1:23:15the jaw who operates permit pro that

1:23:18they will no longer support permit pro.

1:23:21So, originally we were informed that it

1:23:24would go defunct or they wouldn't

1:23:26support it as of January of 27, but

1:23:28they've through Mark's efforts, they've

1:23:30actually extended it through uh June of

1:23:3327. So, we've got a little reprieve on

1:23:36that, but at the end of the day, uh they

1:23:39will no longer support it. So, we would

1:23:40have to host it. Mark can explain to you

1:23:42what that means, but bottom line is it

1:23:44would be nonfunctional. We couldn't

1:23:46upgrade it unless we actually hired a

1:23:48programmer. We couldn't do much of

1:23:50anything. And in fact, we really haven't

1:23:51done much in the last 6 months a year.

1:23:53We've tried to get incremental

1:23:55improvements, but because they no longer

1:23:57want to support it, they really that's

1:23:59been problematic, and we really haven't

1:24:01been able to do anything that we'd like

1:24:03to do.

1:24:07So, there's quite a few limitations on

1:24:10the pre present software. Without

1:24:12getting into a lot of detail, right now,

1:24:13we can't add permits to it. We can't

1:24:16make any alterations. in the last six

1:24:18months a year we haven't been able to do

1:24:20that. So the bottom line is that the

1:24:23existing program around is very limited

1:24:26what we can do with and in fact we won't

1:24:28have an option after June.

1:24:34Uh it in in my opinion and I think for

1:24:39practical purposes going back to a paper

1:24:42permit system would be detrimental to

1:24:45the town and it would be did it be a

1:24:47more work labor-wise and we don't have a

1:24:52lot of people to actually come to the

1:24:53office anymore to do the paper versions.

1:24:55We still occasionally but that might be

1:24:57one out of a hundred. If we had to go

1:24:59back to paper, that would be chaotic at

1:25:02best and it wouldn't be very convenient

1:25:03to anybody pulling a permit. So, it's

1:25:06not really a realistic option for us. At

1:25:08least we don't believe it to be.

1:25:11The new software program, we we've we we

1:25:15meaning Mark and myself actually

1:25:17investigated five original uh different

1:25:20companies. We narrowed that down to

1:25:22three. We sent that out to the general

1:25:25staff. So everybody using the per

1:25:27permitting software gave feedback and

1:25:30we've narrowed that down to a single

1:25:32software. But all the softwares we

1:25:33investigated the last three have those

1:25:36different options. We'll what we're

1:25:38proposing is an unlimited license. So

1:25:41all the users would be able to use it

1:25:42without additional costs every time we

1:25:44added a user or staff member. We'll have

1:25:47much more flexibility with the newer

1:25:49programs. We'll be able to generate our

1:25:51own permits going forward. So, we're

1:25:53anticipating adding anywhere from 10 to

1:25:5515 additional new permits beyond the 52

1:25:58we already have online.

1:26:00So, we'll have a lot more flexibility

1:26:02with the new software programs that we

1:26:04we're presenting.

1:26:06Um, there's a lot more automation. We'll

1:26:09be right now we're subject to the

1:26:12program and the programmers for permit

1:26:14pro. We'll no longer be subject to that

1:26:17with the new softwares. So that was part

1:26:19of the reasons why we were looking for

1:26:20this to do this eventually anyway. But

1:26:23as I said, because they'll no longer

1:26:25host the program, we've accelerated

1:26:27that. That's why we're here uh as part

1:26:30of the town meeting.

1:26:36It's basically we'll be able to expand

1:26:38the system much more easily internally,

1:26:42not be dependent on the software program

1:26:44to add or alter the permits as we go

1:26:46forward. And we can do that internally.

1:26:49So it gives us much more flexibility

1:26:51than what we have now.

1:26:56And Mr. Sman will talk about the cost.

1:27:01All right, I got the fun stuff. Um, so

1:27:04to summarize the project costs, we're

1:27:07looking at 40,000 in professional

1:27:09services. Um, it includes the migration

1:27:13of all of our existing data which is

1:27:15over 44,000 permit applications and over

1:27:18a 100,000 images. Um, and it includes

1:27:22multiple integrations.

1:27:24And then we have the hosting and

1:27:25subscription costs, but it's also it

1:27:28should be noted it's unlimited users,

1:27:31departments, and permits. And then and

1:27:33then there's a town meeting article

1:27:35summary.

1:27:38Um for fiscal 28,

1:27:41the uh hosting and subscription costs

1:27:43are going to be uh significantly more

1:27:46than what we pay now with permit pro. Um

1:27:50it's approximately 22,000 more than

1:27:54would be in F FY28

1:27:57uh compared to what it would have been

1:27:58under permit pro. However, it should be

1:28:00noted uh the unlimited service model

1:28:03will give us um the ability to add

1:28:06approximately 15 to 20 permits that

1:28:08we're expected to add. More

1:28:11integrations, many that we were never

1:28:12able to get with Permit Pro, and simply

1:28:15a better product, more capabilities, and

1:28:18better support.

1:28:20[clears throat]

1:28:21So, the town of Westboro would be

1:28:23joining many of our neighbors using Open

1:28:26Gov for permitting and licensing. This

1:28:29includes all of our immediate neighbors

1:28:31minus upton and 11 of our 15 dashboard

1:28:36communities also use open gov for

1:28:38permitting and licensing. Uh the benefit

1:28:40of joining this community uh we can

1:28:43reuse some of the permits that are being

1:28:45used by other communities if we needed

1:28:47you know if we were going to um start

1:28:49one that had already been created

1:28:51somewhere else. Um, regional contractors

1:28:54only need one account to do business in

1:28:56all these towns and employees coming

1:28:59from other communities already have

1:29:01experience with this application

1:29:04and uh questions.

1:29:09>> Yeah, quick question. So um you

1:29:14mentioned can you go back I think three

1:29:16slides just the cost of migration.

1:29:21Yep. right there. Um, within the

1:29:23professional services migration, that

1:29:25does sound like quite the task. What uh

1:29:29assurance guarantee? I don't know, this

1:29:31is out of my realm. Do we have that

1:29:35those services will ensure like 100%

1:29:39accuracy, nothing gets lost, dropped,

1:29:42etc. Like what what assurance do we get

1:29:44for that 40,000? Uh I don't know if

1:29:48anyone can guarantee 100,000 but I mean

1:29:50100% um but there's no reason we should

1:29:53lose anything. I mean the process um

1:29:58should should map over. In other words,

1:30:01>> could something get lost? Of course.

1:30:03>> Let me let me ask a different way maybe.

1:30:05Is are the professional services

1:30:07in-house professional services or

1:30:09external professional services for

1:30:10mapping? Uh

1:30:11>> that would be the external

1:30:13>> external. So I guess I'm just like we

1:30:17should be able to ask for a guarantee

1:30:20that this is you know starting point and

1:30:23ending point is that we have 100%

1:30:26mapping. So that's that's what I'm

1:30:27asking for in

1:30:30for some assurance for our for what

1:30:33sounds like an essential part of the

1:30:34migration.

1:30:35>> Sounds like we're going to have 0%

1:30:37mapping

1:30:38>> if we don't do this though because

1:30:40>> No, I understand that. I mean, this this

1:30:43we need to do this. This is a

1:30:44no-brainer. I get it. But I'm just I

1:30:46mean, that that number stood out to me

1:30:48that I want to make sure that

1:30:53>> this is we're not just paying it like

1:30:54we're going to do this thing and then

1:30:56you know 10% gets lost. What 10% and

1:30:59then it's a big fat pain in the you know

1:31:00what.

1:31:02>> So there should be a guarantee around

1:31:03the professional services. That's all

1:31:05I'm saying.

1:31:06>> I imagine there's a guarantee. We're

1:31:07going to have to monitor it. They're not

1:31:08going to tell us if they miss something,

1:31:10but I'm assuming that we're doing the

1:31:11quality checks to make sure that

1:31:13everything gets

1:31:14>> migrate over just like when I migrate,

1:31:18you know, a new computer or a new

1:31:20software that I do it, but they tell me

1:31:23it's all going to happen, but I have to

1:31:24make sure

1:31:25>> Well, I mean, if we have 44,000

1:31:27applications, 100,000 images using those

1:31:30numbers,

1:31:32what was there should now be here.

1:31:34That's all I'm saying. So, there should

1:31:35be some assurance. I would just like the

1:31:37contract to make sure. I know I'm

1:31:39getting into the weeds. This is beyond

1:31:40the article. Um I'm very supportive of

1:31:42this. It's um thank you for kind of test

1:31:46driving it with the other with the

1:31:47departments and getting that input.

1:31:49That's that's uh great. Um but um

1:31:54>> so there are a couple asurances I can

1:31:56add. So the we we [clears throat] will

1:31:58get the um full database and all the

1:32:00images. So we will have a full copy of

1:32:04what was in there. And so if we come

1:32:06across something that is missing in the

1:32:08future, we'll have um we'll have the

1:32:12data. Um and also uh if we can add the

1:32:15100% guarantee into the contract, uh

1:32:17we'll we'll do that.

1:32:19>> I'm sure they'd love to do that.

1:32:23>> Thank you. [clears throat]

1:32:25>> Okay. Yeah. Uh thank you uh uh for

1:32:29bringing this forward. I'm very

1:32:30supportive of it, but I do have a few

1:32:31questions for you. So, to stick stick

1:32:33with the theme that Shelby was just

1:32:34talking about around the uh data

1:32:36migration piece, um I'm I just want to

1:32:38make sure I'm 100% clear. We're going

1:32:40from Permit Pro to Open Gov is the is

1:32:44the software vendor is the this is a

1:32:47cloud-based solution.

1:32:49>> Yes, that's correct.

1:32:50>> Okay. So, you mentioned the database.

1:32:52Right now, we have the ability to export

1:32:54that out of Permit Pro today, it sounds

1:32:56like. Uh well not without um not without

1:33:00catalyst we can't go in there and and do

1:33:03an export.

1:33:04>> Okay. So as part of the as part of the

1:33:06cost part of that to to be able to mine

1:33:09that out of uh permit pro

1:33:12>> from according to catalyst there there

1:33:14would be no cost. In other words they're

1:33:16they're happy to help us migrate away

1:33:18from a product they're suns seting.

1:33:19>> Okay. So um

1:33:23and this is not a manual migration. is

1:33:25is we got a data set a database data set

1:33:27that we're now pulling in o uh open gov

1:33:31will actually do that conversion of that

1:33:34data set into the new correct

1:33:36>> correct yeah that was uh that was an

1:33:38important distinction there was one

1:33:40vendor that was not going to do that

1:33:42>> yeah that's super important we certainly

1:33:43don't want to be doing this manual I can

1:33:44only imagine the number of fields and

1:33:46pieces of data we're talking about here

1:33:48so that's great um I guess I'd like to

1:33:52understand a little bit about the the

1:33:53longevity of the licenses that we're

1:33:55talking about here. Um, is this a annual

1:33:58subscription cost or is this a

1:34:00multi-year? How did

1:34:01>> So, it it would be an annual

1:34:02subscription cost. We would be uh locked

1:34:05in for 2 and 1/2 years to start, but the

1:34:08uh the annual increase should should

1:34:10only be 5%. Um, that's that's fairly

1:34:13standard. Uh, actually, permit pro is 6%

1:34:16per year increase.

1:34:18>> Okay. And as part of this solution, do

1:34:20they provide backups of the data on a

1:34:23regular basis and the ability to to

1:34:25recover that in a particular period of

1:34:27time as part of the service level

1:34:29agreement?

1:34:30>> Uh yes, they have they have uh redundant

1:34:33backups. Correct.

1:34:34>> Okay. So if we go down on a Saturday, we

1:34:37would could be back up by Monday as part

1:34:39of the program. I'm I'm assuming normal

1:34:41SLAs's for cloud-based solutions like

1:34:43this typically are.

1:34:45>> Yes. No, it Yes, that's correct.

1:34:47>> Okay. Um does does the license offer any

1:34:52customization capability?

1:34:54>> Yeah. So that's actually one of the huge

1:34:56benefits is uh right now we have to go

1:34:58to catalyst and say we want this change

1:35:02almost everything has to go through

1:35:04them. With open gov we'll have the be

1:35:06the ability to do a lot of our own

1:35:09permits and workflows and and whatnot.

1:35:12So you can modify the user interface and

1:35:15experience whether it be the permitting

1:35:18department or the individual resident or

1:35:21applicant could actually are they going

1:35:23to have the ability to they want to have

1:35:26the ability to change how they interface

1:35:28with the product but the department can

1:35:30change customize that that look and feel

1:35:34to

1:35:35>> uh yeah yeah I I don't know the full

1:35:38extent of what we can do for as far as

1:35:39look and feel um but certainly

1:35:42functionality

1:35:42>> functionality absolutely and the

1:35:44workflow and the permit itself will have

1:35:47full control over all that.

1:35:48>> Okay, that's great. Well, I look forward

1:35:50to seeing it stood up. So, thank you.

1:35:55>> Uh yeah, my questions are less about

1:35:58backups and more about uh what

1:36:01departments are currently using this

1:36:03software.

1:36:05>> Go back to that one side. We have

1:36:07>> it was behind me. Sorry.

1:36:08>> Yeah. No, sorry. uh DPW is using it uh

1:36:12building certainly

1:36:15uh board of health conservation which is

1:36:18under community development so if you

1:36:21actually look it's building fire

1:36:22conservation board of health EDC

1:36:25economic development has their

1:36:27application online planning and public

1:36:29works

1:36:30>> okay so with the new software we might

1:36:33even be able to extend that to other

1:36:34departments or

1:36:36>> so we've already the intention is I

1:36:38actually have this in my brain for a

1:36:40while is to get eventually C uh ZBA

1:36:42zoning board of appeals uh applications

1:36:45on there and we've most recently

1:36:47community development through the

1:36:48building department has added sealers

1:36:50and weights. We've already had that

1:36:52discussion about adding those permits

1:36:54>> more like police, fire, school.

1:36:57>> Well, fire is already on there.

1:36:59>> Okay.

1:37:00>> It's behind me again. I'm sorry.

1:37:02>> Fire is part of that. Sorry.

1:37:03>> They probably will expand their

1:37:05offerings too. They they've wanted so

1:37:08each department that's presently using

1:37:10using the program has wanted to expand

1:37:12their usage of it, but it's been

1:37:14problematic for the last year,

1:37:16>> right? Because you can't make a custom.

1:37:20>> No. Well, yes, but we had to do it

1:37:23through the company and they basically

1:37:25haven't supported that change.

1:37:27>> Okay. All right. Well, I'm all I mean,

1:37:28I'm for the change. I think the

1:37:30additional cost will see additional

1:37:33benefits, too. So,

1:37:34>> agree. It's worth

1:37:36>> and Shelby just to make a comment and

1:37:38this is just anecdotally having been

1:37:40involved with software permitting for

1:37:43probably 20 years now when programs were

1:37:46first migrated it was problematic. So if

1:37:50you went back to 2010 or whatever, the

1:37:53company said that migrating programs was

1:37:57they that information migration was not

1:37:59that easy. But we've been told by the

1:38:02vendors that we looked into that's no

1:38:03longer that big a deal.

1:38:05>> Okay. Well, I just remember in my very

1:38:08distant gray memory um that several town

1:38:11meetings ago, way back in the dark ages,

1:38:14we spent a couple hundred,000 to scan

1:38:17documents.

1:38:18>> Yes, we did. So, I just don't want to I

1:38:21know we wouldn't be scanning them

1:38:23because they're all digitized, but I

1:38:24don't want to create a new problem. So,

1:38:26that was really the the point of of my

1:38:28ask.

1:38:28>> Well, so let me be clear on part of

1:38:30that. So, we still have some of the

1:38:32historic permits prior to 17 on laser

1:38:35fish. So, that program will not go away.

1:38:38What we have looked at, what Mark

1:38:40assured is that we'll have links from

1:38:42the new software to get to those those

1:38:45programs. You no longer have to

1:38:47separately link to laser fish which has

1:38:49a historical documents that we did send

1:38:51out for scanning.

1:38:52>> Great.

1:38:52>> But anything in permit pro now presently

1:38:55should be migrated to the new system. It

1:38:57wouldn't be functional if we didn't

1:38:59because any present permit wouldn't

1:39:00exist. We'd have to go through three

1:39:03laser fee permit pro and a new permit

1:39:05program. That wouldn't be very good

1:39:09>> for anybody.

1:39:11>> Well, I know that um at one point you

1:39:13just mentioned ZBA. So, some of the are

1:39:17are all of our his

1:39:19>> how do I ask this? Are all historical

1:39:22permits now digitized?

1:39:25>> Since 2017, we've kept a digital

1:39:28recording of ZBA minutes, decisions,

1:39:32applications.

1:39:33>> Okay.

1:39:33>> Prior to that, it exists just through

1:39:35the clerk's office. So, we haven't sent

1:39:36those out for scanning.

1:39:38>> Okay.

1:39:38>> That would be a project onto itself

1:39:40>> yet. No, understood. Okay. So 2017

1:39:42forward and those are accessible today

1:39:45through permit pro or through the laser

1:39:46fee kind of

1:39:48>> they're actually on the website.

1:39:49>> Oh okay. Got it. Okay. All right. One

1:39:53clarification question. You mentioned 5%

1:39:56going forward. I didn't quite

1:39:58understand. 5% of what?

1:40:00>> Uh so the um annual hosting and

1:40:03subscription costs are uh they go up 5%

1:40:06each year but that's that's fairly

1:40:08standard.

1:40:09>> They go up Okay. All right. like 5% of

1:40:11our fees or something. Okay. 5% increase

1:40:14per year. Okay.

1:40:17>> Sean,

1:40:17>> thank you.

1:40:18>> Just had a follow-up question, two

1:40:19follow-up questions. So, um my first my

1:40:22next question was um I noticed in the uh

1:40:24warrant itself, it talks about um

1:40:27adjustments needed to reduce permitting

1:40:29departments re uh reduce by permitting

1:40:32departments reallocation of FI27 budget

1:40:34funds to this project. Can you talk a

1:40:36little bit about what the reallocation

1:40:38is and where that's coming from? [gasps]

1:40:42>> So I can address that if you want.

