 There are 249 town meeting members. 125 constitutes a quorum. The constable informs me that a quorum is present. Session three of the November 6th, 2017 special town meeting will now come to order. Quick schedule review, if we don't finish tonight, we are next scheduled for Wednesday, November 15th, but it should be a reasonable thing for us to finish our business tonight. Please try and be quiet as you're getting to your seats. Seats on the floor of the auditorium may be occupied only by town meeting members, except for the front row, which may be used by members of the press and members of town committees and town staff. Such persons must wear non-voter stickers, which are available at the check-in tables. The seats in front of me on the right are occupied by the select board, town manager, assistant town manager, finance directors, and assistant to the town manager, IT staff. And the planning board is seated to my left because our first two articles that we're dealing with are zoning articles. Spectators and town residents who are not town meeting members may be seated in the bleachers to the rear of the auditorium. New information for town meeting members can be found on the back table to my left. Old information can be found in the back table to my right. The commerce media provides gavel to gavel coverage of our proceedings on Public Access Channel 17. I'd like to thank their staff and volunteers. If you wish to speak, you must raise your hand and be recognized. You must hold up a card to indicate your position. Green indicates yes, red indicates no, and a white card indicates that either you wish to speak without advocacy, or you wish to ask a question, or you wish to make a motion. When you're called on, please first state your name and precinct. If you forget, I will interrupt you and ask you to do so. You need more than three minutes or more than five when speaking to a motion than you have made. You must request additional time before speaking, and town meeting will vote on your request. If you're speaking from the floor, please speak into a microphone that will be provided once you're recognized. This will allow viewers outside the auditorium to hear you. The microphone will be on when it is handed to you. Please hold it close to your mouth when you speak. And I would like to especially thank our two microphone wranglers who volunteered to do this important task. Non-members who wish to speak should stand at the rear of the right-hand aisle, the aisle in front of me. Any registered voter of the town of Amherst who is recognized by the moderator may speak without special permission. Others may speak with the permission of a majority. If you're making an amendment to a motion, the amendment must be presented in writing with four copies submitted to the front table. Procedural motions, such as a motion to refer or a motion to dismiss, do not need to be presented in writing. If you make any motion from the floor, it must be the first thing you do after you have been recognized and have identified yourself. You cannot speak first and then make a motion. If you've not already done so, please check your cell phone, make sure it is silenced or off. At any point in time, you're confused about the proceedings. It is appropriate to call a point of order and ask for clarification. Couple extra reminders, please take a quick peek at your electronic voting device and make sure it's the number that looks familiar. That's the same number device you got last time. If you think you have an incorrect number, go back to the check-in table and talk to them. So I've also been warned that if you head off that way to the bathrooms towards where the pool and the gym are, and if you go through the doors and they close behind you, you will be locked into that corridor. You wouldn't, you'd live because you'd have to go outside and around and come back in. But be careful if you go that way to make sure the doors are still propped open so you can come back. We are now going to do a quick test of our electronic voting devices. First, a couple of quick reminders. Up, keys, not mine. This looks like a, is that a Prius? A Toyota key with a stop and shop tag. This could, this, this now is a down to three quarters of you. Hamster Athletic Club Tag, that now is a down to like 60%. So Toyota key, if you find out later you can't drive home, your key's up here. Okay, all votes taken to town meeting will initially be voice votes. If after a voice vote, the moderator or any member so requests we take an electronic to vote. Make sure your device is turned on. You should see a display with the number of your device on the LED screen. If you see a totally blank screen, press and release the power button on the bottom right corner and it should turn on. The only functional buttons are one, two, and three. One is yes, two is no, three is abstain. You never need to press any other button on the device. Other buttons have no effect on your vote. A vote to abstain will be recorded but it will not count towards the results. You may only vote with the device that has been assigned to you. At the end of the evening, please power off your device by pressing and holding the power button until the LED display is clear. And then return the device to the check and table where you picked it up at the beginning of the session. Don't take your device home with you please. We are now gonna have a test vote. Starting again, maybe. This is why we do a test vote. Okay, for now count 30 seconds to yourself. The timer will be there when we have our first real vote I've been told. So go ahead and press your vote. And I'm timing it here. We've got 21 seconds left. Ten more seconds and you can display the vote results. And I think Mr. Walde, the correct answer is no, isn't that correct? They just had a six months for the decision, not two years. So you're all way too pessimistic. Okay, there are no procedural motions that I'm aware of tonight's agenda. We'll begin with article eight, then nine, then 14, then 17. And once we dispose of those four, there will be a motion to dissolve town meeting. Assuming we get through all four of those. And so we begin with article eight and I call on Mr. Burt whistle to make the motion. Wait, microphone. I move in terms of the article. Motion's been made and seconded, you may speak to your motion. Actually, Mr. Crowner's gonna speak, yes. Bob Crowner for the planning board. This is the third consecutive town meeting at which the planning board has brought forward articles to clean up table three of the zoning bylaw, the dimensional table, by pairing the list of footnotes attached to it. When we started, there were 15 footnotes, most of which were rarely used, but whose presence in the dimensional table made it seem more complicated than necessary. If you approve article eight, only three footnotes will be left. The dimensional table is where the minimum or maximum standards for the basic building dimensions for each of the zoning districts in Amherst is located. These include lot size, lot coverage, frontage, setbacks, and height. Many of the rows, columns, or cells in the table have historically been marked with a footnote that either helps the user interpret the standard or modifies the standard under certain conditions. However, most of the footnotes work just as well elsewhere in regular text of the zoning bylaw, such as in article six, where each dimension has a section that explains how to interpret, measure, or apply it. In cleaning up the footnotes, our operating principle has been to delete the ones that serve no purpose and to relocate the ones that are substantive, in each case, preserving how the bylaw works and changing only how it is organized. That