1:40:44[clears throat]

1:40:44>> So different departments for instance

1:40:46community development is is taking from

1:40:48their operating budget uh $10,000

1:40:51towards this. So we're albeit the cost

1:40:55for the first implementation for the

1:40:56first six months is approximately

1:40:586870,000.

1:41:00We're only asking, well, not only the

1:41:02town's paying for all of it, but we're

1:41:04only asking through the article for

1:41:0538,000. The rest will be funded through

1:41:07operating costs of the different

1:41:09departments.

1:41:10>> Okay.

1:41:11>> Can I just add so that was a function of

1:41:13the So, normally this would have been a

1:41:15free cash item and because we don't have

1:41:17free cash certified, um it's it's coming

1:41:20through as a budget adjustment, which is

1:41:22why we ask departments to defer other

1:41:24things in order to reduce that

1:41:26additional raise and appropriate.

1:41:28>> Thank you. And then my last question is

1:41:30uh provided that this is approved at

1:41:33town meeting um when do you anticipate

1:41:35this to be stood up and running? [sighs]

1:41:38>> The anticipated dates in one we

1:41:41anticipate going from the permit pro to

1:41:44the new program like literally on a

1:41:46weekend. So we anticipate doing that in

1:41:49July 1stish of 27. So we hope to time it

1:41:52out with the expiration of the support

1:41:55for permit pro.

1:41:56>> Thank you. Okay.

1:41:57>> Sure. I don't mean to question your

1:41:59thinking here, but I would think given

1:42:02how difficult permit pro and did you say

1:42:05catalyst has been to work with at this

1:42:06point that we would want to create an

1:42:09overlap

1:42:10like May or early June and not extend it

1:42:14to the end of our contract. Typic in my

1:42:17experience, people when they get to the

1:42:18end of their contract, they get less

1:42:19willing to work with you. So, I'll leave

1:42:22it to your expertise, but I would rather

1:42:24see a little bit of grace period should

1:42:28the proverbial stuff hit the fan.

1:42:33>> Yeah.

1:42:35>> So, the the migration takes about, you

1:42:37know, five to eight months. We're we're

1:42:40going to do it in six. Um, if we can get

1:42:43it done in five or sooner, absolutely we

1:42:46would do.

1:42:46>> I was going to say minutes. I was

1:42:47fantastic. That's good. [laughter]

1:42:49>> Okay. So just from procedural uh point,

1:42:53Marcus committed his staff to work with

1:42:56certain departments and to be experts on

1:42:58this program. Uh the roll out was a

1:43:01little different. It was predominantly

1:43:02done by the building commissioner at the

1:43:04time when we first implemented permit

1:43:06pro and then I picked it up from there.

1:43:08But a lot of implementation was done by

1:43:10proddding through that company. So we'll

1:43:13take a much different tact and then

1:43:15we'll have individual department people

1:43:18like for instance I'll have somebody

1:43:19from our department that become experts

1:43:22on that program. So we we hope to to um

1:43:26kind of fasttrack this. We have to we

1:43:28don't really have a choice.

1:43:30>> Great.

1:43:32Okay. Any other questions?

1:43:33>> Nope.

1:43:34>> No. Thank you gentlemen.

1:43:35>> Okay. Thank you.

1:43:36>> Thank you.

1:43:38>> Okay. Next we have uh downtown zoning

1:43:41under the planning board.

1:43:52>> Hello. I'm back.

1:43:55John Gil from the pl board. Voice chair.

1:43:59>> So um it's article 7 on the town

1:44:03warrant. it. I think you've only

1:44:05incorporated

1:44:07the changes that were brought forth at

1:44:09the last town meeting, correct? I guess

1:44:11confirmation. And

1:44:12>> so, yeah, it's the same bylaw that was

1:44:14approved at last town meeting with the

1:44:16exception of the amendment that was made

1:44:18on the floor of town meeting to change

1:44:20the townhouse use to a special permit

1:44:22use. And then uh the community

1:44:24development director found a reference

1:44:26for the to the name. I forget what it

1:44:29what the reference is, but that was um a

1:44:32mistake in two different places. So, we

1:44:34just replace that reference. I believe

1:44:36that was the only changes.

1:44:39>> Okay.

1:44:41>> So, in theory, what would be the

1:44:43presentation at town meeting?

1:44:46>> It would likely be the same presentation

1:44:47we gave at annual town meeting, just

1:44:49going over what the details of the

1:44:50proposed zoning are. Uh I think we have

1:44:53it. Did Kristen send it over?

1:44:55>> No.

1:44:56>> Presentation. Yeah,

1:44:57>> I I don't think so.

1:44:58>> No. All right. Um, so it just Sorry, I

1:45:02thought we weren't going to have it

1:45:02tonight, but I guess not. So, continue

1:45:04at the town meeting. Um, it just goes

1:45:06over the changes. Uh, I think there's a

1:45:08redline version of what we've changed.

1:45:10So, you can see it clearly in the

1:45:11language. Um, that'll be it.

1:45:16>> Just sorry. Okay.

1:45:18>> Remind me again. The reason this is

1:45:19coming back was just was a procedural.

1:45:21Yeah, there was a uh administrative

1:45:23error where the planning board notice

1:45:26for the hearing was posted for one week

1:45:30when it should have been posted for two

1:45:31weeks. And so the AG has not, to my

1:45:34knowledge, the AG has not ruled on it

1:45:35one way or the other. We're just moving

1:45:37forward with it as if they ruled against

1:45:40the approval so that uh we can get it

1:45:43passed if we need to.

1:45:44>> Okay.

1:45:45>> And and is it correct me if I'm wrong.

1:45:48So there's it needs to be posted in two

1:45:51locations, right? It needs to be posted

1:45:52in a paper some periodic and then it

1:45:55also needs to be posted at the town

1:45:57clerk's office. Is that and it was the

1:45:59town clerk's office apparently of the

1:46:01two.

1:46:02>> Correct.

1:46:02>> Okay. So we made sure that that was done

1:46:04properly this time.

1:46:06>> That's going to be my next question. So

1:46:07that's all been done. Yeah. Okay.

1:46:09[laughter]

1:46:10>> Okay.

1:46:11>> Yes.

1:46:12>> Yeah. I just wanted to say thank you to

1:46:13John and Hazel for coming tonight and

1:46:17staying for a long meeting. Um I know

1:46:20that it's basically the same article,

1:46:21but I think it's important to people

1:46:24understand that it's basically the same

1:46:25article and this just

1:46:27>> reinforces that for everybody who voted

1:46:29for it or against it or whatever. Um

1:46:32[clears throat]

1:46:33>> thank you.

1:46:34>> No problem.

1:46:37>> Anybody else? Anybody else? Done. Thank

1:46:39you very much. All right. Thank you.

1:46:40Thanks, John.

1:46:42Okay. Uh, next discuss um what will be

1:46:47um the motion for article 8 on the town

1:46:50meeting warrant amended general bylaw

1:46:53for unmanned aircraft.

1:46:57>> Um,

1:47:02>> yeah, sure.

1:47:02>> Thank you.

1:47:03>> Um, so the board uh received

1:47:07Well, I guess I'll back up. So, we met

1:47:09um the chair and I met with town council

1:47:13um be in September um and just talked

1:47:16about the different communities that

1:47:18have general bylaw. Um we use that as a

1:47:22an example because those have been

1:47:24approved by the attorney general and

1:47:25also the masdot aeronautical division.

1:47:28Um and as we mentioned, I think at the

1:47:30October 1st meeting, um we were looking

1:47:32at a bylaw that was similar to but not

1:47:34not the same um as North Reading. Um

1:47:38just for everyone's understanding, uh

1:47:42the reason we were looking at the

1:47:43general bylaw is is largely a timing

1:47:46issue. Um those if there was a zoning

1:47:49bylaw that was to be considered, it

1:47:51would have to go through the public

1:47:52hearing process. Um once the board

1:47:55decided to keep the the uh warrant open,

1:47:58there wasn't wasn't time to develop that

1:48:00bylaw and go through that full hearing

1:48:02process that is required of a zoning

1:48:04bylaw change. Um, also there's

1:48:06protections with a zoning bylaw. So once

1:48:09you've applied for a a permit or a

1:48:13project, um, you're actually

1:48:16grandfathered under the current zoning

1:48:18bylaw. So even if you were to develop a

1:48:20zoning bylaw, um, now anyone who's

1:48:23already exist, their use is already

1:48:24existing or they've already applied um,

1:48:26don't necessarily fall under the

1:48:28requirements of that zoning bylaw. So

1:48:30that's why we had we had gone in the

1:48:31direction of a general bylaw. Um, so we

1:48:34worked with town council to develop a

1:48:37draft of the bylaw. Um, we also received

1:48:40the bylaw that was mentioned earlier

1:48:42from um, the Mass Blue skies group and

1:48:46then a third bylaw um, was offered and

1:48:49that's really why there isn't a bylaw

1:48:51draft to hand out because there are

1:48:53three different bylaws for the select

1:48:55board's consideration tonight. Um

1:48:58[clears throat] there was a sort of a

1:49:00general review of the um the mass blue

1:49:03skies bylaw um from town council and

1:49:07then um you have a more uh well you also

1:49:10have the one that town council had

1:49:12drafted. Um I know the board had

1:49:14questions. I've sent those the answers

1:49:16to you. Um and then we have uh that

1:49:18third bylaw that was submitted by slope

1:49:21member Marshall that was also reviewed.

1:49:23Um, and so I think understanding from

1:49:26the board kind of which direction you

1:49:29want to head in in terms of the bylaws,

1:49:32um, the board has scheduled another

1:49:36meeting this week, uh, on Thursday at

1:49:386:00, um, understanding that we probably

1:49:41wouldn't come to a final decision and

1:49:44also understanding that we will probably

1:49:45still have questions that we need to go

1:49:47back to town council with. So, um, that

1:49:50meeting is scheduled for Memorial Hall,

1:49:52um, 6:00 on Thursday.

1:49:55>> So, not here across the street.

1:49:57>> That's right. Yeah.

1:49:59>> So, I don't know how you want to

1:50:01approach the three different bylaws and

1:50:04that [clears throat] discussion.

1:50:06>> Yeah. So, if I may just So, my thought

1:50:09on the bylaw was I saw the

1:50:13town version, we'll call it version A,

1:50:15and then I saw version B, which is the

1:50:18mass blue skies. And um we had received

1:50:23some early indication from town council

1:50:26that the mass blue skies um um may not

1:50:30sort of um and I'm not an attorney may

1:50:33may not sort of stand the test of all

1:50:37the legal nuances that it could be put

1:50:40under pressure by. And so that concerned

1:50:43me and at the same time I felt like the

1:50:46um first version we were working off of

1:50:49the North Reading version I felt was a

1:50:52little soft. And so um I took that

1:50:56information and uh just being very

1:50:59candid with the help of AI said create

1:51:02me the best of both worlds here. How do

1:51:04we create a bylaw that blends A, which

1:51:08um has um standing, if you will, and um

1:51:12B, the mass um blue skies, which clearly

1:51:15has more teeth. And that is the then

1:51:19subsequent version that was distributed

1:51:22uh through our town manager to the board

1:51:23for consideration and which council has

1:51:27provided some review of. Um and I would

1:51:31sort of say and Tell me if I'm wrong

1:51:35here. At a high level, there there

1:51:38wasn't a whole lot that was glaring like

1:51:42this should be thrown out and at the

1:51:44same time I'm not sure that it um I mean

1:51:48it definitely needs some work and again

1:51:51I'm not an attorney. So So anyway,

1:51:54that's just to kind of get

1:51:56have everyone here understand kind of

1:51:58what we're looking at in our packets.

1:52:02>> All right. Thank you. Yes.

1:52:04>> Um, yeah. I I guess uh first of all, I

1:52:06want to thank the Mass Blue skies folks

1:52:09for being here tonight and for providing

1:52:11us an example that we could seriously

1:52:14consider. I think there was a lot of uh

1:52:15very valid points and information that

1:52:17they provided in that process. And I

1:52:19also want to thank uh fellow board

1:52:21member Marshall for the work she did. Um

1:52:24it was a pretty big mountain of

1:52:25information that she provided the board

1:52:27also to uh consider. Um there's kind of

1:52:29three things that I look at this as my

1:52:31lit litmus test that I that I want to

1:52:33consider no matter where we land. First

1:52:35of all is the appropriateness of

1:52:37whatever our bylaw is. The second is

1:52:39that it's effective and thirdly that

1:52:42it's legally permissible. Um so uh I

1:52:45look at all three of these versions and

1:52:47I and I see that there's um

1:52:52you know good ideas uh but I think that

1:52:55there's also deficiencies in each one of

1:52:56them. And I am um you know my message uh

1:53:00has been to our town manager um and

1:53:03therefore to our council is to look at

1:53:06those and see what we could pull from

1:53:07the best of each of them and bring the

1:53:10best version we can to town floor. Um I

1:53:13don't think we're going to be able to

1:53:14word smith this tonight. I don't

1:53:17[snorts] think we're going to even be

1:53:17able to word smith it maybe on Thursday

1:53:19night I think or one of our meetings on

1:53:22Thursday. I haven't looked at the time

1:53:23yet, but um uh

1:53:27I'm hopeful that I what I would like to

1:53:31see happen between now and and our next

1:53:33meeting is the town council takes a real

1:53:36hard

1:53:37um swing at this because I'm not a

1:53:40lawyer, but I certainly understand the

1:53:43sentiment of the majority of the

1:53:44community and I want to see that

1:53:46sentiment somehow reflected in the

1:53:47bylaw. And I will say if I also

1:53:49understood correctly from our town

1:53:51manager, the uh uniqueness of general

1:53:54bylaw versus zoning bylaw, if I again

1:53:57understand this correctly, is that the

1:53:59the the general bylaw there is no

1:54:02grandfathering.

1:54:03So we can implement this now or at any

1:54:06point and therefore all properties have

1:54:09to observe those general bylaws. Um so

1:54:12that's that's good news. Um but again we

1:54:15need to hold it in my opinion to those

1:54:17three those three things. So those are

1:54:20my comments.

1:54:22>> Thank you.

1:54:24>> Sorry. I just just based on what Patrick

1:54:27just said, I just want to be clear. So

1:54:29town council is not I I don't think that

1:54:32we can charge him with getting the best

1:54:34of of the three. I think the the board

1:54:37needs to identify what you think is sort

1:54:40of within those documents that that you

1:54:43want to see in a bylaw and then the

1:54:45question is whether or not they're

1:54:48legal. I mean that's that's his

1:54:49question. That's what he would be.

1:54:52>> Sure. So I guess with that in mind then

1:54:54I would look to the board to have a

1:54:55conversation maybe at a section level

1:54:58um to get a [clears throat] sense of

1:55:00what we think is viable or again meets

1:55:04the needs of the community. Um

1:55:08I I don't think we can get into the word

1:55:10by word period by periods piece.

1:55:14[clears throat]

1:55:16>> Okay. Thank you. Yes.

1:55:19Um, so I

1:55:22mean, we got to do the work at some

1:55:23point. I I I agree. Maybe not here. Uh,

1:55:27but my hope is that to be honest with

1:55:30you is that we we come up with a draft

1:55:33bylaw that we think we should bring on

1:55:35Tuesday.

1:55:37Um, and we go to our legislatures and to

1:55:40the governor or whoever and say to the

1:55:42AG and say, "Can you take a quick look

1:55:44at this?" And I mean it we're we're

1:55:48setting a precedent in the state here,

1:55:50right? Like I think they should

1:55:52understand how important this is, not

1:55:54just for Westboro, but for the entire

1:55:56state. And sometimes, you know,

1:56:00you move stuff in front that's urgent

1:56:03and important. And I mean, why are we

1:56:06asking council? Why can't we go straight

1:56:08to the AG and say, can you give us your

1:56:10opinion on this draft bylaw? you have I

1:56:13know you only have three days to review

1:56:14it. You know, what do you are the is

1:56:18there anything jumping out at you that

1:56:21that we should consider removing either

1:56:24by amendment on Tuesday or inserting or

1:56:27whatever? Like I mean is that a maybe

1:56:29that's a crazy ask? I don't know. But

1:56:31I'm well, you know, I think we should

1:56:32ask it.

1:56:33>> But the board would have to decide what

1:56:35the draft bylaw is,

1:56:36>> right?

1:56:37>> And

1:56:37>> we might be here for another two hours,

1:56:39but maybe we should be. Well, I I just

1:56:41think that you have three documents if

1:56:44there's things that you're interested in

1:56:46in the different documents.

1:56:48>> I think we should decide on which one we

1:56:49want to start with.

1:56:50>> Yeah.

1:56:50>> Right. Like I I do think the first one

1:56:52was soft, but uh I think the second one

1:56:56does border on zoning and I think the

1:56:58third one um kind of does take the best

1:57:02of both. Now,

1:57:05>> so town council is having

1:57:06>> all due respect to Claude. Um, you know,

1:57:09uh, I do think that

1:57:10>> we all have thought partners.

1:57:12>> We got fairly late in the day, we got

1:57:14council's comments, at least I got it

1:57:16late in the day. I think I might have

1:57:17missed it in an earlier email, but um,

1:57:21>> so I haven't even gone through all of

1:57:22his comments on that third version,

1:57:25>> but um, you know, the ones I've seen,

1:57:27some of them make sense.

1:57:29They're more about well take this

1:57:31language and move it down

1:57:33>> a different section. I mean a lot of it

1:57:34sort of feel felt right

1:57:36>> you know so

1:57:39I just to the point that was earlier and

1:57:41I think I made this point at the last

1:57:43meeting we need teeth this this bylaw

1:57:46needs

1:57:47>> right

1:57:47>> needs some some real repercussions that

1:57:50will

1:57:52not again it's not about Amazon it's

1:57:54about drones so that we need this bylaw

1:57:56to address real consequences for

1:57:59commercial drone delivery

1:58:01>> whoever the deliverer

1:58:04is

1:58:05>> I thought the comments if I may I

1:58:06thought the comments made tonight by Mr.

1:58:08Jana when he spoke to um go back to my

1:58:12notes about um

1:58:17the emphasis on you know kind of ground

1:58:21level the drop zone van those five

1:58:23points that he made I scrolled them down

1:58:25I won't repeat them here um they landed

1:58:28with me um it um that's not to say that

1:58:34they

1:58:36would um

1:58:39meet whatever criteria. I mean,

1:58:41obviously, Mass Blue skies feels like

1:58:43they have a solid position um with what

1:58:45they're proposing. Um Mark, I think your

1:58:48idea around the AG is a great question.

1:58:50I don't know if that's practical, but

1:58:53why not? We got to swing for the skies

1:58:54here. Bad analogy.

1:58:57>> We just need to explore any any possible

1:58:59avenue. No, I think it's I think it's a

1:59:01great suggestion and and to the point of

1:59:03what was raised in those five points, um

1:59:07um I would want to I mean my question to

1:59:11our town council at the end of the day

1:59:13is um give us something that has the

1:59:16absolute most teeth, absolute most teeth

1:59:19and brings us as close to the line,

1:59:22whatever the language is like. And I do

1:59:24feel like that. Go ahead, Christie.

1:59:26Well, you just have to I mean we say

1:59:29that but is the teeth in regulating

1:59:33drone delivery services or is it in

1:59:36banning them? Like we the board needs to

1:59:38decide what the goal is, I guess, of the

1:59:40bylaw

1:59:41>> banning them.

1:59:42>> Okay.

1:59:43>> I mean, in my opinion, that is what this

1:59:45community has said. We do not want

1:59:46drones in this community.

1:59:49Whether we can actually achieve that,

1:59:51being realistic, I don't know that we

1:59:52can. I have not heard one person say

1:59:56time out. I don't know to be on record

1:59:58that it is realistic we will ban drones.

2:00:00I really am not that optimistic. I would

2:00:03love to believe we could.

2:00:06I I just don't know. But representing

2:00:09the people of this town, banning drones

2:00:12is where I stand and that's what the

2:00:14language should reflect. I'll be quiet.

2:00:16Thank you.

2:00:16>> So town council is talking to the AG

2:00:18tomorrow, I think. So if if we

2:00:21understand that that's

2:00:23>> and that's just one person. So

2:00:25>> some additional questions or some

2:00:27>> you want to make one more comment.

2:00:29>> Yeah. Just to say maybe maybe as a way

2:00:31to make this a little bit easier in my

2:00:33opinion of the three versions the one

2:00:36you provided Shelby to me is the

2:00:38closest. But I also like sections three

2:00:41through five. And I want to understand

2:00:43from town council whether or not

2:00:44sections three through five from blue

2:00:46skies version can somehow fit and can

2:00:49somehow um be incorporated. Again, I

2:00:53think there's it borders on some zoning

2:00:55and there's a question about whether or

2:00:56not that is appropriate inside of a

2:00:58inside of a general bylaw. So, I guess

2:01:01my simple ask would be, can we take

2:01:04those sections 3 through five with the

2:01:08Marshall version and have them have

2:01:11council assess those and work with the

2:01:12AG's office if so appropriate in

2:01:14tomorrow's conversation?

2:01:16>> Well, I I think I think folks are here,

2:01:18they want to know exactly what this

2:01:21potentially is going to look like. I I I

2:01:23think we ought to maybe take Shelby's

2:01:26version and put it up on the big screen.

2:01:30and talk through it and let people see

2:01:33what we're considering. It's not the

2:01:34final version, but because right now

2:01:37we're just all sort of talking about

2:01:39talking around it.

2:01:41>> So, um

2:01:42>> I'd be fine with that, Sean. I I uh I

2:01:44would just say that with our follow-up

2:01:46meeting, I think that that's going to

2:01:47provide us the opportunity to see

2:01:48hopefully a cleaner version.

2:01:50>> Yeah. But I I think I think tonight we

2:01:53need to at least give people the thought

2:01:55that hey, there's something out there

2:01:57that looks like it's 80 or 90% of the

2:01:59way there because right now we're just

2:02:01saying, hey, we're going to do

2:02:02something. Sorry, you need to come back

2:02:04Thursday.

2:02:05>> And so, um, so if we can throw the draft

2:02:09up and just broadly talk through it and

2:02:12say, "Okay, here's where we're a little

2:02:15uncertain." Um and and then we'll try

2:02:19and get this finalized for Thursday

2:02:20knowing that

2:02:22>> we're also going to be discussing it on

2:02:23the floor of town meeting and so there's

2:02:26another bite of the apple there. Yes.

2:02:29>> So I think it's a great idea to put it

2:02:30up here. So that's great. Um I guess I

2:02:33would ask the board and Ian, you haven't

2:02:36had a chance to speak so maybe I'll hold

2:02:38my comment.

2:02:39>> No, keep going.

2:02:40>> Okay. Um uh would the board be open as

2:02:43we pull this up? And I don't want to

2:02:46open up, no offense to everyone here, I

2:02:49don't want to open up Pandora's box, but

2:02:51we do have um two leading

2:02:54representatives at least in Mass Blue

2:02:56Skies here that perhaps we could have a

2:03:00little bit of a back and forth of

2:03:03no, that's not what we're talking about.

2:03:06like to inform than what we finalize

2:03:10because I think if we sort of sit here

2:03:12and try to words smmith this or have a

2:03:14conversation and we exclude sort of the

2:03:16proponents who have already said hey if

2:03:18we don't like what you guys do we're

2:03:20going to bring our own language at town

2:03:22meeting and I appreciate that sentiment.

2:03:25Um, I think this is a great opportunity

2:03:27right now to kind of just work together

2:03:29at a high level without making sausage

2:03:32to try to get this

2:03:35inch forward in a compromised fashion.

2:03:37So

2:03:39>> yeah, I mean I what I want to stay away

2:03:42from and you know I'm not an attorney so

2:03:45I could wordsmith all this all night

2:03:48>> but chances are an attorney is going to

2:03:50get a hold of my word smithing and do

2:03:51his own words smithing and then there'll

2:03:53be words smiththers on town it it gets

2:03:56like at some point we have to settle on

2:03:59a final version right and

2:04:02>> that won't be tonight

2:04:03>> no and it won't be tonight but I do

2:04:05think if we stay on a broad level and

2:04:07say, "Look, this is what we brought in

2:04:09from your draft bylaw. Um,

2:04:14this is, you know, we realize that maybe

2:04:16some of the language isn't the same or

2:04:18whatever, but you know, you you we can

2:04:21provide that draft to Mass Blue Skies

2:04:24and they can send either come back to us

2:04:26on Thursday with their comments or even

2:04:28get it to us sooner if they have time."

2:04:30>> But I think we have to have something

2:04:32further advanced.

2:04:34>> I agree.

2:04:35But I just I don't want to get into

2:04:37nitpick nitpicking every word in this

2:04:39draft because I think that we need to

2:04:42get council to nitpick it first. May I

2:04:44suggest that we put it up on the board,

2:04:48we as a board talk through it and then

2:04:52we go to one or two individuals in the

2:04:54audience who have done some significant

2:04:58research to help us validate our

2:05:01thoughts and then we finalize what we

2:05:04want to ask

2:05:06>> uh town council.

2:05:09>> Okay. It's started

2:05:10>> and what I would so if we put up the

2:05:12draft what I would ask the board and I'm

2:05:14sorry that the public doesn't have this.

2:05:16It may be helpful to refer to the

2:05:18section bysection review which is the

2:05:21summary of each section.

2:05:24>> So that's in our packet on page 402.

2:05:29>> [snorts]

2:05:30>> So you can look at it however you want

2:05:32to. If you want to look at the

2:05:38>> So Shelby, I think the answer uh to your

2:05:41question about involving

2:05:44one or more reps from Blue Skies who are

2:05:46here tonight. Um while I would love to

2:05:49do that, I I do wonder if there's a

2:05:51precedence that we'd be setting that I

2:05:53don't know if it's entirely appropriate.

2:05:55And I get the idea that we're under a

2:05:57huge time crunch right here. Um

2:06:00I'm 5050 on that one. That's that's a

2:06:03tough one. Um because I do think that

2:06:05there is some opportunity for them to

2:06:07listen in, provide that feedback over

2:06:09the next 24 hours for us to get back on,

2:06:11you know, at the same time we're getting

2:06:13feedback hopefully from the AG's office

2:06:14or at least our councils and then

2:06:16Thursday we we bring all that to light

2:06:18and come up with a final version.

2:06:20>> I'm not sure that's our call though. I

2:06:22think Sean as chair has the authority.

2:06:24>> Oh, I know. I'm just giving my opinion.

2:06:26>> Well, no, it's I think I think it's a

2:06:27board's decision. Um, and I appreciate

2:06:30the precedent. I think we are in

2:06:31unprecedented times and fair. Fair point

2:06:34>> and I'm I'm willing to roll the dice on

2:06:36that one.

2:06:36>> Okay.

2:06:37>> So, that's just me. I'm one person.

2:06:39>> Okay.

2:06:42>> All right. Sean, your thoughts? Did you

2:06:44I'm sorry. Did you already did you

2:06:45already are we going to allow

2:06:47interaction with

2:06:48>> I I I think I think some interaction

2:06:50makes sense.

2:06:51>> Okay. Are you going to recognize

2:06:53specific people?

2:06:55>> Why don't we get into the document?

2:06:56>> Okay, [laughter]

2:06:59>> let's get started.

2:07:01>> Okay,

2:07:02>> let's make a general bylaw. Here we go.

2:07:06[laughter]

2:07:08>> 402, I think, makes sense.

2:07:10>> All you kids watching at home, this is

2:07:12how government happens.

2:07:14>> Here's the sausage.

2:07:16[laughter]

2:07:19>> Where's our IT guy?

2:07:22trying to find. [laughter]

2:07:25>> So, which document do you want to look

2:07:26at? The section by section or

2:07:28>> uh No, I So, I would go to uh page 307

2:07:32in our packet.

2:07:33>> I'm just going to pull up the or

2:07:36>> documents that you sent.

2:07:37>> Oh, sure. That's fine. Yep.

2:07:38>> So, which one is that?

2:07:40>> Uh it's would be the the actual draft C

2:07:44>> just page what in the packet?

2:07:45>> Uh for us in our packet, it is page 397.

2:07:49And if you want to skip to the summary,

2:07:51um it would be page [sighs]

2:07:55402.

2:08:01>> Well, while while this is being brought

2:08:02up, I'll just share that uh you know, I

2:08:04find it very um interesting that the

2:08:06size of the proposed bylaw is the same

2:08:08size as the uh overview of the bylaw

2:08:12that you put together. So, it's pretty

2:08:13pretty impressive body of work that you

2:08:15did. So, thank you.

2:08:16>> Well, I did read it all. I did like make

2:08:19sure it tried to make sense but

2:08:26[clears throat and cough]

2:08:28>> sorry. So which one do you want to start

2:08:29with?

2:08:29>> Uh if you could put on the screen the uh

2:08:33draft C the actual bylaw not the

2:08:36overview.

2:08:37>> And this is the original.

2:08:38>> This is the original not with without

2:08:40council's comments

2:08:46>> if that makes sense to the board. Yeah.

2:08:48Okay.

2:09:03I don't know why. I don't know why it

2:09:04looks like that.

2:09:09And Sean, I I don't know if as chair it

2:09:12would be helpful to tee up each section

2:09:15with a summary, but I'll leave that to

2:09:17you.

2:09:18>> Thank you, Sh. Okay.

2:09:31So and if I am correct here I think sort

2:09:35of or one and two sort of from the

2:09:39original draft sections one and two.

2:09:44So again, it was the original bylaw and

2:09:48the mass blue skies um bylaw and it was

2:09:54give me the best of both worlds

2:09:55essentially without um that's going to

2:09:58pass the legal test and not um violate

2:10:01any of the FAA jurisdiction etc.

2:10:05And this is what results.

2:10:13Okay. And I think the um the original

2:10:17north threading bylaw was essentially

2:10:22primarily

2:10:23um for recreational

2:10:26use, I believe. And we and so the

2:10:29addition was to add

2:10:32um civil

2:10:34UAS

2:10:35to that version which made it a little

2:10:38bit stronger but certainly not as strong

2:10:40as what you've provided here. Could you

2:10:42build on that

2:10:45Shelby?

2:10:45>> Um yeah so sorry let me go back to the

2:10:49packet.

2:10:51I just lost where I was. Yeah. So, so

2:10:55this section, section one basically says

2:10:57commercial um UAS and associated ground

2:11:01impacts the focus while extending basic

2:11:03privacy, harassment and emergency

2:11:05protections to all operators. [snorts]

2:11:09Um

2:11:11um

2:11:13it um

2:11:16again the focus here is on commercial

2:11:20but it it does omit recreational

2:11:24um UAS

2:11:27and then in section two it defines

2:11:29commercial purposes. It does define

2:11:31recreational public um UAS and ground

2:11:35operations in town property.

2:11:39And again, I would say that

2:11:42um well,

2:11:47there's lots of definitions in there.

2:11:53Yeah.

2:12:01And Patrick, to your point about um

2:12:05[clears throat] getting the input from

2:12:06Mass Blue skies, I'm I this is a public

2:12:09document, so more than happy to share

2:12:12that with with you guys to run it

2:12:14through your own um lens, if you will.

2:12:17Section three basically speaks to um it

2:12:21requires compliance with federal, state,

2:12:23and valid non-prempted local law.

2:12:27And um

2:12:29um it disclaims local flight path

2:12:32altitude and pilot regulation.

2:12:35So basically it avoids claiming FAA

2:12:37responsibilities while preserving local

2:12:39lawful local authority. That's what

2:12:41section 3 is intended to do.

2:12:52Section four um uh requires um

2:12:57authorization

2:12:58requires authorization to use private

2:13:01property for any commercial staging,

2:13:02launch, landing or delivery. Um and

2:13:07while preserving generally applicable

2:13:09nuisance protections.

2:13:11Um

2:13:15this is as I recall I don't have the

2:13:17council's this is one where I think

2:13:20council had some questions around that

2:13:24whole like the airspace versus the

2:13:28ground space. I don't have that version

2:13:30up but there were several questions as I

2:13:32recall in section four from councel.

2:13:35Yeah, I one of my comments on this

2:13:36section, Shelby, was on 4C, um the term

2:13:39neighboring property. Um so it's behind

2:13:42line of line C. Um defining what

2:13:45neighboring property is. Is it direct

2:13:47neighboring property or are you

2:13:48referring to the entire town as

2:13:50neighboring property?

2:13:56>> It's a great question.

2:14:01You know, I look at Blue Skies version

2:14:03and I think their intent.

2:14:04>> Yep.

2:14:06>> That the tone is the town.

2:14:09>> That's a that's a good catch. Yep. So,

2:14:11that might be Christy, maybe just kind

2:14:13of highlight that if you may. Thank you.

2:14:19And again, you see where indeed we're

2:14:21staying far clear of um dipping our toes

2:14:25into regulating routes or altitudes or

2:14:28anything when it's in the airspace

2:14:29because we can't impact that. [snorts]

2:14:33Uh section five prohibits intentional

2:14:36privacy violations, harassment,

2:14:38intimidation and violation of any

2:14:41judicial orders and um uh while still

2:14:45protects lawful news gathering. And um

2:14:49that was actually something I had I

2:14:52wanted to make sure we do use drones for

2:14:56obviously emergency services. I know um

2:14:58Westboro TV uses it. You know, there

2:15:01could be other reasons why drones fly um

2:15:04for again the purpose of um news

2:15:07gathering and first amendment.

2:15:09[clears throat]

2:15:10>> That was a question I had this one. Does

2:15:12this I read it and said to me this seems

2:15:14like Westbrook TV would fall under this

2:15:17because they would need waivers

2:15:21from any individuals that were

2:15:22[clears throat] capt. So if they were

2:15:23doing something over Porchfest, they

2:15:26would need individual waiverss from each

2:15:29>> individual as well as property owner.

2:15:31>> Yeah. No, I I did I did I'm going back

2:15:34to the definitions. Um

2:15:41>> well, are you talking about section

2:15:43five?

2:15:43>> Section 5A.

2:15:45>> Yeah. 5A says reasonable expectation of

2:15:48privacy. So, if you're a spectator at

2:15:50PorchFest, do you have a reasonable

2:15:52expectation of privacy? I

2:15:54>> I think we should flag a ch um Ian, to

2:15:57your point, that was not the intent. The

2:15:58intent was not for the and the intent

2:16:01was absolutely to allow

2:16:04um

2:16:06you know Westboro TV to fly a drone um

2:16:09you know to um capture the Westboro West

2:16:14winter lights or to be over at the um

2:16:19>> Arts in Common.

2:16:19>> Arts in common. Right.

2:16:21>> A drone over a sporting event or

2:16:23>> Right. Exactly. Yeah. So whatever

2:16:25language we need there to allow that. I

2:16:27think that generally we would be we we

2:16:30have been supportive of that in the past

2:16:31as a public. I would I would be

2:16:33supportive of that.

2:16:36>> Well, to be clear, council didn't think

2:16:38either this section was really necessary

2:16:40because it's already covered under other

2:16:43privacy laws. But I

2:16:45>> Yeah, there were several references to,

2:16:48you know, we don't need to include it.

2:16:50But I don't know. I just for me it's

2:16:52kind of like

2:16:54if we don't need to include it, great.

2:16:56But if we do include it, so what? What's

2:16:58the harm? As long as it doesn't impact

2:17:00another privacy law. I I

2:17:04>> I'm all for including everything as long

2:17:05as so that if the AG strikes some of it,

2:17:08we still have something to hang our hats

2:17:10on and

2:17:11>> Mhm.

2:17:12>> as long as we have enough to stop it.