holds true for one of the footnotes in this article, footnote K, which allows the planning board as the permitting body for cluster subdivisions to further modify several dimensions that are automatically changed when the lot in question is part of a cluster subdivision rather than a standard development. There are four rows at the bottom of table three that establish substitute dimensions in clusters. For corresponding rows higher up in the table and footnote K applies to three of them and nothing else. However, all of the other regulations for cluster subdivisions are located in section 4.3 of the zoning bylaw. Including another substitute dimensional table, this one for cluster subdivisions containing affordable units. We propose to move the four table three rows pertaining to clusters into section 4.3 along with footnote K, where they will function exactly the same as they do now and where you would logically expect to find them anyway. On the other hand, we're proposing to simply delete the second footnote in this article, footnote J. Even though doing so will have a very small substantive impact. Footnote J changes the standard lot coverage regulation in limited business or BL zones from a maximum of 85% to a maximum of 70% for those BL zones that are not either downtown or on University Drive. However, there's only one such BL zone and there are only three parcels in that zone. It's at the southern end of Dickinson Street across from Amherst College and two of the parcels are owned by Amherst College. The former classic Chevrolet and a surface parking lot. The other is owned by Whiting Oil and is tucked behind the two Amherst College parcels next to the railroad line and has no street frontage. You may not even realize it's there unless you look at a map. The two Amherst College parcels are currently non-conforming as to lot coverage, being 80 to 90% covered, where footnote J calls for no more than 70% coverage. Since removing footnote J would change the lot coverage maximum to 85%, one of the parcels would be brought into conformity and the other one would be pretty close. Interestingly, the former Chevrolet dealership covered even more of the lot before Amherst College bought it. When Amherst College came before the planning board for our site plan review hearing, we required them to install a grassy area in front of the building to better define the streetscape and that has turned out really well. In any case, the planning board believes that footnote J serves no useful purpose, so this article would delete it, leaving only footnotes A, B and M in table three. This article was unanimously recommended by the planning board. Thank you. And Mr. Slaughter for the select board. Good evening. The select board voted unanimously five to zero to recommend this article for you for the reason stated by Mr. Crowner. That's it, okay. Finance committee has no position. This will require a two-thirds vote for passage because it is a change to the zoning by-law. By the way, I was a little remiss before. I didn't mention that the planning director is also sitting at the table in front of me. She's replaced the finance directors for these two articles. Is there discussion on the floor before we come to a vote? See a hand there, second row from the back. Hi, Lisa Berry, precinct two. I just have a question about this. I understand right now that this would only affect the two lots that you've discussed, but going forward in the future, would it affect all lots to be developed so that it would effectively minimize the, or increase the parking lot size and coverage size going forward of all lots and developments? Mr. Crowner. I'm not sure I understand. It would affect those lots going forward. The parking, the service parking lot is already out of conformity. It would also affect any, if there were any new BL parcels created anywhere in town outside of the downtown or on use or university drive. But because the BL zone is so contested right now, it's almost inconceivable that any BL lot would be proposed. So there aren't, it doesn't really have any future impact. Further discussion before we come to a vote? Yes, I see a hand on the aisle over there. Janet Keller, precinct one. I'd like to ask a clarifying question. The effective footnote J therefore is it reduces the lot coverage and it says there are only three. Can you clarify for me what it would do to the BL along North Pleasant Street, which is adjacent to the BG, but what would happen there, please? Mr. Crowner. So the lot coverage maximum there is 85% now. It would stay 85%. Thank you. Further discussion ready to come to a vote? I see no hands. Again, this requires two thirds for passage. All those in favor of the motion under article eight, please say aye. Opposed please say no. The ayes have it by two thirds. We now move on to article nine and I call on Mr. Burt whistle to make a motion. Motion is made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. And yes, this is Mr. Stutzman speaking. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Article nine relates to how the zoning by-law regulates parking facilities. In the summer of 2017, the downtown parking working group made a recommendation to review the permitting requirements for commercial parking facilities. This includes facilities which are privately owned as well as facilities which are the results of a public private partnership. Currently, such facilities are allowed only by special permit in the general business, village center business, limited business and commercial districts. The article would change the permitting requirement to site plan review in the general business, village center business, and commercial districts. The limited business district has been omitted from the change because there have been many recent conversations and proposals for these areas, which taken together warrant a more comprehensive approach. The purpose of the article is to mitigate one of the many barriers to the creation of new parking facilities in the downtown and village centers. Perhaps the most significant of these barriers is cost. As municipalities around the nation and the world have looked to alternative means of funding capital projects, an emerging trend has been the use of public private partnerships or P3s. In a local example, the University of Massachusetts this year issued a request for information relating to a potential P3 in Amherst for a variety of uses. The conversation about parking in Amherst, as elsewhere, is a complex one. How much do we need? Where should it go? Who will pay for it? Adopting article nine would mean more options are available to the town as it continues this conversation. The planning board voted five to zero with four members absent to recommend the town meeting adopt article nine. Thank you, Ms Kruger for the select board. I'm sorry, Mr Slaughter for the select board. The select board voted unanimously to recommend this to you. I think in short, our rationale was that by providing greater opportunity we could have some options made available to the community relative to parking in downtown that aren't necessarily driven wholly by the town itself. Site plan review is a by right allowance. And so therefore it is allowed, but it does allow us to place restrictions on that. And so the process would be such that although people would be allowed to create these types of facilities, there would be restrictions placed on it by the process of site plan review. And therefore the community has a lot of opportunity to weigh in and help shape that project. And as such, and the opportunity for the these kinds of projects to move ahead, the select board was in agreement with the planning board in recommending