2:17:14That's all I care about.

2:17:17>> Um section six, um protects public

2:17:22safety, search and rescue from

2:17:24intentional interference.

2:17:35I think town council, again, I don't

2:17:37have this up side by side, sorry. Um,

2:17:39had several questions on section 7.

2:17:43[clears throat]

2:17:44>> Yeah, the the one that stands out to me

2:17:46is on section 7A. Um, it seems to be

2:17:49specific to commercial UAS, which makes

2:17:52sense. Um, but

2:17:55would we ever allow that?

2:17:57>> Say it again.

2:17:58>> Would we ever allow that? I'm just

2:17:59saying um

2:18:02it it's stating that a commercial UAS

2:18:04can be used with the authority of the

2:18:06select board essentially, right? That's

2:18:08what that section's telling us.

2:18:10>> So maybe it should just be not allowed.

2:18:12We're saying,

2:18:13>> yeah, I'm just saying because would we

2:18:14ever allow commercial drones to fly? And

2:18:17would we want a permitting process to do

2:18:19so? That's what I think that's what

2:18:22>> right

2:18:24>> just for this is evolving um it might

2:18:28not be a bad idea for you to have some

2:18:31ability because there might be something

2:18:32that comes as an opportunity that you

2:18:34never anticipated.

2:18:35>> Okay.

2:18:37>> I mean I guess we could also amend the

2:18:39bylaw. Right. Right.

2:18:42Okay.

2:18:43>> Let's just highlight that please. That's

2:18:45a good catch.

2:18:58And so this is this is my ignorance on

2:18:59this one. Why specifically are we

2:19:02calling out town property?

2:19:04>> What was the intent versus any

2:19:08>> um

2:19:09>> is it just because private and town is

2:19:11different? We just want to protect the

2:19:13well

2:19:14>> town property here separately. Um

2:19:18because

2:19:21[snorts]

2:19:22I felt like I felt like in the reading

2:19:26language there was um there was

2:19:29reference to the town property

2:19:31specifically. I mean it this is not just

2:19:33about protecting the town. It's

2:19:34obviously about protecting private

2:19:36spaces as well. But um

2:19:40>> Ian, are you asking the question as to

2:19:42whether or not this should apply to all

2:19:44property, not just town property?

2:19:47Well, let me I think the call out I

2:19:50don't know what Ian's asking, but the

2:19:52call out here without prior written, we

2:19:55obviously can't

2:19:57>> dictate like if the town let's say the

2:19:59town wanted to authorize it, we would

2:20:01need a private owner's permission to

2:20:05land a drone on their property. Right.

2:20:07So, we can

2:20:08>> Right. Which you had up in the prior

2:20:10section.

2:20:11>> Right. Right.

2:20:12>> So, this that is my question. This is

2:20:13just calling out saying

2:20:15>> Right. Right. Maybe we don't need Maybe

2:20:17we don't need this.

2:20:18>> Maybe we don't need section seven. But

2:20:23>> but does it hurt us to include just more

2:20:25like Yeah.

2:20:25>> Yeah. I I don't know.

2:20:27>> Yeah. When I first read it, of course, I

2:20:28mean, I don't know that we would be

2:20:31allowing something to do a commercial

2:20:34staging area on on town property. But

2:20:36then,

2:20:38>> again, knowing the intent as you said

2:20:40it, I mean, part of it was without

2:20:42knowing that intent when I was looking

2:20:43at this and saying landing location

2:20:45says, okay, if

2:20:47we can't control this and it happens,

2:20:48but it happens in a limited fashion,

2:20:51this would preempt

2:20:53any town property. So, town hall,

2:20:55schools, senior center from accepting

2:20:58any type of drone delivery.

2:21:01>> That's correct. Without prior written,

2:21:03right,

2:21:03>> approval from us.

2:21:04>> Right.

2:21:06>> And I again, just in the spirit of why

2:21:09would the town be accepting that if if

2:21:11the residents are saying we don't want

2:21:13it, right? [laughter]

2:21:14>> So,

2:21:16so

2:21:18yeah.

2:21:22So that that section clearly needs some

2:21:24work and conversation.

2:21:27Um section 8

2:21:33uh you know basically this preserves law

2:21:37use of um UAS for lawful inspections,

2:21:39surveys, roof work, photography, real

2:21:42estate

2:21:44um [clears throat]

2:21:48which again I think is in the spirit of

2:21:49how we are using we see drones being

2:21:52used today. We don't want to um

2:21:55um I I don't think the intent is to stop

2:21:59that.

2:22:03Um

2:22:11I don't think there's anything else

2:22:12there to speak to in section 8 section

2:22:15nine.

2:22:20Um

2:22:26it

2:22:27um

2:22:33uh it incorporates generally applicable

2:22:35noise and nuisance law. Now this is kind

2:22:37of where I think Patrick helped me out

2:22:39here. I think the 83A

2:22:42I I don't know how this interfaces with

2:22:45that or or needs to specifically call

2:22:49that out. Um

2:22:51um and basically understanding that I

2:22:56think the mass blue sky version is much

2:23:00stronger than what we're seeing in

2:23:02section 9 here. Um so just flagging that

2:23:07for I'm not sure that this is the right

2:23:09language here in nine. It's a It's an

2:23:12increase from what the north threading

2:23:15bylaw has, but I'm not sure that it's

2:23:17specific enough to protect us.

2:23:20>> Well, and I think it gets um tricky if

2:23:24you're applying specific noise rules to

2:23:29the drones. You we we say here that

2:23:33our current rules apply to the drones.

2:23:36So then does it make sense then for us

2:23:39to change

2:23:41our specific noise ordinance so it's not

2:23:44then appearing to be targeted

2:23:48>> right

2:23:51>> I I would say to your question regards

2:23:54to how this pertains to 83A I I I

2:23:58look at this I say it's I don't think

2:23:59it's necessary because 83A is very

2:24:02cleancut and it and it and it says

2:24:05explicitly you cannot have noise

2:24:08any noise within 400 ft of this of this

2:24:13particular property and it actually

2:24:15talks about business properties as well.

2:24:17So I don't know what this does that's

2:24:20different other than it clarifies some

2:24:23other pieces in regards to the

2:24:24responsibility of the select board and

2:24:28some noise certification standards.

2:24:30>> I mean maybe maybe this really just

2:24:32needs to reflect

2:24:34I mean I like

2:24:37that that the um that noise shall be

2:24:41regulated by and then reference 8.3A. I

2:24:44mean, I just feel like we've got to tie

2:24:46those two together.

2:24:48Just because it exists somewhere else,

2:24:50if it doesn't exist here, I feel like

2:24:52we're missing something.

2:24:54>> I would suggest a little different

2:24:55because those two documents will

2:24:56probably live on in their own um

2:25:01uh edits throughout their life, right?

2:25:03And I'd hate to see A3A get changed and

2:25:05this not be updated. I would simply just

2:25:07take A3A language and put it right in

2:25:08here. If you're going to if your

2:25:10intention is to do that, I would just

2:25:11put put that language right in here.

2:25:13>> That's fine.

2:25:14>> And I believe that I I have to go back,

2:25:17but I I believe our general bylaws I

2:25:19think as also as the zoning bylaws both

2:25:22talk about the the authorities of the

2:25:26[snorts] boards um to implement them, to

2:25:29regulate them, to find them, etc.

2:25:32So, I think that's all covered already

2:25:35elsewhere.

2:25:37Mark, you know zoning way better than I

2:25:38do. I'm assuming that's

2:25:41>> Yeah. I mean, I [clears throat] don't

2:25:42know the specific

2:25:44language,

2:25:45>> but it's there.

2:25:46>> Mark, can you just speak into the

2:25:47microphone? I said I don't know the

2:25:48specific language that's used other than

2:25:51what's been pointed out to us about the

2:25:54400 ft rule and so on, but um you know I

2:25:59you're kind of getting to a point that

2:26:01we I was going to bring up later at the

2:26:03end you had a summary that maybe a

2:26:05separate noise bylaw or revisions to our

2:26:09noise bylaw. Um, you know,

2:26:14I think we should have something in our

2:26:15back pocket,

2:26:18in case this doesn't get achieve the

2:26:21result we want, we might want to start

2:26:23working on another bylaw that we could

2:26:25submit in March and then have another

2:26:28one and just keep go, you know, keep

2:26:30going till we find something that works,

2:26:33right? Like I, you know, there may be

2:26:35angles we that nobody's even thought of

2:26:37yet.

2:26:39Sean, not that I'm peering over your

2:26:41shoulder, but I am because you're doing

2:26:42what I think you maybe know what I'm

2:26:44asking, but and this is my ignorance,

2:26:46but is 83A because I'm concerned we

2:26:49started talking about zoning and Mark

2:26:51knows zoning, but is 83A a zoning bylaw

2:26:53or another general bylaw?

2:26:54>> Zoning bylaw.

2:26:55>> Zoning bylaw. So,

2:26:56>> so my concern is we put if we copy A3A

2:26:59and put it in here, then now we're

2:27:01stepping on potential

2:27:03>> specifically related to

2:27:05>> I would ra I would rather have what

2:27:08Shelby is in here and not put in

2:27:12>> Oh, tie them. [clears throat] I

2:27:13seriously

2:27:13>> tie I think you tie them in this way

2:27:15versus us trying to recreate 83A in this

2:27:18document.

2:27:18>> So, the only thing that's in 83A that I

2:27:20think is maybe zoning specific is the

2:27:23districts and the distances. So if you

2:27:26take pull out that language and use all

2:27:27the rest of that language in this by in

2:27:29our general bylaw, you would probably

2:27:31meet that same purpose.

2:27:33>> But again, is it necessary if we already

2:27:35have a zoning bylaw that

2:27:36>> Well, I agree. That's why I said it to

2:27:38begin with. I don't think it's

2:27:38necessary. But if we want to have it,

2:27:40see the advantage if I again if I

2:27:42understood Christiey's guidance on

2:27:44bylaw, general bylaw versus zoning bylaw

2:27:47is that there is no grandfathering.

2:27:50So that's a huge difference. um if we

2:27:54implement this now right any future

2:27:58doesn't matter what what's gone on with

2:28:01permits already etc anything in the

2:28:04future would be affected by a general

2:28:06bylaw so that's why there is an

2:28:08advantage to put noise in here I'm just

2:28:11saying use consistent language between

2:28:13the zoning and this other than perhaps

2:28:15the specific zoning language on distance

2:28:17and district

2:28:20>> keeping consistent as possible I don't

2:28:22think you can just put a hyperlink in

2:28:23here and say look at 83A. Right?

2:28:27>> So I I think we have we get back to

2:28:29Christiey's question. Are we looking to

2:28:31regulate zones or are we looking to ban

2:28:33them? Right? Because why do we need to

2:28:36regulate noise if we're banning it

2:28:38altogether?

2:28:40Right? I mean isn't it the the goal of

2:28:43this to ban it? And by insinuating that

2:28:46we can regulate noise and we're

2:28:48insinuating that we're going to allow

2:28:49this activity under some circumstances.

2:28:52>> Well, no

2:28:54commercial zone.

2:28:55>> I'm not insinuating it. The fact is the

2:28:57FAA has made it very clear that one of

2:28:59the things that they will observe is

2:29:00local zoning ordinances and bylaws that

2:29:03that refer to noise. So that's the way

2:29:06that you get to ban it,

2:29:07>> right?

2:29:08>> Oh, okay. And that's why I wonder if we

2:29:10should be looking at a separate a noise

2:29:13bylaw. But if we want to try and

2:29:15incorporate some noise language into

2:29:17this, I'm fine with that. Um, and then

2:29:21follow it up maybe in case you know,

2:29:25again, I just

2:29:26>> Sure. So, you're delinating between,

2:29:27hey, do we need a a drone or UAS bylaw

2:29:31versus a noise bylaw? Is that that's am

2:29:35I understanding correctly? Okay, that's

2:29:36a fair question. I mean, I'll have a a a

2:29:40bylaw that says, you know, there's laws

2:29:42that say I own all the way down to the

2:29:43center of the earth underneath my

2:29:45property, right? [laughter] If there's a

2:29:46tree growing from my neighbor's, if

2:29:48there's a branch hanging over my

2:29:50driveway, I'm allowed to cut it down.

2:29:52Where does that stop? Is it 100 ft up?

2:29:56Is it 500 ft up? Like, I know the FAA

2:29:59says they have rights on airspace, but

2:30:02you know, at some point the the sky

2:30:04above me is mine. So interesting that

2:30:08you bring that up. So So just to just be

2:30:10clear, my interpret my understanding is

2:30:12that uh the FAA does regulate down to

2:30:15the last millimeter of the grass in your

2:30:17yard.

2:30:18>> Doesn't matter. Now there is a concept

2:30:20that is being pushed out there or spoken

2:30:21to out there around the

2:30:23threedimensionality of our zoning.

2:30:24Right.

2:30:25>> Well, I'm going to let my grass grow

2:30:26really long.

2:30:27>> That's fine. I'm just saying, you know,

2:30:29it's we can't we we can't regulate

2:30:32airspace, right? So you can I think that

2:30:35whatever we do, whatever you call the

2:30:37zoning bylaw or excuse me, the general

2:30:39bylaw, whether it's a a drones general

2:30:41bylaw or a noise zoning, a noise general

2:30:44bylaw, um you know, the the the

2:30:47expectation is that we want to um

2:30:53eliminate the the the the the you know,

2:30:56the issues that have been raised around

2:30:58privacy, security, etc. I I I I don't

2:31:01think you're going to be successful with

2:31:02the federal preeemption if anything is

2:31:05off the ground. I think it has to be

2:31:07while it's on the ground. And that's

2:31:09why, and again, I wasn't getting into a

2:31:10big discussion about A3A, but 83A to me

2:31:13is the de facto way to solve this

2:31:16problem. um because it's already exists

2:31:19in our zoning bylaws today and it

2:31:21clearly states and the FAA has already

2:31:23said in the documents that we have in

2:31:25our packet that there is 50 dB audible

2:31:28within 1,50 ft. That's that's far

2:31:32exceeds our zoning bylaw. So right there

2:31:35it's already, you know, a non-starter.

2:31:39In regards to this, if we want to put

2:31:40more cement around what the expectation

2:31:42of the town is, I'm fine with the

2:31:44droning bylaw, but I'm also fine with a

2:31:46zoning noise bylaw. I'll do it either

2:31:49way.

2:31:50>> The warrant says unmanned aircraft

2:31:53bylaw.

2:31:54>> Yeah.

2:31:54>> Okay, there you go. That's what we have

2:31:55to do.

2:31:57>> That's kind of where we're at.

2:31:58>> No. And I'm not suggesting we introduce

2:31:59a noise bylaw at this warrant, but if

2:32:03I'm fine including noise language in

2:32:05here, but I just think it, you know,

2:32:08there's a

2:32:10>> there's an implication when you include

2:32:12no noise from commercial drones when

2:32:15we're saying we're banning commercial

2:32:17drones like what

2:32:18>> could it could very simply say that that

2:32:22you know no commercial UAS or no no UAS

2:32:27has defined defined by this bylaw. Here

2:32:29I go writing a um legal document um um

2:32:33will be in violation of the town's um um

2:32:37noise

2:32:39zoning by 8.3A.

2:32:41>> Right.

2:32:42>> And I know that that's zone specific.

2:32:44Right. So that kind of

2:32:46>> I think if we if we were to say no

2:32:48drones shall violate these noise

2:32:50standards period. Right. whether they be

2:32:54uh public use or

2:32:56>> but the the noise standards apply to

2:32:58everything. We don't need to actually

2:32:59>> That's right. And we already have

2:33:00precedents here, right? Back in 2021, we

2:33:03had precedents when we had a business in

2:33:05downtown that violated 83A. So, there's

2:33:08already pre-existing precedents

2:33:09regardless of the business type on the

2:33:11violation.

2:33:12>> I think it's a I think at this point,

2:33:14can we disagree? This is a question. Do

2:33:15we even need section 9?

2:33:18>> I actually like section 9 and it is

2:33:20>> okay.

2:33:20>> Sorry. I like section 9. as it as it is.

2:33:23Um I don't like trying to throw the

2:33:26noise stuff. I mean because then your B

2:33:29would then go out because it says any

2:33:30nothing in this bylaw shall be construed

2:33:33otherwise violate and makes me think

2:33:34well we have a we have a zoning bylaw.

2:33:36We put noise in here. If it doesn't tie

2:33:39or we change the town zoning bylaw

2:33:42this could be weaker than that. I'd

2:33:46rather I think this covers what you

2:33:49need. it doesn't run a file that we're

2:33:51trying to put zoning in here. We're

2:33:52saying it exists and this shouldn't be

2:33:54construed to be a zoning bylaw that

2:33:56we're not trying to and that noise

2:33:59should follow what we and to your point

2:34:01Patrick if A3A

2:34:03by its nature

2:34:06we believe covers that then I don't know

2:34:08why we need to change anything here.

2:34:10We're just going to say make sure that

2:34:11that this refers to those existing

2:34:14bylaws. I I think the only thing I would

2:34:17say in section 9 is that we instead of

2:34:20saying UAS ground operations and

2:34:22associated commercial ground facilities,

2:34:24why don't we just say associated ground

2:34:26facilities? Because by putting the word

2:34:29commercial in there, you're implying

2:34:31that commercial ground facilities might

2:34:33actually exist. And aren't we trying to

2:34:36say that they're banned? Like if we just

2:34:39say ground facilities, then

2:34:41>> just take it in.

2:34:43>> That's a great catch, Mark. I would

2:34:44agree with that change.

2:34:46>> It might in it might make it

2:34:48inconvenient for

2:34:52>> um I don't know. Is the police drone

2:34:56going to be too loud? I I don't know. Is

2:34:58the Westport TV drone going to be too

2:35:00loud? I don't know. But if I impact

2:35:02those and I still accomplish the

2:35:04commercial drone ban, I'm going to be

2:35:07okay with it. Right.

2:35:08>> Well, I'm more worried about the DOT's

2:35:10current uh delineation between

2:35:11commercial and private drone. So I think

2:35:13if you remove the word commercial out of

2:35:15there, we're saying all ground

2:35:18operations facilities shall comply with

2:35:21our general applicable town noise.

2:35:24>> So I think it's a great catch mark to

2:35:26pull out the word commercial.

2:35:28>> Okay.

2:35:31>> Um

2:35:32just as a note, I I'm reflecting back on

2:35:35what town council reviewed. I think

2:35:36section C was a I'm sorry, 9C was a

2:35:40question of do we even need it? But

2:35:41again, I think that this is where

2:35:43council could say it's like the question

2:35:47was that we were referring to something

2:35:49else. So maybe we don't need um

2:35:56second word is

2:36:04>> I think it could we could take out the

2:36:05where otherwise authoriz right

2:36:08>> and just say that select board is

2:36:09authorized to recommended and administer

2:36:12uh

2:36:14>> document

2:36:15>> objective procedures for documenting

2:36:17complaints.

2:36:18>> Yeah. or procedures. Take out objective

2:36:20because even that statement is

2:36:21subjective.

2:36:23>> Objective is subjective. I get it. All

2:36:26right. Yeah. Now, just again, we're word

2:36:28smithing a little bit now, but

2:36:30>> yeah.

2:36:30>> Um

2:36:31>> I think section 10 can come out,

2:36:33>> right? I think it's redundant. Y

2:36:35>> I was going to say that

2:36:36>> it's redundant. [gasps]

2:36:37>> Um

2:36:38>> is section 11 redundant to section six?

2:36:42Um,

2:36:49council didn't, sorry I was able to pull

2:36:52that up. Didn't say that it was, but it

2:36:54seems like it might be. So that would be

2:36:56a question. Is, is section 11 redundant?

2:36:58>> Is it redundant with section six?

2:37:07>> And then there's a section 11A. I don't

2:37:10think we want 11 A.

2:37:11>> [laughter]

2:37:11>> But I mean that seems like a weird

2:37:13number and that's where it talks about

2:37:15municipal programming public meetings.

2:37:19>> Well, we pulled out section 10 so we're

2:37:20almost back on track.

2:37:24>> So that just might need to be reumbered.

2:37:26I'm not sure.

2:37:26>> Section 11 becomes section 10 and

2:37:27section 11 A becomes section 11.

2:37:30>> Right. I

2:37:33so whether section 11A here can be or uh

2:37:38can be incorporated

2:37:42further up in the document again it's

2:37:44protecting uh community authorized

2:37:46community access media public events

2:37:50community events public meetings

2:37:52community events

2:37:56I do I think it's important to protect

2:37:58that

2:38:03so section 12 I I always have an issue

2:38:07with specifying amounts like I would

2:38:11prefer to say that it it that there's a

2:38:14schedule of fines set by the select

2:38:17board is if we yeah

2:38:19>> if we specify 300

2:38:22>> and maybe that's the maximum allowable

2:38:24fine currently but the maximum allowable

2:38:26fine goes up 500,

2:38:28>> right?

2:38:29>> I don't want to have to go back and

2:38:30amend a bylaw to change the amount of

2:38:33fine. I I think this board should be

2:38:36able to do that without good

2:38:37>> suggest going back to town meeting.

2:38:40>> I would agree with

2:38:41>> we ran into that remember with the

2:38:42chickens remembered a certain amount and

2:38:45then the AG said you can't have Yeah. So

2:38:47my question on this would be around what

2:38:50is the definition of an offense if we

2:38:52have is it one day's worth of you know a

2:38:55thousand drones

2:38:56>> or is it each individual drone a

2:38:58separate offense?

2:38:59>> I think it's each

2:39:01>> I would that would be my answer

2:39:02>> but again hopefully there are no drones

2:39:04but if there were it's each individual

2:39:06drone not a day's worth of drones.

2:39:08>> Y

2:39:10>> so whatever language we need there to

2:39:12speak to that.

2:39:13>> Mhm.

2:39:15So this one says each day, but you're

2:39:20in and D each day on which a continuing

2:39:22violation occurs after written notice

2:39:24may constitute a separate offense.

2:39:26>> Yeah. And but then so B seems in

2:39:28conflict because it says for each

2:39:30offense.

2:39:30>> Yeah. Continuing violations. That's

2:39:32continuing violation versus each

2:39:34offense, right?

2:39:36>> No, the violations individual events

2:39:39though, right? So it's a thousand

2:39:41flights per day. We didn't we don't want

2:39:43to in some way restrict them to one

2:39:45fine.

2:39:46>> Corre correct. That's what I'm saying. I

2:39:48think B is

2:39:48>> D needs to be modified.

2:39:50>> D is

2:39:51>> I think D can be removed.

2:39:54>> Well, that speaks to the repetitiveness

2:39:55of it. So if they have a 300 offenses on

2:39:58one day and the next day they have 400

2:40:00offenses. That's continue violation. No

2:40:02violation separate offense.

2:40:04>> Well, yeah, I would eliminate D because

2:40:06I think it conflicts with

2:40:08>> with B

2:40:08>> the intent. Yeah. Yeah.

2:40:09>> So we can strike D. to reward it

2:40:12somehow.

2:40:12>> And I don't I don't know that C is

2:40:15needed. Like we can do that already,

2:40:18right?

2:40:19>> That's kind of what we do.

2:40:21>> Yeah.

2:40:21>> Okay. Yep.

2:40:24>> Oh, well well that our friends might

2:40:26have some questions about that, but

2:40:28we're

2:40:28>> recommending that. Okay. Y

2:40:31>> I think that was sort of that higher

2:40:33level of authoriz. Okay. Uh section 13.

2:40:37Um

2:40:41this really speaks to just the process

2:40:43by which we can

2:40:47um [clears throat]

2:40:49uh implement a process for documenting

2:40:52complaints and authorizations. That's

2:40:54what that is.

2:40:55>> And I think I would add the word fine uh

2:40:58you know amount of fines or something

2:40:59here since we took out the amount

2:41:02earlier.

2:41:06I might add something about setting the

2:41:08amount of fines into this.

2:41:10>> Oh, in 13 you mean

2:41:12>> in 13 should Okay. Yeah.

2:41:15>> Including procedures for complaints, uh,

2:41:17schedule of fines, something like that.

2:41:20>> Okay.

2:41:20>> And again, I don't know if 12 and 13 can

2:41:23be combined or if legally they should

2:41:24stand separately. That's that's beyond

2:41:27my pay grade,

2:41:29>> right? And I don't I don't care if

2:41:31they're separate or not. As long as

2:41:33>> as long as they're there. as long as

2:41:34they stop the drones,

2:41:36>> right?

2:41:36>> Have I made that clear?

2:41:38>> Yeah.

2:41:39>> Sorry. It's not a laughing matter

2:41:41really.

2:41:42>> So, in in section 14, um the

2:41:46language that says or is disapproved by

2:41:49the Massachusetts attorney general, our

2:41:51council said basically

2:41:53the town can't dictate the scope of the

2:41:56AG's bylaw review. So, I don't know if

2:41:59that just would have to be removed. So

2:42:02that was the one thing that was flagged

2:42:03there.

2:42:04>> Is it just to remove mass attorney? I

2:42:06mean I think we want to my if you took

2:42:09mass attorney general out we just want

2:42:10to say

2:42:13if there's a section you remove it

2:42:15doesn't

2:42:17>> but it doesn't invalidate the whole

2:42:18>> the whole thing. Right. Right. So

2:42:20whatever that language is. Yep.

2:42:22>> Yeah.

2:42:24[laughter] I agree [clears throat] with

2:42:25that by

2:42:27>> um

2:42:31um council thought section 15 was not

2:42:36important I guess given all the

2:42:39discussions around effective date and I

2:42:42don't necessarily like the language

2:42:43there. Um but

2:42:48is I mean don't most bylaws have an

2:42:51effective date?

2:42:54Yeah, I guess you don't have to state it

2:42:56though.

2:42:57>> They just go into effect whenever

2:42:59they're approved. Okay. So then maybe we

2:43:00don't need 15. That's why I said that.

2:43:03>> Okay.

2:43:05Okay. And then the only other note that

2:43:07is there is just um was the conver

2:43:10reinforces the conversation we had

2:43:12around do we need a separate noise

2:43:14bylaw. But I don't that's not the intent

2:43:15for tonight's discussion.

2:43:17>> Right. But but I think um I think as a

2:43:21question

2:43:22to um town council like th does this

2:43:27with a potential update

2:43:31to our noise ordinance.

2:43:35Um

2:43:37sort of our strongest avenue

2:43:41towards

2:43:44dissuading somebody from doing this.

2:43:46Right.

2:43:48Well, so yeah, I mean, we don't have

2:43:49ordinances, right? We got bylaws. So,

2:43:52are you asking a question? Should we

2:43:53create a noise bylaw? I I would agree. I

2:43:56think

2:43:56>> we have

2:43:57>> I think we need to, but

2:43:58>> No. No. I think you update the zoning

2:44:01bylaw

2:44:03>> on noise.

2:44:04>> Yeah.

2:44:06>> Well, no,

2:44:07>> that already has noise in there. Our

2:44:08general bylaw does not. And the problem

2:44:10with amending the zoning bylaw is that

2:44:12it doesn't it it doesn't grandfathering

2:44:15still occurs if you do it in the general

2:44:17bylaw. Grandfathering doesn't exist. A

2:44:19good example of that is the plastic bags

2:44:21that we town man meeting um

2:44:25prevented a few years ago. Right. It

2:44:27that happened after all these businesses

2:44:29were already here for decades. Right. So

2:44:32that's how we got

2:44:32>> and then it went into effect and it

2:44:34applied and we allowed a time grace

2:44:36period for them. Yeah.

2:44:37So I I [snorts] would I would say that

2:44:39we can't really

2:44:41>> control what the planning board does and

2:44:43if they want to update

2:44:44>> the

2:44:45>> Can you just speak into

2:44:47>> we can't really control what the

2:44:48planning board does and if they want to

2:44:49update the zoning bylaw they they can

2:44:51propose a change but but a noise bylaw

2:44:54we have some control over and I think we

2:44:57should pursue that because

2:44:59>> it may give us another

2:45:03um bullet in our gun so to speak. So my

2:45:05only question is is that is that a

2:45:07separate action at a separate town

2:45:09meeting because the warrant right now

2:45:11speaks to

2:45:13>> Yes.

2:45:13>> Yeah, I would think so. That's all.

2:45:15>> And that's that's why I'm supportive of

2:45:17keeping our noise language in this one.

2:45:19Um but um starting

2:45:24I think we could have three or four

2:45:26bylaws on this matter before we're

2:45:27through, but hopefully the first one

2:45:29works and we don't have to pursue

2:45:31others. But

2:45:33[snorts]

2:45:34>> so I'm good with those prepare for the

2:45:36worst.

2:45:37>> I my question is do we now go back to

2:45:39Blue Skies version and see if there's

2:45:40anything that we you know would like to

2:45:43understand and and pull into this or

2:45:45>> Yeah. Could I just ask a question?

2:45:48Sorry. Um

2:45:52>> I think I think my answer is yes to what

2:45:54you're saying. I guess my question here

2:45:56is to the intent

2:45:59um Shelby as you started is to kind of

2:46:01ban these.

2:46:05What do we think in here that we put in

2:46:08here? absolutely

2:46:10bans these outside of to me it sounds

2:46:13like we go to the noise

2:46:16perhaps and that's why I'm saying

2:46:17perhaps it's going back to look at blue

2:46:21sky that has more teeth than the I'm

2:46:24just struggling to think here of any of

2:46:26these other sections what actually

2:46:28>> my my my read on what we just went

2:46:30through and I'd have to read through it

2:46:33again to fully process it all but my

2:46:34read on it is that it does um doesn't

2:46:37allow ow commercial drones to be

2:46:40deployed, drop packages, etc. off on

2:46:43town property. You know, one of the

2:46:44things on the blue skies version that I

2:46:47noted, which is I think much more um

2:46:50forceful, more teeth as we're calling

2:46:52it, is and I don't know if we can bring

2:46:54their version up if we're ready to do

2:46:56that, but it does go harder at the

2:46:59entire town, including private property,

2:47:01which I think the intent is not only

2:47:03within our borders, but also to prevent

2:47:04delivery from beyond our borders if if

2:47:08um a a commercial operator wanted to

2:47:11bring drones into the town. beyond our

2:47:15>> Okay, so we've got that up now.

2:47:19>> So section three I I mean we can go

2:47:20through the whole thing, but the section

2:47:22three through five is where the where

2:47:24the teeth of this is.

2:47:27And I was focusing on that second bullet

2:47:29under there. Absolute ground level drop

2:47:31zone and commercial delivery ban,

2:47:34but we can go through the whole the

2:47:36whole thing.

2:47:47>> So 3 through five in um

2:47:53um blue skies. [snorts]

2:47:55>> Yeah. Okay.

2:47:58And that is up mark just so you whatever

2:48:01sections you want to look at. I'm just

2:48:02saying those are the ones to me that

2:48:03have the real heart of it.

2:48:12>> This addresses by quite because this

2:48:14this is no nowhere in what we have in

2:48:18>> Yeah.

2:48:18>> correct. This is more aggressive.

2:48:20>> Yes.

2:48:20>> Even what we just reviewed in ours. And

2:48:22that's the question that I want answered

2:48:24is

2:48:25>> can we go this aggressive? I don't know.

2:48:29Right, since we have one swing of the

2:48:31bat using Shel's

2:48:34terms

2:48:34>> and I guess at this point maybe we have

2:48:37the the drafty come up. I I guess my

2:48:39concern is what is

2:48:43the understanding that this is

2:48:45allowable? Like I look at these and I

2:48:49think according to you I mean town

2:48:52council I I I don't know that

2:48:56some of these would actually get past

2:48:59the attorney general

2:49:00>> and so I don't want to do something no

2:49:03Rod you want to come up

2:49:04>> it's up to you I don't know who wants to

2:49:06speak to this version

2:49:08>> while they're coming up I guess there's

2:49:09one fundamental question has is it

2:49:10appropriate in general bylaw is it

2:49:12appropriate in zoning by law is it

2:49:13appropriate at all right that's that's

2:49:16the question in my mind.

2:49:18>> Yeah. Can we go back that section three?

2:49:20>> Yeah.

2:49:20>> Again, I'd love to start there.

2:49:23>> Y

2:49:31>> Well, I I would argue that um

2:49:36you know, general bylaws are to ensure

2:49:38safety, right? Zoning bylaws are not

2:49:42necessarily about safety, right? So the

2:49:45way section three is written in the the

2:49:50mass blue skies, it's about safety,

2:49:53which I think is not strong enough in

2:49:58the Marshall plan.

2:49:59>> Yep.

2:50:02>> I'm honored. [laughter]

2:50:05>> There already is a Marshall plan.

2:50:06>> I know. Go back to my sophomore history

2:50:09class here.

2:50:09>> Yeah. [laughter]

2:50:11>> Yeah. No, I agree.

2:50:12>> West Bro public education, right? That's

2:50:13>> right.

2:50:15I agree

2:50:16>> miss

2:50:17>> I mean and I guess with mine and I know

2:50:20we said we t

2:50:22again not being a lawyer or whatever is

2:50:27us putting on a ban that basically

2:50:32tells every person that owns property in

2:50:34this town that we're banning something

2:50:36on their

2:50:38we're banning this on their property.

2:50:44I mean, I'm going to play Devil's Avenue

2:50:45for here for a moment. What right does

2:50:47the town have to say to a a resident

2:50:49that they cannot have a drone drop a

2:50:52package on their property?

2:50:54I don't know. You can't prevent a driver

2:50:57from dropping off a box on their

2:50:59property. I don't I don't think I we do

2:51:02have we do have in our bylaws I believe

2:51:04preventions for things like you can only

2:51:06have um uh uh garage sales once a year

2:51:10on your so we do have certain types of

2:51:12things that we do restrict and I don't

2:51:14know where the line is between between

2:51:16those

2:51:16>> that's why I just don't know

2:51:17>> at the end of the day at the end of the

2:51:19day right the it I think that the

2:51:22challenge to that the the common sense

2:51:24response is because of the the noise

2:51:28disturbance

2:51:29there's a safety potential aspect,

2:51:32right? We have a right, we have a

2:51:33responsibility to protect the public and

2:51:37the privacy piece of it. I mean, those

2:51:39three big pieces would sort of say where

2:51:42the town has a responsibility to say

2:51:46like you can't just have um um

2:51:49biohazardous

2:51:51chemicals on your private property.

2:51:54>> Right.

2:51:54>> Right. We say that is somewhere, right?

2:51:56Like there are certain things you can't

2:51:58do. Yeah, I think

2:51:59>> so. Mr. Jana, do you want to grab the

2:52:01mic

2:52:02>> or even even here cuz Christiey's up

2:52:04there. So, if if you guys wouldn't mind,

2:52:05>> you want to sit you guys want to sit

2:52:06right there.

2:52:10>> Might be a minute.

2:52:12[laughter]

2:52:14>> Okay.

2:52:16Um, yes. So, if you look at the uh draft

2:52:20bylaws, which are up there now, which I

2:52:22appreciate, uh items three through five,

2:52:24which are critical. I think they were

2:52:26basically the five points that I made at

2:52:28the beginning. All of those focus on a

2:52:31couple of important things. One is on

2:52:33the ground. So, when you take off, you

2:52:36have to wind up all six propellers. And

2:52:38probably the loudest noise you're going

2:52:40to hear at the boundary is the noise you

2:52:42need to get airborne. So, that happens

2:52:44on the ground. So that that is a noise

2:52:47uh element that happens. By the way,

2:52:49it'll be happening

2:52:522,000 times in daylight

2:52:55round trip landing and taking off

2:52:59about three a minute. So if you're a

2:53:01neighbor, Cold Harbor Brewery or anybody

2:53:04next door, you're getting a public

2:53:06nuisance three times a minute. I mean on

2:53:11the ground. So that that's kind of the

2:53:13point of that is that is a we really

2:53:16focus on public nuisance and public

2:53:18safety

2:53:20while operations are happening on the

2:53:22ground. So, so part of it the landing

2:53:24and launching pad which is of course on

2:53:27the ground

2:53:29creating a pretty big nuisance and we

2:53:32would argue a safety issue and I will

2:53:35submit to the board tomorrow actually a

2:53:38news item from Richardson, Texas uh just

2:53:42a few months into their drone program

2:53:44where a drone uh crashed into an

2:53:48apartment complex. there was an

2:53:50apartment complex right next to

2:53:53>> uh the Amazon facility.