this to you. Thank you. And somebody speaking for the finance committee. Well, there you are, Jane. Thank you, Mr. moderator. The finance committee supports this article for the reasons stated in the report on page seven. Four voted yes, one no, and two were absent. Thank you very much. Article nine will require a two thirds vote for passage since it is a zoning by law. We are now open to discussion from the floor. Yes, right there on the aisle with a red card. Hello, Carol Gray, precinct seven. I wanted to just explain, especially for people who may be new, what the difference is with site plan review versus special permit. Most special permits go to the zoning board of appeals, which is a three person quasi judicial body, and all three people need to agree that the special permit should be granted. Site plan review. When they say it's by right, that what that means is you cannot say no, you can impose conditions, but you can't say no. With parking facilities in particular, this is a huge issue. We all see the tall buildings that went up in the downtown and many of us have regrets about those. Part of why that happened was because the planning department and planning board asked us to wave a parking requirement eight years ago, and we did it and many of us regret that that happened. We want to be very careful about what we do to our zoning laws because it allows things that may have unintended consequences to happen. I would also add that special permits are obtained in about 97 or 98 percent of cases and they're obtained usually fairly quickly. Most special permits are granted within two or three months time or less. They're not arduous and there are only protection against the parking garage that is really badly situated. I would urge you to vote no on this. We do not want to lose our opportunity as a town to say no to a development that is horribly out of place in our downtown. Thank you. Yes, right in the center there with a wait card. Ruth has her precinct three. I have some questions I'd like to clarify. One of them is could you show us a map of the zones that are in which this change is being proposed. Would it be possible to have a map. The other is what I wanted to find out under if this change is made. Would it be possible to declare any particular parcel within that zone as unsuitable for a parking garage. In other words, would every single parcel within that zone have to be accepted as suitable for a parking garage should a proposal come before the appropriate body. And also what would be the height limit in terms of numbers of floors in each of those zones. Mr. Stetsman, could I ask IT first for the overhead and then I'm going to switch back to my presentation. So I've highlighted here all the zones that I mentioned where the commercial parking facilities are currently allowed by special permit. So that's the BL, the BVC, the calm and the BG. And then if I could switch to my presentation please. I guess we'd like to see that one again for a second. Well, if he zooms in you're going to lose the north and south one. So maybe zoom in on the center. So while that's happening, I just answer one of the other questions that the previous speaker asked, which was about would any parcel within these zones need to be suitable? Would a parking facility be allowed there? Well, what we're talking about is these zones where they already are allowed by special permit. So in all these parcels in all these areas, they would now be allowed by site plan review as previously discussed. That's not to say that they could actually occur there. Those other regulations of the zoning bylaw that could prohibit such a use from happening your dimensional intensity regulations. Your question about the height is going to vary from district to district. We have four different districts here and the height allowances will vary in each. So if everyone's OK with the first map, I'm going to switch to an inset on my presentation, which shows the downtown. So this shows in the red, the BG in the white areas of the BL. And again, the planning board decided not to recommend the change in the BL because there's been a lot of conversation about these areas and what they should be in the future. It's important to note that there's two other BL districts that aren't shown here. There's one university drive and is one that we discussed under the prior zoning article, which is on Dickinson Street. So those are the five BL zones which would not be affected by this change. Thank you. I hear point of order. Please stand identify yourself. Lisa Rubinstein precinct 10. I'd like to see the slide that has the changes because I think there's a mistake on it. OK, I don't know what you mean by the slide that I'm being the one that delineates where the PSP is going at SPR. It's so the no, the one not either you're talking about the article itself. Yeah. Can we get the article on the screen? OK, if you go one to four from the left is RG and under that it says SP to SPR. But in our article that we have, we don't have that. Hang on. Let me take a look at the article. Now I see three SPS changing to SPR. All right. But go up under the first one that's SP to SPR. It says RG. The alignment. Oh, I say. Yeah. It's just the display on the screen. There's an alignment that the warrant article is correct. OK, further discussion. I'm yes, Mr. Scutsman. I think it would provide some clarity on the last question. If we could see the presentation again, I have a print out in there that should accurately reflect the changes. Thank you. OK. Yes, second row from the back there with the white card. Thank you, Mr. Moderator Adrian Terzi from Precinct Seven. May I request that the presenter point out the three areas on the map, the BG, at the VVC and the comm that's going from SP to SPR. I know the map is a little small, but if you could circle in on those areas, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Stutsman, I could have the overhead again, please. So we have again, these are the districts that are impacted by the change. In North Amherst, we have the comm here, the BVC, and then we have other comm and BVC areas throughout town. And I'm not at this point going to make a distinction between which are the comm and the BVC because for the purposes of this article that the same change is taking place. If someone wants that distinction to be made, I'd be happy to make an attempt to go through here and point out in detail the individual zones. But again, for clarity, the same change is being applied to both those zones. Thank you. Yes, back corner with the red card. That's on counter precinct one. So I have a number of points to make in opposition to this article. First, I think that some of the business village center parcels are entirely inappropriate. And those of us who live near them, I think know that best. And I would urge people on that basis to vote against the motion under this article. Excuse me. I hear a point of order. So I'm interrupting you if you could identify yourself when you get the microphone and stand if you're able to do so. Cameran precinct for the clock isn't going. OK, if we can reset the clock and have the speakers start over again, OK, I can't see the time on anything. So I don't know where it is. So if we can just reset to three minutes and you can start over again. So then so kind of precinct one and just like to point out first that with regard to the business village centers, that some of the parcels in the village center business districts are entirely inappropriate for this use and certainly inappropriate for it to be done by site plan review. And I would urge the town meeting on the base on that basis alone to vote against this article. But there's a larger