2:53:56Um and I will send that to you. It's

2:53:58relevant.

2:54:00And then the other piece of this is

2:54:03also affecting the ground is there's no

2:54:06precedent for dropping packages from the

2:54:09air.

2:54:11Truck is one thing. You have a human

2:54:12being taking a parcel, walking to your

2:54:15house, and putting it there, responsible

2:54:18for safety and the safe delivery of

2:54:20that. Um, they back up silently down

2:54:23your driveway. We have them often in our

2:54:25neighborhood. Um, there's a human being

2:54:28there uh to control safety.

2:54:31We're banking on the fact that some

2:54:34automated system not monitored, 2,000

2:54:37flights a day, is going to drop things

2:54:38and not hit somebody seems unrealistic.

2:54:41My yard is continuous with the neighbors

2:54:43yards. Kids are running back and forth

2:54:46between yards. Dogs are running in

2:54:48yards. My dog would go underneath the

2:54:50drone and bark at the drone. Uh so

2:54:55it's a safety risk. There's just no way

2:54:56to I I think to debate that it is a

2:54:59safety risk in an unprecedented one. And

2:55:02the thought that we're going to allow

2:55:04that to me seems

2:55:07um irresponsible.

2:55:10I think the boards do have a role here

2:55:13for general bylaws for safety. Um, and I

2:55:16think that these focus pretty carefully

2:55:18on just things that happen on the

2:55:19ground. When you drop a package from the

2:55:21air, something happens on the ground. It

2:55:23hits the ground and it could hit

2:55:24somebody. Um, and if we allow

2:55:29Amazon in, then we also allow Uber Eats

2:55:32and Walmart and everybody. How are we

2:55:34going to stop them? they'll bring us to

2:55:36court saying that you've allowed one

2:55:39proponent to come in, establish a

2:55:40monopoly. Um, now we're suing the town

2:55:43over that. Um, so I think the the most

2:55:47proactive thing to do is to

2:55:49[clears throat] have a general bylaw

2:55:50with teeth that very carefully focuses

2:55:53just on ground activity

2:55:56at the receiving end and at the

2:55:59launching end. And that's what Westbrook

2:56:02can control. If Amazon wants to move the

2:56:05launch facility to another town and fly

2:56:08over Westboro and deliver packages to

2:56:10another town, not Westboro, because that

2:56:12would create a public nuisance.

2:56:15Then I suppose we can't control that.

2:56:17That's the FAA. But we can control what

2:56:20launches and takes off here. And we can

2:56:22can control

2:56:24what nuisance we create in people's

2:56:26neighbors yards. So, in order to drop

2:56:29that that item to the ground, even

2:56:32Amazon has said they have to lower the

2:56:35uh a commercial size refrigerator

2:56:37vehicle

2:56:3913 ft above the ground. If that isn't a

2:56:42nuisance

2:56:44um and threatening to the neighbors, I

2:56:46don't know what is. I couldn't imagine

2:56:49standing 20 feet from a a commercialized

2:56:52refrigerator

2:56:54hovering above the ground with six

2:56:56propellers going. Um, it's threatening.

2:56:59It's intimidating. And uh, it is a

2:57:02public nuisance. I I I would challenge

2:57:06people to find a bigger p public

2:57:07nuisance than that. That's happening

2:57:092,000 times a day.

2:57:12So, I think we're well within our bounds

2:57:16as a as a board and as a town meeting to

2:57:19establish bylaws that focus on ground

2:57:22activity, launching and taking off and

2:57:26dropping things from the sky, whether

2:57:28it's 13 ft or 50 ft. You're dropping

2:57:30things from the air into people's

2:57:32property.

2:57:34And I think that's we're perfectly

2:57:36within our bounds. And and I think it

2:57:38can be done with a good town council. I

2:57:40don't want to get into comments about

2:57:41town council because I know that they

2:57:43are often extremely riskaverse. Well,

2:57:47you know what's you know what risk we

2:57:49need to take? We need to take the risk

2:57:50of defending our town and residents. Uh

2:57:52so I would be risk averse the other way

2:57:55which is um the risk of allowing this to

2:57:59happen is going to change the entire

2:58:01environment of the town. Uh you are

2:58:04basically subverting the entire master.

2:58:06You were on the planning board Mr.

2:58:08Silverberg. It's subverting the whole

2:58:10master planning process. So for decades,

2:58:13we've put together master plans which

2:58:15have carefully put commercial and

2:58:18industrial zones along public roads and

2:58:21highways

2:58:23where delivery trucks can safely uh

2:58:25deliver things to and from customers

2:58:28where if there's an accident, it's on a

2:58:31public road. First responders can get

2:58:33there quickly and efficiently. We have

2:58:35no idea where the accidents will be when

2:58:37these things come from the air, but they

2:58:38will happen. Just look at the news flash

2:58:40we'll send you from Richardson, Texas.

2:58:42That was two months, three months. I

2:58:45believe it's about 3 months into the

2:58:47program. I think they were only flying,

2:58:49according to the reports I read, 100 to

2:58:51200 flights a day. So if 3 months into

2:58:54the program, an accident already happens

2:58:56into an apartment complex. and you

2:58:58multiply that or project that out to

2:59:002,000 trips a day, you're a few hundred

2:59:03feet away from an apartment complex that

2:59:04look quite similar uh to the one in

2:59:07Richardson, Texas. And also um

3:02:05All

3:02:11right. So, so that was

3:02:12>> that was well timed.

3:02:16>> Karen, we're ready.

3:02:18>> He's got a definition.

3:02:20>> Thumbs up.

3:02:20>> Thumbs up. Okay. And Mr. Jana, back to

3:02:24you.

3:02:25I think I was just in the middle of a

3:02:26comment mentioning that the the master

3:02:29plan which had been put together by the

3:02:31town of Westboro which carefully

3:02:32considered the routes of uh delivery and

3:02:35cargo trucks going to and from

3:02:36warehouses and retail outlets to to

3:02:39customers houses essentially was being

3:02:42thrown under the bus and we're elevating

3:02:45that highway up into the sky over our

3:02:47houses.

3:02:49Uh, it seems like a crazy idea to me and

3:02:52to almost everybody in Westboro. I won't

3:02:54say 100% few people might be in support,

3:02:58but but it is essentially making chaos

3:03:03out of what is a very considerate master

3:03:05plan for the town to the ability that we

3:03:08can control that so at least it doesn't

3:03:10disrupt and put safety in jeopardy for

3:03:12our residents. I think we should do

3:03:15that.

3:03:16>> Can't control everything else. Y. So,

3:03:19quick question and and Christie, I guess

3:03:21this would be to our town council,

3:03:23right? So, let's say we add

3:03:26sections 3 to five into what we already

3:03:29have

3:03:30and then it turns out that the attorney

3:03:33general

3:03:34determines that some of this isn't

3:03:37allowed.

3:03:39In theory, would the attorney general

3:03:41just remove what wasn't allowed and

3:03:44leave? Yeah. They would tell us what was

3:03:47disallowed and then it would just come

3:03:49out of the bylaw. Doesn't have to go

3:03:50back to town meeting.

3:03:51>> Got it. So, so putting in extra

3:03:56wouldn't necessarily hurt the proposal.

3:03:59I mean, I guess we want to at least have

3:04:02a reasonable shot at being.

3:04:04>> Yeah. I think if we're all clear on what

3:04:06the intent is, then then the extra teeth

3:04:10>> is a good thing.

3:04:12>> Question of uh clarity. So when they

3:04:14strike things down, do they provide

3:04:15guidance on what would be acceptable uh

3:04:18in its place or do they just strike it

3:04:19down and that's it?

3:04:21>> They they have offered alternatives.

3:04:23They have in the past explained to us

3:04:25how they interpreted things that were in

3:04:28there. So there there can be some back

3:04:30and forth

3:04:31>> when we did when we did our most recent

3:04:33home rule petition, right? We had

3:04:34language that came back language that

3:04:37they would be

3:04:38>> that's different. That's different

3:04:39process. So when the attorney general

3:04:42will tell us why they struck it, why

3:04:44they wanted to strike it, but they

3:04:45didn't off they won't typically offer

3:04:47alternative language

3:04:50and and could a skillful attorney uh

3:04:53craft the language in such a way that

3:04:55the separability would damage the least

3:04:58uh the least amount of the overall um

3:05:02bylaw as as possible. In other words,

3:05:05uh, and skillfully layer it so that

3:05:07there are things that are softer also in

3:05:10the bylaw. Um, that if the more

3:05:14aggressive one were severed that it

3:05:15would still keep the less severable one

3:05:18there. I I think that would be worth a

3:05:21shot. Otherwise, you know, what are we

3:05:24doing? So, we're really trying to

3:05:27>> that's the intent. I mean

3:05:29>> that is that is I think my

3:05:30>> that is absolutely the intent and I and

3:05:32I would share as well that you know we

3:05:34have town council I I mean I I I don't

3:05:38want to assume I mean if town council

3:05:42needs to bring in other expertise that

3:05:45is has more um uh experience around this

3:05:50then I I I want this board to

3:05:53>> other so so we're we're with it's a

3:05:56singular law firm but they are they are

3:05:59getting advice from other individuals at

3:06:02the law firm who have greater

3:06:04understanding of this.

3:06:05>> Yeah. So there have been multiple

3:06:07attorneys.

3:06:08>> Yeah. We don't just run everything by

3:06:10one person. Okay. Thank you.

3:06:11>> But but I would say what I don't know

3:06:13and maybe this is a question for the

3:06:16discussion with the AG. I think one of

3:06:19the issues that has been identified with

3:06:22this proposal is that it creates

3:06:24districts which is a zoning which is by

3:06:27nature zoning where it talks about

3:06:29residential buffer zone and things that

3:06:32are allowed within certain areas. What I

3:06:34don't know is if the AG would be able to

3:06:37just strike those references because

3:06:40then the intent of the bylaw changes

3:06:42because then it's applicable throughout

3:06:44the town and that's a I think that's a

3:06:46question. I think there are different

3:06:47ways to skin the cat. I think a skillful

3:06:49meeting uh looking at each one of these

3:06:52things and to the extent that they do do

3:06:53that uh that could be altered uh in a

3:06:57way that essentially keeps the similar

3:06:59or same attempt to the extent possible.

3:07:02All we can do is the most possible given

3:07:05what's going to be acceptable. But it

3:07:07would seem to me like a proactive

3:07:09process to determine what is the most

3:07:11aggressive stance we can take uh would

3:07:14be uh extremely productive for the town.

3:07:17Um because as I mentioned earlier I

3:07:19don't think we want to go to town

3:07:20meeting you know with confusing set of

3:07:22amendments and things. Um so I'm I'm

3:07:26very happy that you've allowed uh

3:07:29members of the um uh blue skies mass

3:07:33blue skies to speak. I I would ask the

3:07:36following question. Would it be okay

3:07:38town council if a couple of members of

3:07:40the masterless guys attended this

3:07:42discussion uh with uh the selectman and

3:07:45town council?

3:07:48>> Um I I I mean so it it's a minimum

3:07:53number of the select so it's not a

3:07:55quorum of the select board,

3:07:56>> right?

3:07:57>> Um we could include one or two other

3:08:00individuals certainly. I I don't think

3:08:02we have a meeting scheduled to with I

3:08:06maybe I missed it when I was out of the

3:08:07room. I I think the intent was to take

3:08:10all of this back, work with town council

3:08:12on it, get whatever questions he can get

3:08:15answered from the AG and then have a

3:08:18meeting on Thursday,

3:08:20>> which public meeting.

3:08:21>> Yeah. [clears throat]

3:08:22>> Right.

3:08:23>> We don't have a meeting with the AG.

3:08:24>> No. No.

3:08:26>> Or town council. I mean, not a specific

3:08:27meeting.

3:08:28>> No. I mean, one, we could set up one

3:08:30with town council, but I think

3:08:34I don't know that um

3:08:38that's going to make it for Thursday. I

3:08:40think we'll provide you an update an

3:08:41updated version on Thursday. We'll talk

3:08:43about it and try and finalize something

3:08:45and if we still have questions, maybe we

3:08:47can do something. But

3:08:48>> I think Oh, Patrick, you had your hand

3:08:49up. I don't

3:08:52>> Yeah, I I um um Sean, I I um

3:08:56what's nagging at me is we're trying to

3:08:58rush this through.

3:09:00Um and I don't know, I don't have a good

3:09:04answer in my own head as to what purpose

3:09:06that serves because again, general

3:09:07bylaw, we can do we can deploy this at

3:09:10any time. You know, do we have one swing

3:09:13at the bat or do we is it like Mark was

3:09:14suggesting where we can go back and

3:09:15constantly refine this? So that's a

3:09:17pretty painful process when you think

3:09:18about it going back to town meeting over

3:09:20and over again on this on the similar

3:09:22topic to to fix it and knowing that a

3:09:25general bylaw can be put in in any place

3:09:27and there is no grandfathering

3:09:29what is our advantage right to to

3:09:33rushing it through. Um

3:09:36well well I think so whatever if

3:09:40something gets passed at this town

3:09:42meeting then you're really looking at a

3:09:45certain amount of time before the

3:09:46attorney general's office actually makes

3:09:48a declaration on it which could be a

3:09:51month or two I mean it's and other

3:09:52things

3:09:52>> 90 days

3:09:54>> they have 90 days

3:09:55>> they have 90 days and they can request

3:09:56extensions

3:09:57>> so in that time this could be deployed

3:10:00and then at that point are we then

3:10:03looking at something for annual town

3:10:05meeting or having

3:10:05>> but if I understand so here's my here's

3:10:07my point if I understand using the

3:10:09plastic bag as an example right our

3:10:12bylaw that changed the plastic bag the

3:10:14plastic bags were already deployed does

3:10:16that logic not say if we implemented a

3:10:19general bylaw 6 months from now that is

3:10:22rock solid that it's going to be far

3:10:24more effective and it is not

3:10:26grandfathered and we now can tell them

3:10:28you cannot do this it violates our

3:10:30general bylaw

3:10:32>> I think my Tell me, Patrick, I

3:10:34understand the logic. I feel like

3:10:37>> and I'm just I'm trying to I'm trying to

3:10:39I'm trying to rationalize my brain.

3:10:41Okay. I feel like if um

3:10:46sequentially if we don't do anything if

3:10:49if we don't do anything and pass

3:10:52something or bring [clears throat]

3:10:53something forward, excuse me, that

3:10:56prevents this at our special town

3:10:58meeting and then we get to the ZVA

3:11:03that that date, whatever date that is in

3:11:05November,

3:11:08it just we we start to lose control and

3:11:13once I I just don't have confidence that

3:11:16once the

3:11:17>> I'd rather be safe

3:11:18>> once the horse is out of the barn and

3:11:20then you got the FBA and now Amazon's

3:11:22going to disable like what they've

3:11:24already created.

3:11:25>> As I think about it, I think I'd rather

3:11:27be safer than sorry. So, I'd rather go I

3:11:30you guys have the looks on your faces

3:11:32all kind of made me rethink this.

3:11:35>> I think the other thing about this,

3:11:36right, is there's not levels. It's

3:11:38binary. Right.

3:11:40>> Right. it's stopped or it isn't.

3:11:42>> Yeah. Yeah.

3:11:44>> So, yeah.

3:11:45>> So, back to back to Mr. J's question. I

3:11:49mean, I I think at this point what I

3:11:50would recommend because I I it sounds

3:11:52like we um council has an opportunity to

3:11:56have an audience with the AG. What I

3:11:58think is more productive is is taking

3:12:03this language three through five at a

3:12:05minimum and say we want this

3:12:07incorporated to the fullest extent be on

3:12:10the more aggressive side and if mass

3:12:13blue skies has the opportunity between

3:12:15now and I don't know when that meeting

3:12:17is to send over their recommendations

3:12:20for consideration sort of like now we've

3:12:23got two versions. I think that's the

3:12:25best we can hope for in time for

3:12:27Thursday.

3:12:29>> Yes.

3:12:29>> Sorry, you said three through five,

3:12:32which is of their version, but you're

3:12:34saying that they have they have another

3:12:36version.

3:12:37>> Yeah.

3:12:37>> No. No. Well, I I didn't know if

3:12:41they were just looking at our version on

3:12:43the screen. I didn't know if there was

3:12:44anything that they

3:12:46>> wanted to offer, but I I don't think

3:12:48having a meeting with our town council

3:12:50is going to be an option is to answer

3:12:51the question at this point in a given

3:12:53timing.

3:12:55Yeah,

3:12:55>> that's my sense, but you know, I'll look

3:12:57to the board.

3:12:58>> So, my my thoughts on this are well,

3:13:01okay, so council took a look at Mass

3:13:04Blue skies and said it was

3:13:07>> taking a thorough look at,

3:13:09>> right, said it it seemed more like it

3:13:12was addressing zoning, right? Well, get

3:13:16>> guess what, right? Council works for us.

3:13:19>> Last time I checked, we can tell them

3:13:21what we want in this bylaw.

3:13:23>> Yep. And we can say, well, maybe it is

3:13:26zoning a little bit and maybe these, you

3:13:29know, 1500, you know, 150 foot things

3:13:32are zoning and it might not get through

3:13:35the AG review on a, you know, but we

3:13:37want we want it in there, right? Because

3:13:40we want as many, you know, quivers in

3:13:43our arrow. I think that's less better

3:13:45than bullets in the gun.

3:13:47>> Yeah. I guess the concern I have there

3:13:48though, and it goes back to Sean saying

3:13:50it's binary here,

3:13:52you know, we're saying we don't want it,

3:13:54then we're going to do everything we can

3:13:55to not want it and put everything in

3:13:57there. But if we don't get it, then

3:14:00we're back to the beginning and we have

3:14:01nothing

3:14:02>> besides our zone

3:14:05our our our zoning that we have today on

3:14:07noise,

3:14:09which certain individuals

3:14:11have said they think covers us anyways

3:14:13to disallow it. But again, that's my

3:14:16concern here.

3:14:17>> I'm not going to wait.

3:14:18>> I want I want if this is where

3:14:22we want to go. I want to put teeth into

3:14:25it, but I do think it's it's

3:14:29you put teeth in.

3:14:31>> It's got to be realistic.

3:14:32>> Realistic. And I do think and I think

3:14:35what Christy said here is there's my

3:14:36concern here is that we're creating

3:14:38something that is not a zone that we

3:14:41have in town which sounds very much like

3:14:43a zoning thing the housing.

3:14:45>> So let council go through three five and

3:14:47say what's appropriate not appropriate.

3:14:49the residential buffer zone. I think I

3:14:51think

3:14:52>> can can we the residential buffer zones

3:14:54if you look at three through five the

3:14:56takeoff and landing is pretty clear

3:14:59right it it creates a uh it creates risk

3:15:03it creates noise it creates risks

3:15:07and I think three through five address

3:15:09those also the dropping off creates from

3:15:13air dropping fiveb packages if you hit

3:15:16somebody in the head with a 5B package

3:15:17that's a safety risk

3:15:19>> the the problem is right now today,

3:15:20right? I'll just try to

3:15:23>> problem today. Right now, my

3:15:24understanding is there is no definition

3:15:26of residential buffer zone inside of any

3:15:29of our zoning or general bylaws. So,

3:15:31right out of the gate, that definition

3:15:33causes a problem.

3:15:34>> Well, that I think that I think the

3:15:35drafting could be altered by keeping the

3:15:38intent of three through five alive and

3:15:40eliminating that.

3:15:41>> That's my hope that

3:15:42>> Yeah. So, this was our draft.

3:15:47um we had to do it on a rush timetable

3:15:49like you're working on. I I'm not

3:15:51claiming it's perfect. I would love to

3:15:53work with you and town council and and

3:15:55making it as perfect as it can be and

3:15:58accomplish the goal which I think

3:15:59everybody in the town shares. Um, so if

3:16:02that means ripping out the language uh

3:16:05talking about residential uh zone

3:16:07buffering uh but getting to the

3:16:09specifics of the uh noise, the public

3:16:12nuisance um

3:16:14>> and the safety

3:16:15>> in the safety

3:16:16>> privacy

3:16:16>> and focusing on that. Uh I think we have

3:16:20no problem with that. If that's what it

3:16:22takes to steer clear of of the zoning

3:16:25risks, uh we're all for it.

3:16:27>> Yeah. I mean, I think

3:16:30your language just needs to be revised a

3:16:32little bit to take out that residential

3:16:35buffer zone. And the the first half of

3:16:37it, no commercial entity or commercial

3:16:40operator shall establish, utilize, or

3:16:42operate any ground level, staging point,

3:16:44launchpad, nesting grid, or property end

3:16:46point for the

3:16:47>> vehicle takeoff or landing for any

3:16:49commercial purpose. Period.

3:16:51>> Period.

3:16:52>> Yes.

3:16:52>> Period.

3:16:53>> Period. Let's

3:16:54>> Exactly. I'm I'm with you. Yeah,

3:16:56>> I'm with you.

3:16:57>> We don't need to make exceptions uh for,

3:17:00you know, for areas in town outside the

3:17:03the buffer zone.

3:17:04>> Absolutely. I think that that

3:17:06streamlines it.

3:17:07>> I think we just say it's not allowed

3:17:09anywhere in town.

3:17:10>> Pull the residential buffer zone out. It

3:17:12should be anywhere. So, I I think I

3:17:16think that would get us to where we're

3:17:17all trying to go. the the the Marshall

3:17:20plan was was nice, but it was fairly

3:17:22focused on town and uh properties where

3:17:25where this we all know is going to

3:17:27happen on people's private property. So,

3:17:29I think it has to be include that

3:17:31>> comprehensive better language.

3:17:33>> Yep.

3:17:34So, is the request to remove things from

3:17:38this draft that would maybe border too

3:17:42much on zoning or is it to

3:17:44>> No, I actually like Shel's draft, but

3:17:46adding I'm sorry. Did you want to finish

3:17:48your question?

3:17:49>> Okay. Okay.

3:17:51>> Um, or the question was, do you want to

3:17:55remove the things from three through

3:17:56five and then incorporate them into

3:17:58Shelby's draft? I think two

3:18:03>> option B

3:18:04>> I would say just take three through

3:18:06five. Give Shel's draft as just reviewed

3:18:08tonight. Give it to council. Have them

3:18:10try to

3:18:11>> incorporate it.

3:18:12>> Wedge them together.

3:18:14>> I think I apologize. Has

3:18:18has a lawyer reviewed your version?

3:18:22>> This is a collab this is a collaborative

3:18:23approach by many volunteers some of whom

3:18:26are attorneys not necessarily land

3:18:28attorneys. We've did some AI scrubbing

3:18:31of this um which cited the Newton case

3:18:34which cited um FAA preeemptions. Uh so

3:18:39and we did a lot of iterative scrubbing

3:18:41as you probably did with cloud. So I

3:18:43think it was a collaborative approach

3:18:45with people who have experience. I my

3:18:47profession is in the peritting and

3:18:50development world but I'm not an

3:18:52attorney. Um, our intention is to bring

3:18:55on, in fact, we're working on that now

3:18:57an attorney shortly uh to to represent

3:19:00Mass Blue Skies as well. And we've

3:19:02talked to at least five already.

3:19:04>> Okay.

3:19:05>> Thank you.

3:19:06>> Do you want to um Yes.

3:19:08>> Yeah. Mr. Badar, do you want to rec?

3:19:10>> Sure.

3:19:16>> Thanks so much uh for letting me just

3:19:18chime in here for a second or two. I I

3:19:20just wanted um for our our sake and the

3:19:24folks that we're working with to get

3:19:25some clarity on the process in between

3:19:27now and Thursday and Monday. So, it's a

3:19:32little hard to hear some of that, but my

3:19:34understanding is you're going to not

3:19:36request that the attorney look for

3:19:38something enforceable, but direct the

3:19:40attorney to do something as strong as

3:19:44possible to incorporate the principles

3:19:46between

3:19:47of sections 3 to five.

3:19:49>> Yes.

3:19:50>> Right. Into whatever they they think

3:19:52that they can put forward. I think

3:19:54you'll find and the word zone sort of

3:19:57stands out, but if you replace

3:19:58residential buffer zone with the words

3:20:01private residence,

3:20:03I think it does a lot of work. So, I

3:20:06would might offer that up to to the the

3:20:08town council. Um,

3:20:13and I also just want to say like first

3:20:15of all, thank you. We hear you that you

3:20:17hear us. So, it's really really

3:20:19appreciated all the efforts that you're

3:20:20making and and to put put real teeth

3:20:23into this. So, what exactly happens in

3:20:26between tonight, the meeting with the

3:20:28town council, the town council, then

3:20:30consulting with the AG, come back on

3:20:33Thursday to I think finalize the bylaw

3:20:36to then get to Monday.

3:20:38>> Well, I'm going to go eat

3:20:39>> finalize

3:20:41to finalize. We'll finalize the motion

3:20:44that will come before town meeting on

3:20:47Thursday. on Thursday which will include

3:20:49the text of the of the finalized bylaw.

3:20:51>> Yes.

3:20:52>> Yes.

3:20:52>> Correct. The finalized.

3:20:54>> Yes.

3:20:54>> Yeah.

3:20:54>> So, our hope is that finalized bylaw

3:20:56will incorporate um the specific intent

3:20:59of 3 through five in addition to the

3:21:00things that Shelby had drafted and uh

3:21:04and and that is what we would be looking

3:21:06at for the Warren article and then what

3:21:08we'd be voting on at town meeting.

3:21:10>> Yeah. Correct. And

3:21:11>> I would ask I guess if if we finalize a

3:21:15version on Thursday that you in

3:21:18subsequent review feel fall short

3:21:22somewhere if you could let us know

3:21:24before town meeting.

3:21:25>> Of course

3:21:25>> so that we have a chance to discuss any

3:21:28changes and an idea of what you know I

3:21:32really I'm hoping we come up with a

3:21:33version on Thursday that doesn't need

3:21:36amendment.

3:21:37Um but given the rush nature of this um

3:21:42you know it's not impossible that

3:21:43somebody might

3:21:44>> absolutely our intent is not to uh

3:21:47launch any surprise uh amendments on

3:21:50town meeting floor. I've been through

3:21:51town meetings before and I know how that

3:21:53usually ends up which is is not

3:21:54typically good. So uh we would certainly

3:21:57if there was anything that we felt was a

3:21:59clear shortcoming which we would like to

3:22:02uh uh uh bolster or make more robust uh

3:22:06we will offer that wording up in

3:22:08advance.

3:22:09>> Yes.

3:22:10>> Sorry.

3:22:10>> So I will probably work I'll work on

3:22:12this tomorrow and I'm happy to share a

3:22:15draft so that you can give your input on

3:22:17Thursday because at some point on Monday

3:22:20we have to print copies of all of these

3:22:23bylaws. So,

3:22:24>> um, and what I what I would say is

3:22:27typically in the event that there is,

3:22:31um,

3:22:33disagreement,

3:22:35>> um, we, correct me if I'm wrong, as a

3:22:39board, we open before town meeting,

3:22:42right? We usually have some time set

3:22:45aside. So, town meeting starts at what

3:22:47time?

3:22:48>> Have a posted meeting beforehand?

3:22:49>> Yeah, we have a posted meeting

3:22:50beforehand. So, that would be an

3:22:51opportunity

3:22:52>> Sure. to have a discussion um so we

3:22:55would understand that. Hopefully we

3:22:56could do that beforehand, you know,

3:22:58before it goes to print. But yeah,

3:23:00>> hopefully we're all on the same page

3:23:01when Thursday night wraps up. That'd be

3:23:03great.

3:23:04>> That's our hope.

3:23:05>> But but if we could get that preview,

3:23:06that would be fantastic and extremely

3:23:08>> constructive. I think it'll be easier.

3:23:10Yeah.

3:23:10>> Yeah. Okay.

3:23:13>> Okay.

3:23:14>> That's great.

3:23:16>> Thank you both very much.

3:23:17>> Thank you so much for for listening. And

3:23:20and I think we have our orders here.

3:23:24>> What was the

3:23:25>> I think we have our orders here.

3:23:26>> I'm clear.

3:23:27>> Yeah. I I mean again I just want to

3:23:29emphasize Christie. I think you've heard

3:23:30it. I um but that we are asking

3:23:36directing town council to be more

3:23:38aggressive pushing as far close to the

3:23:42line as possible versus maybe a more

3:23:44conservative approach. uh than then we

3:23:47we would I just want to make sure that

3:23:48that gets

3:23:49>> Yeah, I understand. I I just I think the

3:23:52conservatism of town council is about

3:23:54what will pass by what what the AG will

3:23:57approve and what they won't.

3:23:58>> Yeah. And and

3:23:59>> his concern is that he gives us

3:24:00something and then it fails and then he

3:24:02gets the we point the finger at town

3:24:04council.

3:24:04>> Yeah. I No, and I understand that. And I

3:24:06also think that um you know Mark your

3:24:09point that you made early on in this

3:24:12discussion you know is kind of like th

3:24:14this is a big deal for Massachusetts.

3:24:17This is a really this this happens to be

3:24:19about what 15 17 communities right now

3:24:22but this is a big big deal and and

3:24:25there's also the state level um you know

3:24:28lawsuit that's going on or the federal

3:24:30level you know that's been filed as

3:24:32well. So, I I think we

3:24:36um I I I want to see town council take a

3:24:39hard swing. Um and if you know, if they

3:24:44I don't I don't expect them to strike

3:24:46out. I I really don't. And I think we've

3:24:48we there's a there's a lot of push

3:24:51behind this to to make sure that we

3:24:53protect our community. So anyway,

3:24:56>> I'll tell you as an attorney that I've

3:24:57done something for clients many times

3:24:59and I've done I tried to put something

3:25:02reasonable in front of clients many

3:25:03times.

3:25:05>> Over

3:25:05>> and [laughter] they come back with a

3:25:06direction to be a lot more aggressive.

3:25:08>> Yeah. Yeah.

3:25:09>> Thank you.

3:25:10>> Yes. Uh would you mind if uh Christine

3:25:12Farmer made a quick comment?

3:25:14>> Sure. She was

3:25:15>> just a quick Thank you so much. I

3:25:17respectfully um thank you for this. Oh,

3:25:19thank you.

3:25:22Um I think James had mentioned it

3:25:24earlier. It's the spirit of the law, not

3:25:27the letter of the law. That was one

3:25:28point. The second is um our senator

3:25:32Moore, Rep. Kaine and Donahghue are

3:25:34fully in support of this. The lieutenant

3:25:37g the lieutenant governor was here in

3:25:39Westboro on Sunday and I addressed this

3:25:42with her. He has she understands and has

3:25:45her legal teams working on this. So, I'm

3:25:48sure that if the AG says that the

3:25:52language is in zoning and not bylaw, I

3:25:54highly encourage you to push back on the

3:25:57AG and then reach out to the governor's

3:25:59office and say this is precedent for the

3:26:02entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

3:26:06We are harboring this on our own and we

3:26:09need the most excellent legal advice

3:26:11available in this Commonwealth. So, I

3:26:14just want to encourage you to um put in

3:26:17the muscle to bring it to the governor

3:26:20if you need to. Thank you.

3:26:22>> And I hear I just want to heighten I

3:26:24mean acting like we don't. We don't. But

3:26:27I will be realistic here because we've

3:26:30been doing it with 72% of the voters

3:26:33want an audit and the attorney general

3:26:34continues to shut it down even though

3:26:37others have been pushing it. So,

3:26:39>> fair point. We will we will try, but

3:26:43it's it's not as easy as just pushing.

3:26:45And I appreciate you talking to

3:26:46Lieutenant Governor. Our town manager

3:26:48has talked to Lieutenant Governor. She's

3:26:49been very supportive. Our reps, like you

3:26:51said, I absolutely agree with that. But

3:26:54um and we're going to do whatever we

3:26:56can, but it's uh it's it's not we don't

3:27:00unfortunately we don't snap our fingers

3:27:02and they always

3:27:05listen, but we're going to try. I I I

3:27:07think

3:27:07>> I would I would say also they're all in

3:27:10the middle of a campaign and it would

3:27:12not behoove them to come out on the

3:27:15wrong side of this issue. Um so I think

3:27:18that if we were to impress upon them

3:27:20that it would be good publicity

3:27:23>> if they were to um you know give us

3:27:28their best legal advice.

3:27:29>> We do what we can. Mr. [clears throat]

3:27:30>> Chair, are we all set to move on?

3:27:32>> What's that?

3:27:32>> Are we ready to move on?

3:27:33>> I think we are.

3:27:34>> Okay. Thank you very much.

3:27:35>> Thank you very much. We I think we're

3:27:36all convinced we're moving in the same

3:27:38direction.

3:27:39>> See you Thursday.

3:27:41>> Um

3:27:42>> back to uh the election warrant. Yes.

3:27:45>> How about consideration of support for

3:27:46article 7?

3:27:47>> Oh, I'm sorry.

3:27:48>> I guess do is there any discussion

3:27:51people want to have for consideration of

3:27:52support for articles seven and eight? I

3:27:55guess we can hold off on eight.

3:27:56>> I want to hold off on eight finalized it

3:27:57yet. Seven.

3:27:59>> Yes.

3:28:00>> Yeah.

3:28:01>> So I would I would move to support

3:28:03article seven.

3:28:04>> Second. Any questions? All those in

3:28:07favor? Five to zero. All right. Thank

3:28:10you very much. So that's the end of

3:28:12nine. So we will move back to item

3:28:15number three, the warrant for the 2026

3:28:18election.

3:28:23See, pardon me.

3:28:26>> Good evening,

3:28:27>> Debbie.

3:28:27>> So you should have in your packet the

3:28:29official warrant for the 2026 state

3:28:32election, and I would ask that you

3:28:34consider and sign that. so we can get

3:28:35that posted.

3:28:38Um, I just want to mention while I'm

3:28:39here again, this election is November

3:28:413rd. The election is going to be at the

3:28:44community center at 1500 Union Street.

3:28:47Um, early voting does start this

3:28:49Saturday. It's 9 to3. It continues until

3:28:52Friday, October 30th. All early voting

3:28:55is at town hall. Um, election day only

3:28:58is at the community center.

3:29:02>> Thank you very much.

3:29:02>> Great.

3:29:04I move to approve the request of the

3:29:05town clerk to

3:29:11>> sign the November 3rd, 2026 state

3:29:13election warrant.

3:29:14>> Second much questions. All those in

3:29:18favor.

3:29:20Thank you very much. How did the

3:29:21leadership academy go tonight?

3:29:23>> Good.

3:29:24>> Good. It went well. All right.

3:29:25Excellent. I'm sure it did. I'm sure it

3:29:27did.

3:29:27>> Yes.

3:29:28>> John crushed it. All right.

3:29:31>> Okay. Um item number 10 is consideration

3:29:34of communication to congressional

3:29:35delegation federal aviation

3:29:37administration regarding unmanned

3:29:39aircraft. So at this time there are

3:29:42multiple letters that are being worked

3:29:44on that may change may make some

3:29:48modifications to what we say in our

3:29:50letter. So we're going to push our that

3:29:54that um item until Thursday. Okay? And

3:29:58we'll follow up on that item on

3:29:59Thursday.