issue here. With respect to the public parking garage, you see below on your warrant the public parking garage and it has site plan review for a number of locations. And that's really logical because for a public parking garage, there's a five step process. You have to determine the need. Then if if a need appears to be sufficient, you have to get a committee together. The committee then you then have to go through the process of hiring an architect, getting an initial design, getting a final design and then bringing the final design and cost estimate to the town meeting. That process doesn't exist for a private parking facility. We vote this and the day after somebody could bring in a plan, having discussed it or not with some of the folks in town hall, but certainly not publicized it. And the next process would be for it to be heard by the by the planning board. That's just not a good idea for a facility of this nature. The the other so on that basis as well, we should vote against this article. These are two and they may end up being physically the same, but the processes are entirely different. One is a very open public process and the other is a process where the final product appears. And that's the first time the public knows about it. Finally, with respect to the basis for judgment, there is a 20 issue list for site plan review. Every one of these issues has to be met by the facility or it gets turned down for site plan review. Site plan review, you can turn it down, but the issues are minimal and the planning board quite frankly, as in my recollection has never turned down a site plan review, even though the bylaw provides for such. And in fact, they state in the meetings that you can't turn it down. But in fact, that's not correct. So on those grounds, we should vote this article down. It is just a it's comparing apples and oranges. Public and private parking facilities may look the same, but they are not the same and we should not treat them the same. Thank you. You have white card right there, the third row. Jerry Weiss, precinct eight. I have three questions. One, has has there ever been an application for a commercial parking garage that was not granted? By a special permit? Two, have there been any conversations with planning board members, with planning department, with other town departments from builders or developers, talking about wanting to build a commercial garage? And I guess this would be to be if such conversations have been in the works, could we hear about them? Thank you. Ms. Brestrop. I don't believe we have a commercial parking garage in town. So and I don't remember. I've been in the planning department for about 14 years. I don't remember anyone proposing a commercial parking garage. This article grew out of the work of the downtown parking working group, which suggested that this might be a way to provide more parking in the downtown if someone were so inclined, if a private entity were so inclined to build either a parking garage or a parking lot from which he could make an income. So it was really an idea of the downtown parking working group that the planning board took up as kind of a courtesy to the downtown parking working group. And there is currently to my knowledge, no developer who is proposing this type of thing. It's merely opening the door to allow it if it were to be proposed. Thank you. Red card way down there. Jim Oldham, precinct five. Previous speakers have spoken more eloquently than I can. I get to the reasons why this isn't a good idea. I would vote no, even if Mr. O'Connor's points weren't all so valid and so true, I haven't heard a thing from the planning board presenters suggesting why we need a change. Usually when you change a law, it's because there's a problem and the answer to the previous speaker is nobody's ever been turned down. What evidence do we have that our zoning board of appeals would reject a reasonable request? Why should we doubt that the door isn't already open? What evidence do we have that our system needs fixing? I've heard absolutely nothing other than one committee thought that maybe this would spur development, but frankly, we have a law, it's on the books, and this zoning board of appeals has functioned very well for the town in many years, and we have no evidence that a good, useful parking garage in an appropriate place, by private developers or in a public private partnership wouldn't be approved, but why loosen up, why remove our ability to block it, especially as Mr. O'Connor said, when we're talking about such a different type of development process compared to what public garages would go through. Mr. Stetsman. So I think we do have a fair amount of evidence about the atmosphere surrounding the viability of commercial parking in downtown. As Ms. Brestrup pointed out, we don't have any, and I think that's an indicator that there are barriers to that being created. We've identified one in this special permit requirement. Another I pointed out previously was the very high cost of creating parking, which leads to another point, which is that as I see it, it's much more likely that we have not an entirely private process as a previous speaker outlined being different from the public process for a public parking facility, but more likely we would have a public private partnership for this type of facility, which would be subject to many, if not all, of the same requirements of the public parking facility that was described earlier with the involvement of the private sector to make the funding possible. Amherst has seen many times over the last few decades. We had a case in the 90s where a parking garage was proposed and funding didn't come about. It could happen again. And again, that's a complex conversation about how much parking we need, where does it go, and who pays for it. But this is opening the door so that we have more options as we continue that complicated conversation. Thank you. I see a green card on the aisle there. Claire Bertram, precinct eight. I'm going to rise in support of this change. I think town meeting is savvy enough to understand that SP is a mark on a book that a private developer is going to see and just stay away from. SPR is a possibility. And I think this, you know, municipal public dollar investment is just harder. It's harder in everything. It's harder in all municipal buildings and in parking. So sharing that burden with private investment seems to me to be a win for this town. But so I don't see this as being a problem. We can't cite things beyond the rules that are in place. So all of the rules will stay in place and parking would only go where it would be appropriate. And then, you know, I just, I think it's it's not scary. I think it's OK for us to vote yes and I will vote yes. Thank you. Yes, right in the center here. Gordon Fried, precinct six. I'm trying to figure out what a commercial parking lot is is a commercial because I've been in big cities where there are four higher parking spots that are tend to be enclosed and you pay when you go in or you pay when you go out. I'm speaking purely theoretically. Does this mean that if big Y wanted to take some of their existing parking, which is grandparented in or legal, and start charging for part of it? Does that become then a commercial parking lot or does somebody have to knock down the CVS building in the center of town and create a parking lot or a parking garage there in the former footprint of a building? So I'm trying to figure out is this a conversion of an existing legal parking lot or something that is taking a a space and making it from one kind of use to an entirely different kind of use. I know anyone on the playing board want to hazard an answer, Mr. Stetsman. Sure. So I think in the specific example given with the big Y parking lot, the things that occurred to me might happen in that scenario are that if the use was trying to change how its parking was administered when the permit was originally issued, there was likely a requirement that a certain number of spaces were dedicated to that use. And so if they were going to then say that they were going to use it in a different way in the way you the previous speaker described and charge for it, perhaps for the general public, that could conceivably be a change of use. And the building commissioner and the relevant permitting authorities would review that change. Thank you. Yes, all the way in the back there with the white card. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Helen Berg, I think one, I wonder if there's even a design that's been put forward. I'm wondering if all of these, well, the two buildings, Kendrick Place and the one that's going up where the carrot shops were that are slated apparently to be high cost student housing. Is that what is driving this? Was that North Amherst Library that I saw in the map as a part of a parking garage? And I know the town parking garage is underground. I'd like to see open space and any parking garage is underground. The fossil fuels were supposed to run out in 2015. Now we're mining, we're pumping water into the ground, which is kind of crime against humanity. Try and stay on topic. That is on topic. I think at some point fossil fuel and individual cars might become a thing of the past. And I think we should look forward and make sure that we don't let something in that's going to block our view. Right there in the center, third row from the back. Janet McGowan, precinct eight. I was wondering if the planning board could confirm to me my interpretation that the zoning bylaw that's the planning board wave all or any of the requirements for site plan submittal review and approval while it there's no similar ability to wave all the requirements of a special permit. Mr. Stetsman. Sorry, the section the previous speaker is referring to is in the submission procedures section. It's section 11.222 of the zoning bylaw and it refers to submission requirements. So the planning board may waive submission requirements like traffic impact studies, landscape plans, etc. And that is what that section refers to. Thank you. Third row from the back right near the aisle with the white card there. Jennifer Tao, precinct 10. I have a question because I went to a lot of the planning board meetings about hold the mic close to me. I went to many of the planning board meetings about one East pleasant. And when we asked why there wasn't any parking, you know why there wasn't going to be parking as part of that development to accommodate the hundreds of student, you know, residents and their guests. And the planning board said that they that people that students weren't going to be driving and that the people they didn't anticipate the people that lived in that building would be driving because as that previous speaker said the planning board said that people were not going to be driving cars in the future. And that didn't make sense to a lot of us at the time. So I'm wondering what was this change of heart that you now see the need for a parking that when it really could have been the private developer could have paid for that. It wouldn't even have to be a public private partnership. But now anyway, this just seems to be a complete turnaround from where the planning board seemed to be just a few months ago. Yes, from the planning board. I just want to clarify a little bit first. Well, first one, he's pleasant does have some parking in it. Right. But her turn. So there is some parking. But I want to clarify that it's referring to the downtown parking working group. Referred this to us. But I I wasn't on the downtown parking working group when this came about. But just to clarify that it was through their meetings at the business community and the bid came to them numerous times saying we understand that the current parking studies are not showing enough of a need for a public garage to be built right now because they are quite costly and you have to show that it can pay for itself and pay for the money that you put into it. But they do feel, I think to sort of count on someone else's statement that the door is not open right now for the ability for a private developer. If they were building something and felt and that could be more than just housing. It could be a supermarket or something that they felt that they had enough demand that they could rationalize the cost for adding a parking to it. Not necessarily a huge garage or anything, but that they could add some parking if they felt it was tight and it would help the businesses that they're trying to create. So I just wanted to clarify it would be great if there was some business community here to back this up. But so it sort of came from them and it went to the downtown parking working group and then it came to us. And when we evaluated it, we didn't see any harm and that it might open some opportunities than the way that the zoning currently is very limiting. Thank you. Might be ready to come to a vote soon. Yes, I see great second in from the aisle with a white card there. Chris Riddle precinct too. I would love to hear from somebody from the downtown planning working group. Might there be someone from that group here? I don't see any hands. So yes, not. Are we do we want further discussion? We're ready to come to a vote. I see a green card way over on the aisle there. Hi, Nina Manken, precinct one. I just want to thank the working committee for having put a lot of thought into how to try to open up some more parking in town. If this is something that is actually going to allow us to have more parking without doing any actual immediate harm, but just open up the possibility for developers to come in with some private money, then I don't see any harm in doing that. And I think we very, very much need more parking in our downtown. Thank you. Second row with the white card there. And if you can stand when you recognize if you're able to do so, it's helpful to everybody. I leave the Kosanovic precinct seven. I just wanted to see in the public and the private part obviously the microphone really close. Sorry. I want to understand what the public commitment part of it is before I vote. So in other words, the developer is paying for the I just want to understand what the town's commitment is financially. Mr. Stetsman. So again, there's no particular project in mind for this, let alone a budget, a partner, any of this is just allowing the possibility that there may be and these public private partnerships again are a growing trend around the country and the world and they take a myriad number of forms and so to try to go into how one might be structured might be beyond the scope of this meeting. But the most important thing is that it would be easier to enter into one of these agreements if this article passes. Thank you. White card in the very back there. Michael Burkhard precinct six. I call the previous question. Most of the previous question has been made and seconded if two thirds of you vote to do so we will immediately end debate and vote on the motion under article nine. First vote is the motion to end debate. All those in favor of the motion of the previous question please say aye. Post please say no. Moderator here's two thirds. We now come to an immediate vote on article nine which in itself requires two thirds for passage. All those in favor of the motion under article nine please say aye. Post please say no. Moderator does not hear two thirds. I see a request for an electronic vote so we will have an electronic vote. No issues with the devices. Yes 58 no 104. We did not achieve two thirds so article nine has failed. 