3:30:01Um, with that, I've got us on item

3:30:05number 11 here. Did I overlook anything?

3:30:09Oh, sign this.

3:30:15>> Um, so for 11, we just have the minutes

3:30:17that are in your packet. Just

3:30:23>> uh, would you like a motion to approve

3:30:24the meeting minutes?

3:30:26>> That'd be great. Thank you. Which one we

3:30:28have? So, uh, move to approve, um, open

3:30:32session meeting minutes September 22nd,

3:30:352026 and September 24th, 2026.

3:30:39>> Okay.

3:30:40>> Second.

3:30:40>> Second. Thank you very much. Any

3:30:42questions? All those in favor?

3:30:45Five to zero. Five being present. Thank

3:30:47you.

3:30:49Okay. Town manager update.

3:30:54>> Oh, wait. We have a the town moderators.

3:30:57>> Oh. Um y I will I will reopen open forum

3:31:01for you John in a minute. Thank you.

3:31:07>> Yes. Thank you.

3:31:08>> Um the capital planning committee

3:31:10started meeting last week. Um so we had

3:31:12our first meeting with community

3:31:13development and it so they heard about

3:31:15the um permit pro like you did this

3:31:18evening but also um any other projects

3:31:20that are coming forward. Um, we also

3:31:24created a a drone page on our website

3:31:27just to keep folks informed about what's

3:31:29going on. Um, that was shared with the

3:31:32delegation. Um, I also sent it to all of

3:31:35the managers and the two mayors in the

3:31:37communities that were um are impacted.

3:31:39So, I've gotten a lot of feedback from

3:31:40them and they've shared it uh widely as

3:31:43well. Um there in addition to updating

3:31:48that page to identify the meeting on

3:31:50Thursday, I also identified that the ZBA

3:31:53has posted their meeting um for

3:31:55consideration of the um appeal and that

3:31:58is November 2nd. So there's a link on

3:32:00there to that agenda.

3:32:03um related to the wreck, you heard

3:32:05earlier from our finance director that

3:32:07um the wreck did go out for that the

3:32:09bond of $12.5 million and we executed

3:32:12that paperwork at our meeting today.

3:32:16Um we are continuing to look uh or

3:32:20interview folks for the executive

3:32:22assistant uh position in our office and

3:32:24so we have a second round of interviews

3:32:26this week. So hoping that we'll fill

3:32:28that soon.

3:32:30Um and then also we've been working um

3:32:33with Mosaic um which is a a consultant

3:32:39brought on by the state to help

3:32:41communities um expend their opioid

3:32:44funds. Um so we have our second meeting

3:32:47with them this week and um one of their

3:32:50roles is to help do the required public

3:32:53engagement and identification of need um

3:32:57in the community as required by the

3:32:59settlement agreements.

3:33:03>> Christy, thank you very much. Um and now

3:33:06we are on uh issues and correspondence.

3:33:10Um anyone care to start?

3:33:14Yes, I have nothing.

3:33:15>> Oh, excellent. Thank you very much.

3:33:18>> Um, just real quick, um, and while it's

3:33:21not, it's after our next meeting.

3:33:23Tickets are on sale now, uh, for the

3:33:272026 West Good Scout. Um, who, uh, as

3:33:31folks probably know by now has the

3:33:33honores been chosen. It's Dan Flood, um,

3:33:36owner of the Central House. Um the event

3:33:38will be held on November 4th uh at 6 pm

3:33:42at the Double Tree Hotel and uh if folks

3:33:46are interested uh they can go to the

3:33:49Mayflower Council uh BSA website uh to

3:33:53purchase tickets. So um pleased to see

3:33:57Dan Flood being honored as a Westford

3:33:59Good Scout recipient. That's all I have.

3:34:01>> Thank you very much.

3:34:06Um, couple of things. We got an email

3:34:09from a resident and there's been some

3:34:11quite a bit of talk on social media

3:34:12about a storm water bill that went out.

3:34:15Can we get an update on that

3:34:17>> at a future meeting because I I'm a

3:34:19little unclear as to what happened?

3:34:21>> Sure.

3:34:21>> Uh, I just want to

3:34:23>> want to understand that. Um,

3:34:26I went to bagels on the bagels with the

3:34:28board this morning at senior center.

3:34:30There was quite a bit of discussion of

3:34:32drones.

3:34:34Uh I encouraged everyone there to go to

3:34:37the new website that Christie referred

3:34:39to. Um

3:34:42there [clears throat] were uh general

3:34:44consensus that people were against it if

3:34:46you if you hadn't figured that out. So,

3:34:48um the uh there was also discussion of

3:34:52the community center, some concern

3:34:54that um we look at certain alternates

3:34:59but not come in with a bill so high that

3:35:01it won't get through town meeting.

3:35:04>> Um and I said, well, we have to get the

3:35:06alternate pricing first and then we'll

3:35:08have a discussion on that and and

3:35:10somebody whoever goes to that next

3:35:13bagels on the board can give them an

3:35:15update on that. So, um,

3:35:19see what else did we talk about? Um,

3:35:23there was a concern about, uh, unleashed

3:35:25dogs at, uh, Chanty,

3:35:28>> um, and lack of enforcement by the town.

3:35:31And

3:35:31>> what was it? I'm sorry.

3:35:32>> Unleashed dogs at Chanty

3:35:35>> and lack of enforcement by the town. And

3:35:37I I gave that to Christie to talk to the

3:35:40chief. So hopefully we can get um get

3:35:43that resolved. um can't have 24 an hour

3:35:48a day, but um [clears throat] you know,

3:35:51we'll have to figure something out. Um

3:35:56I I think I encouraged everybody last

3:35:59time to go to the West Bro connects

3:36:01community calendar. Um so I won't rattle

3:36:03off everything that's on there, but I I

3:36:05did want to point out that uh next

3:36:08Monday, the 19th is town meeting,

3:36:11>> just in case you didn't know.

3:36:12>> Yeah, I write that down. Uh, but Sunday

3:36:14is the Row for Westboro fundraiser. Uh,

3:36:18which I think is a a wonderful benefit

3:36:20if I'm not sure if they're still

3:36:22accepting people signing up, but it's a

3:36:25way to give back to athletes in town.

3:36:27Um, and then one thing that I did not

3:36:30see on their calendar

3:36:33uh was the uh VFW Post uh 9013

3:36:39is hosting a veterans free greet and

3:36:42meet uh on um October 16th at 10:00 a.m.

3:36:49uh at Westboro Connects. So it's um

3:36:53I don't know if it's restricted to

3:36:55veterans. you'd probably have to reach

3:36:56out to them and find out, but I think

3:36:59it'd be a great opportunity for at least

3:37:01the veterans this in this town. Uh,

3:37:05and with that, I will stop and not give

3:37:07you guys.

3:37:08>> By the way, Westbrook Connects created

3:37:10that calendar at our request

3:37:12without your knowledge, Mark. I'm just

3:37:14kidding.

3:37:15>> I think it's a wonderful calendar. I It

3:37:17populates on my Google calendar and I

3:37:19can see every event that is posted in

3:37:22town. um just

3:37:24>> still finding events that aren't posted

3:37:26on it. So hopefully people are getting

3:37:27the message, reaching out to them, and I

3:37:30won't have to be redundant. So

3:37:32>> sounds good.

3:37:35>> I have nothing this I have nothing

3:37:36tonight. Thank you.

3:37:38>> Thank you very much. All right. Yes. Um

3:37:40I was going to say town meeting 7 p.m.

3:37:42the high school. Thank you everybody.

3:37:44We're going to reopen open forum briefly

3:37:47so our town moderator can give us the

3:37:51what for about Monday.

3:37:54>> Thank you very much for uh going out of

3:37:56your way. Sorry I couldn't be here at

3:37:57your last meeting because some conflicts

3:37:59and then tonight Debbie and I were over

3:38:01at the civic leadership academy

3:38:02conflicting with you and a few weeks ago

3:38:04I wasn't quite ready. Um so I want to

3:38:06thank you for giving me the opportunity.

3:38:08I not going to uh spend a lot of time. I

3:38:10just want to let you know we can talk

3:38:11some other time about the uh after town

3:38:13meeting. uh listening session I did, but

3:38:15I'm this is really part of my outreach.

3:38:17I'm going to try to go to the beginning

3:38:18of the finance committee meeting on

3:38:20Thursday, too, because what I found when

3:38:21I did my listening session was that

3:38:23although there's lots of ideas and lots

3:38:24of suggestions and lots of feedback,

3:38:26there are some things that I can take

3:38:28action on unilaterally to try to address

3:38:30what I found were the most common

3:38:32feedback that people had, which is the

3:38:34duration of the town meeting itself, the

3:38:36length of time some articles take, and

3:38:38the ability for some people to attend

3:38:39town meeting. So, after giving it a lot

3:38:42of thought over the summer, there's four

3:38:44changes in the rules that I've typically

3:38:45used that I'm going to experiment with.

3:38:47And if they work, they work and I'll

3:38:48continue them in March. And if they

3:38:50don't work, we'll keep trying. Uh, the

3:38:52first one has to do with many people,

3:38:53although I have diligent timing of the

3:38:55speeches, many people find that the back

3:38:58and forth nature of a 2 and a half

3:38:59minute speech can end up taking too much

3:39:01time. And it and as I thought about

3:39:03this, I realized it seemed more like a

3:39:05cross-examination than it was a question

3:39:08and answer. So, the first rule change

3:39:10that I'm going to try out on Tuesday is

3:39:12I'm going to ask people when they speak

3:39:14that to essentially ask all of their

3:39:16questions first and then if they after

3:39:19they do that, we'll get some answers and

3:39:21I think that people will try to keep

3:39:22their answers brief and if they still

3:39:24have some time of their two and a half

3:39:26minutes, I'm going to allow just one

3:39:27follow-up question. So, this will

3:39:29eliminate some of the cross-examination.

3:39:31and it will make a 2 and 1/2 minute

3:39:32speech hopefully uh when you include the

3:39:35answering of the questions not be more

3:39:36than uh will be less than it used to be

3:39:39and I think this will also include the

3:39:41perception that people are either

3:39:42speaking more than once or that they're

3:39:43speaking more than two and a half

3:39:45minutes. So, the second change that I'm

3:39:47going to make is that I'm going to try

3:39:49to somewhat randomly cycle through

3:39:51asking voters who are in favor, who are

3:39:54in opposed, who have questions, um, who

3:39:56want to speak on an article rather than

3:39:58just just taking the speakers in the

3:39:59order they show up at the microphone.

3:40:01I've tried the past few meetings to

3:40:03essentially ask people to just

3:40:04congregate by the microphone and not

3:40:07necessarily and been saying that I won't

3:40:09guarantee I'll take them in the order

3:40:10there. In the past, it's been because I

3:40:12wanted to recognize new voices who maybe

3:40:14aren't have don't necessarily uh want to

3:40:16bravely step up to the microphone. Uh

3:40:19but by cycling through the articles, uh

3:40:21by ask by cycling through the speakers,

3:40:23by asking people in some order, are

3:40:26let's have a speaker in favor or let's

3:40:28have a speaker opposed or is there

3:40:29someone who just has questions? The real

3:40:31purpose is to get the heart of the pros

3:40:33and cons and how many people there are

3:40:35for or against or how many people need

3:40:37more information. Because in the past,

3:40:39this moves into the third rule change.

3:40:41In the past, I've always used the

3:40:42duration of time before I would

3:40:44determine whether people could terminate

3:40:45debate. And when you're not randomly

3:40:47choosing people, we could have five

3:40:48people in a row speak against something

3:40:50or we could have six people in a row

3:40:51speak in favor. And we won't necessarily

3:40:53know if we've had adequate deliberation.

3:40:55So what I'm going to try is to say if I

3:40:57can ask five people to speak four uh

3:40:59sorry if I can cycle through after we've

3:41:02had three people for three people

3:41:03against and maybe a few people with

3:41:05questions once we've hit that threshold

3:41:07of three then I think we can probably

3:41:10the voters can determine have they heard

3:41:12enough to know whether they want to talk

3:41:13more about or not. So rather than using

3:41:16a amount of time uh for me to allow a

3:41:19motion to terminate debate, I'll just go

3:41:21on whether we've heard about three

3:41:23voters on on either side. And since the

3:41:25motion to terminate debate um isn't

3:41:28debatable, people will have heard enough

3:41:30to know do they want to hear more

3:41:31questions? Do they want to hear more

3:41:32pros and cons or do they just want to

3:41:33vote? [clears throat] because in many

3:41:34number people who uh who I think people

3:41:38want to have that sense of deliberation

3:41:39and make sure they don't want to change

3:41:40their mind but I think many people think

3:41:42they don't necessarily need to hear an

3:41:44hour on a topic to make up that mind

3:41:46their determination. So this combination

3:41:48of cycling through pros cons and

3:41:49questions and then uh having a different

3:41:52standard for terminating debate will

3:41:53help speed the velocity of each article

3:41:55along. And finally, uh we've already

3:41:58tried in March and I think it was very

3:41:59successful had more uh disabled handy

3:42:02handy uh disabled parking spaces and I

3:42:04think that helped for some of the

3:42:06seniors and some of the people who have

3:42:07mobility issues getting to town meeting.

3:42:09One of the questions that often comes up

3:42:11is parents uh with children who either

3:42:14uh want to participate in the meeting

3:42:16after child care is over or whose

3:42:18children are too old for child care um

3:42:20or who just don't really want to use

3:42:22child care at all. And this is an idea

3:42:24that I had a few years ago and now I've

3:42:26talked to other moderators and it's been

3:42:28tried out successfully. And that's with

3:42:30the idea that we have an overflow room.

3:42:32In the overflow room, I'm going to allow

3:42:34parents with children to sit with their

3:42:35children together with the uh assumption

3:42:38that they will try to monitor their

3:42:40children for noise and that if the

3:42:42children can stay reasonably quiet and

3:42:44the adults too can stay reasonably

3:42:46quiet, um they can sit there uh doing

3:42:49their homework, working on iPads or

3:42:51whatever parents do to have their

3:42:52children pass time somewhat quietly. Um,

3:42:54but rather than strictly saying, "No,

3:42:56the children can't be in the halls,

3:42:58can't sit on town meeting, I'm going to

3:43:00use the overflow room for people who

3:43:01don't necessarily really need uh an

3:43:04ultra quiet space." So, the parents will

3:43:06still be able to participate as they

3:43:08need to be, but it will give them some

3:43:10other option. Again, I don't think these

3:43:12are necessarily perfect solutions, but I

3:43:14think they address some of the most

3:43:15common concerns and their actions that I

3:43:18can take without necessarily having to

3:43:20big make a big production out of it. So,

3:43:22I'm hoping to try these out. I hope

3:43:23people will give them a chance and then

3:43:25we'll see how it goes um after after

3:43:28Monday. Um but I just wanted to start

3:43:30doing some of the outreach about these

3:43:32ideas mostly to let people know that all

3:43:34of us care about uh town meeting call

3:43:36about care about how we govern ourselves

3:43:38and we're constantly trying to improve

3:43:40things while we work on longer term

3:43:42solutions that may take a little more

3:43:43time and maybe a little more change.

3:43:45That's really all I wanted to say. If

3:43:46you have any questions, I'll address

3:43:47them. If not, see you on Monday.

3:43:49>> Oh, John, [snorts] thank you very much.

3:43:51Anybody? I I know we typically don't

3:43:53respond to open forum, but but um I

3:43:56think the points the changes made would

3:43:59be great. I know our friends Westboro TV

3:44:01are working. Maybe they can clip it and

3:44:04get it on their social media. I don't

3:44:06know if it's

3:44:06>> I'm going to try to have this post on

3:44:07the town website tomorrow. It's it's the

3:44:09new revised brief guide to town meeting.

3:44:11So, if it can be there, then we'll see

3:44:13if people can post. Again, I've tried to

3:44:14let people know before though I will

3:44:16also review these quickly at the

3:44:17beginning of town surprised

3:44:19>> if we get it not and not only on the

3:44:21website but through out on Facebook.

3:44:23That would be great.

3:44:23>> I'm going to send along the document to

3:44:24post when I get home tonight.

3:44:26>> John, will those will there still be

3:44:28child care for those who want?

3:44:30>> Yeah, there still they're child care

3:44:31from 7:00 to 9.

3:44:32>> Okay. Thanks.

3:44:32>> By the honor society as usual.

3:44:35>> Thank you.

3:44:36>> Thanks again for changing your schedule.

3:44:39Thank you.

3:44:40should see if anybody else is here for

3:44:43>> I mean since we reopened open form is

3:44:45there anybody who didn't speak earlier

3:44:47who would like to say a few words?

3:44:50>> No, just no. But thank you for reminding

3:44:53me. Yes, I I opened it up. Okay. Um and

3:44:57with that I think um I need a motion for

3:45:02executive session. Are we doing all

3:45:04>> Yep. No. Um, I'll make a motion under

3:45:07Mass General Law Chapter 38 section.

3:45:11>> Just the first one.

3:45:12>> Just the first told me that already.

3:45:14>> Oh, sorry. Okay.

3:45:15>> Under Mass General Law, chapter 38,

3:45:17section 218 A3 to discuss strategy with

3:45:20respect to collective bargaining with

3:45:21the firefighter union if the chair

3:45:23determines that an open meeting would

3:45:25have a detrimental effect on the town's

3:45:27negotiating position.

3:45:28>> I determine that an open meeting would

3:45:30have a detrimental effect on the town's

3:45:32negotiating position. The board will not

3:45:34be returning back to open session after

3:45:37executive session. Can I get a second?

3:45:39>> Second.

3:45:40>> A roll call vote.

3:45:42>> Marshall, yes.

3:45:43>> Johnson, yes.

3:45:44>> Silverberg, yes.

3:45:45>> Welch, yes.

3:45:46>> And Kio, yes. Thank you, Westboroough TV

3:45:49and everybody who came this evening.

3:45:50>> Thank you guys for hanging in there for

3:45:52so long.