58104. We now move on to article 14 and I call on Pat Holland to make the motion. Oh hang on before you make the motion I'm sorry we're going to switch seats finance committee's going to come to the front table. She's going to be reading a motion and it's different and longer. Well it concludes much more of the article. I now recognize Ms. Holland to make a motion under article 14. The motion is on the screen and she will be reading the text that's on the screen. This motion is slightly different from the one that was mailed out to you with your pocket. That's why I'm sorry. Read the motion first then talk about it. OK. Thanks. I move that the town appropriate appropriate the sum of $50,000 in the undesignated fund balance. From sorry I got that wrong. I'm going to start over if you don't mind. I move that the town appropriate the sum of $50,000 from free cash in the undesignated fund balance to fund the design by an architect of a plan in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law Chapter 7 C to include but not be limited to making the following significant improvements to the North Amherst Library within the following constraints. Make all three floors of the building fully accessible by elevator with as little impact on the buildings to start. I'm going to interrupt you. I hear a point of order. Please rise and wait for microphone. Amy Middlem in precinct five the clock isn't changing. No, that's because she's making a motion. She's not speaking to the motion yet. I'm sorry Miss Holland, you may continue. A. Make all three floors of the building fully accessible by elevator with as little impact on the building's historic components as possible while minimizing damage to the two large maples at the rear of the building and maintaining the building's character and its architectural and aesthetic unity. B. Provide fully accessible bathroom and water fountain for use by the public and library staff. C. Develop and install a more climate, energy and space conscious method of heating and cooling of the building. D. At least double the North Amherst library space available to the public in the existing building. E. Add a sidewalk at the south edge of the paved area at the rear of the library building that would connect to a new accessible ground floor entry at the rear of the North Amherst library building. F. Finish and furnish the unfinished attic space for use for public meetings for ESL conversation circles for public readings including readings for children, etc. G. Do not assume any change in the present layout of Thunderland Road and additionally authorize the application for an acceptance of any gifts, requests or grants for these purposes. I hear a second. You now have five minutes to speak to your motion. As the motion says, Article 14 is asking for $50,000 from the town for an architect's design for improvements to the North Amherst library. This article is brought by the friends of the North Amherst library. The problem with this library is that the seven steps up to its only door are not accessible by wheelchair. These stairs also make it difficult for those using walkers or canes or lifting strollers. The staff there are very kind about carrying out books to people who can't get up the stairs, but those people wanting to browse the collection can't do it. This library has been owned by the town since it was built in 1893, not by the Jones Library, which did not exist at that time. Here's a picture of the deed. I thank Bonnie McCracken for locating this deed. I'll just show you this first page, and I don't expect that you can read it that well. But let me know if you want to want to read more. Just a little bit of history. I love history. The North Amherst Library Association decided to build this library after the nearby school got so crowded that the library had to leave. The cost of construction was $2,500. The 1893 town meeting voted to give $500 toward the cost. The rest of the money came from North Amherst residents, some of whom were wealthy farmers, lumbermen, and mill owners. The architect was paid $25. Today the Jones Library staffs and manages the North Amherst Library and has in the past used donated and appropriated funds to make improvements to the building. But it is the town that is responsible for making this library accessible. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 also requires a wheelchair-accessible bathroom and water fountain. Right now the bathroom in the library is down the steep, narrow basements stairway and is not open to the users of the library. This summer a local retired schoolteacher, Terry Johnson, donated a rented porta-potty to the library for three months to help with the children's summer reading program. Obviously having a bathroom would have been better. As it is now, people, including children, have to cross busy Montague Road to use the bathrooms at the local stores over there. The only way to have access for the disabled will be by an elevator. The building has three floors and a wheelchair-accessible elevator on the back of the building would provide access to all three floors. The basement is of full height with windows and houses books along with a huge oil tank. Article 14 asks for a more energy-conscious method of heating and cooling the building. Eliminating that huge oil tank will free up a lot of space. The attic has a pitch ceiling with full height in the center of the room and would be a good spot for community meetings. Could we return to the previous slide, please? The $50,000 would come from free cash, which currently has $3.8 million in it. Once the architect's design is done, the work can be funded in part through the Local Community Preservation Act budget, which supports making historic buildings accessible. And I'm sure that North Amherst residents will come through with financial support as they did for the original building. I'll stay here to answer questions. Thank you. I now call on Mr. Wald for this work. Could you have a step back in the podium and have a seat, though? Mr. Wald for the Select Board. Thank you. I move to further this article to the Select Board and the Jones Library Trustees. You may speak to your motion. Thank you. I shouldn't have to say it's obvious we share with the petitioners an admiration for this library, a love of the building and its functions and a desire to make it more available to more people, more of the time, just not this way. And I'll explain why. It's a beloved institution. It serves important purposes for North Amherst residents. I know it was transformative in the life of our own daughter. So there's no question about that. The needs cited are very real. But both the needs and the means of satisfying them are rather more complex than the present motion allows. You're going to hear us speak about process. You'll probably hear others say why are they focusing on process? We don't need process. We think we do when we're going to tell you why. If you let me explain. We're not about process here for the sake of process. We're talking about process because we work in town government. We see the entire array of services and expenditures. We see how things get done here. And we think that there are reasons not to act precipitously, in this case, and instead to follow our normal paths. Processes are not in itself. Process exists for very specific reasons. Transparency, rationality, predictability and fairness. There have been questions about fairness, for example, in the current funding of capital projects. As you know, there's a long list of things we're trying to get done, very expensive projects, and for years, people would say, what about the fire station? Then along came important opportunities to get state funding for the library and for the schools. We're not acting on those right now, but be that as it may. People were wondering why those got to jump ahead of the line, so to speak. And there were good reasons because funding was available. Sometimes that happens. But the more that we erode that sense of predictability, especially in a tough budget year with major capital projects online, the more complicated things become. They are also questions of substance that arise from the process here. For example, this well intentioned article focuses ad hoc on a single issue, really, the one of accessibility writ large. We would submit to you. You cannot really examine that in the absence of other questions. One obvious one mentioned was the whole configuration of the intersection. That's a major issue. The town bought the adjoining property in order to regulate the traffic flow, but also to redesign the civic core there, which we saw in the North Amherst planning process, to make the library a more functional space, probably with a larger expansion. Who knows what we have in mind for the library? That's part of the problem. This is just one part of a bigger picture. There's also the question of the existing building as such. The article refers to unused or poorly used faces, the basement and the attic or second floor, as you will. This is fine, but to us, it does not make sense to tackle the question of access to the building without tackling the question of program. In other words, how is the building going to be used? For what purposes? What functions? How does it fit with the library's core mission and delivery of services? That's something only the library can determine. The library staff, the library trustees. They should be part of this process at the beginning, or it should come from them in a sense. It should follow. We think this was putting the cart before the horse. As you heard, it's also a historic structure. It is indeed. It's what we call a contributing structure in the North Amherst North North Amherst National Historic Register District. So it's a very important building. It's iconic. And we'd be very reluctant to make major changes to the building envelope, despite the sincere promise to be as judicious as possible, again, without taking into account the larger configuration of the intersection, the roadway, the civic core, and the uses of that building. What's going to happen when you get inside that door, that elevator, and so forth? There's also the question of expense. You heard a long list of noble things that are being proposed here, from elevators to sidewalks. People we've talked to have said that's easily a million dollar job, if nothing else. There's no money for that right now. In other words, if and when we do decide to make these well-intentioned and probably needed changes, the issue's going to come to you and to town meeting. But before that, it's got to go through the Joint Capital Planning Committee through that process. So it seems to us but logical that a request for the study and its funding should also begin there with the Joint Capital Planning process. And in conclusion, let me just say one word about that process. I know that we have a very open system of government here, both thanks to the open meeting law and the way we do business and that we have these public meetings. You can go to meetings, you can read about them, you can see some of these on TV. And yet we realize in the select board, we realize that people in the public often feel left out, either confused or objectively excluded for a variety of reasons. And to be fair, the Joint Capital Planning process is perhaps the most vexing of these because unlike other ones in which there's a citizen commission, this one is driven largely by department heads. They come to the town with budget requests through the Joint Capital Planning process. And we realize that's hard for you to deal with. And we'd like to try to remedy that too. So part of our proposal, as in the case of social service spending which we took up earlier this year based on town meeting actions last spring, would be to examine not just the proposal itself but the way that we can make the Joint Capital Planning process more transparent, more accessible to citizens. So again, while supporting the intentions behind this, we think we're all better served by the referral for the aforementioned reasons. Thank you. Thank you. So the motion before us now is a motion to refer to the select board and the Jones Library trustees. That will require a majority vote for passage. If that fails, we'd then be back to the main motion which also requires a majority vote. I'm going to allow discussion to include both the pros and cons of referral and the pros and cons of the main motion. It would be too difficult to kind of split them out. Next, I want to hear from the Finance Committee. I believe someone wants to speak, but I'm not sure. Yes, Mr. Sharma. The Finance Committee awarded do not recommend this article by award of six to zero and one abstaining. Thank you. As I said, point of order over there. Microphone is on its way. Peter Everett precinct, too. I just wanted to clarify. We have a motion on the floor for referring the article back to the board, but the recommendation there from the Finance Board was against the article, not this motion. Yes. So Finance Committee again. Ms. Talman. Did not vote. The article or the I'm sorry, the motion to refer did not come to the Finance Committee. We were strictly voting on the article itself. Thank you. No, no position on referral. And as I said, the motion to refer require a majority for passage as will the main motion if we get back to it. And we are now open to discussion from the floor. Yes, a white card right there for throw from the front. And keep in mind, a red card would mean you were opposed to the motion to refer a green card means you were in favor of the motion to refer. You may Mary share brings sink three and I live in North Amherst. I can see there's some problems of the article 14. But as a resident of North Amherst and having grown up in Amherst and lived in North Amherst for 25 years, my concern is that absolutely nothing will happen for the North Amherst Library because a few years ago, in fact, there was talk about from the Jones Library about shutting the branch libraries all together. And my feeling was that because our branch got some money from a private donor and that was put into the library, we saved the library. I'm just concerned that this will go back down to the bottom of the list. And for me, it's very important that something does get done with the North Amherst Library. So I don't I don't know how I'm going to vote, but I do feel that I'd like some assurance from the town that this will actually be of concern to the town because it doesn't seem in the past that our library has been. People say they like it, but it's really been through our neighborhood concern that anything has been done. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Wall. That's a very good question the previous speaker raised. I think that's just very briefly. That's what we thought referral was a more positive step rather than voting it down because we have some concerns about its practicality. We want to make sure it stays on the radar screen and we want our hands in that process as well so we can keep an eye on things, communicate and negotiate with the library and keep the public informed. Thank you. Yeah, fourth row from the front green card there. I'm in favor of the came around precinct four. I'm in favor of the motion to refer the capital planning process in this town was developed in the 1990s because until then there was a lot of fighting back and forth for individual projects between the library trustees they had their own projects the schools did and the town did and this was a way of getting everybody together to look at the needs of the entire town and that's the process that's been followed ever since. The joint capital planning committee has eight people on it two from the finance committee which is appointed by the moderator and the other six are from the select board the school committee and the library trustees who are all directly elected by the voters of the town. They get together and spend many meetings looking at all the proposed projects from all the departments and this would this kind of project would most normally come from the library trustees. It doesn't come from them so it would be a good idea to refer it back to them and see where they see this project in the priorities that they have for needs of the whole library system. This is doing this article doing projects like this one at a time bringing them to town meeting it's as if a neighborhood in South Amherst once their sidewalks built they haven't been built they're needed people walking in the streets so they bypass this whole capital planning process bring an article to town meeting to get a couple million dollars for sidewalks. If we do that throughout the whole town we're going to go back to where we were in the 80s and 90s with just chaos and no way of setting priorities. Thank you. White card way over there in the corner. Laura Quilter Laura Quilter precinct nine. When I was on the Jones Library tours last spring I asked specifically about the North Amherst libraries because I had been told you know I'd seen it raised in town meeting that there were no publicly accessible bathrooms etc. And I was told by the Jones library staff at that point that the North Amherst branch was with the responsibility of the town and not of the Jones Library. And so I guess my question is have there been any motions brought forth by the town by the JCPC or by the Jones to deal with the North Amherst library because I've been hearing this issue of public bathrooms raised several times. And if nobody is addressing this then it had seemed to me to be an appropriate way to kind of get some initial planning money. This is not the two million dollars to actually do the project but just to like see what would be involved. That seems like a fact finding thing. So I'm just curious has there ever been a proposal brought forth from Jones or JCPC or any of the other groups to deal with this issue. Mr. Bachman. Thank you Mr. Moderator. I think a significant thing the town meeting did last spring was to purchase that important parcel of land immediately behind the Jones Library. With that parcel of land new opportunities are now available to look at this parcel and to make and look at an addition on the back that would have allowed it would accommodate an elevator and maybe additional space to an parking area that would accommodate the Jones Library. So that was one of the goals in purchasing that piece of land to give us additional opportunities and to look at the civic core as a whole. So it hasn't come because there was a sense that there wasn't room because there was a neighboring property immediately on the backside of the library. But now that we own that parcel to the wisdom of town meeting this is something that we can look at again. And that's I think that's why it wasn't brought up earlier. Thank you. Wait for a microphone. Microphone up in the front here please stand up please. In general if you're able to stand up when you recognize please do so because then the microphone people can find you. Carrie Carrie Spitzer precinct one I just wanted to clarify you've said the Jones Library. I believe you're talking about the North Amherst Library. Thank you. Thank you. OK. Yes one two three four fifth throwback with the red card. Yes you. Michael Green about precinct six. I would much rather have had this. Oh I opposed the motion to refer and I support the main article. I'd much rather have had it come from the library trustees. I was starting to wish that in 1970 when I became principal of Marks Meadow School. And when that beautiful building started to serve Marks Meadow children and when Marks Meadow took on the responsibility for the North Amherst School to deal with population overflow in 1972 that library was their school library. I love that library. I haven't been in it for quite a few years but I drive by it all the time and it makes my heart warm. The library trustees should have brought this to us long before this. Mr. Walts this is precipitous it is not precipitous at all. This has been going on for four decades to my knowledge. And I applaud the Friends of North Amherst Library and I suggest to the select board and the trustees that if we pass this article they can easily and in a friendly way become involved with the process to address some of the concerns that Mr. Walts has mentioned. But while I certainly support the capital planning project the joint capital planning project this has been going on for so long in North Amherst with so little interest on the part of the town in general that I'm very happy to support this article. Red card one two three four throw back there. Molly Turner precinct one. I want to speak against referring in favor of the article. This I want to talk about process because this Mr. Wal brought it up. It's this is a process. We're exercising the process right now. We are bringing a petition article. This is something that we as a town as citizens of the town we have a right to do. There is a process which is explained in various places. The League of Women's Voters Handbook says a petition article is an article brought to town meeting for discussion in possible action by a citizen rather than by a board or committee of the town. Any person a group can bring a petition article on any topic that is relevant to action by town meeting government. The JCP see that this is written into our charter. This is a definite right that we have. The JCP see was is an administrative committee which was created in the 90s and it's mostly administrative. It's I sat on that committee for six years and the JCP see is an inside baseball. It's where they it's driven by the departments and it's a question about how to spend the big bucks. Who gets it. You know it's a fairer process but it's strictly department driven not citizen so unfortunately at the JCP see the process is there was a process where articles can go to die. They just get pushed further and further out. Five four years five one years of what have you. And to my knowledge the library has never brought anything to the JCP see. In regard to the North Amherst Library. So I vote against I urge you to vote against referral and to vote yes on the article. Thank you. I'm green card in the center second back row. Lewis Mains a PC 10. Alex would have been better suited to. Saying this that I am I'm not a member of the trustees and member of the Friends of the Jones Library system and I was present at a meeting last week of the library trustees and they outlined the responsibilities the focus for the director for the coming year and that included focus now that we've got the Jones Library itself launched on its process the coming responsibility that was emphasized was the branch libraries and it is not a forgotten or lost or denied responsibility. I see with the trustees behind it and the director sympathetic that there will be motion whatever you do by the Jones Library system toward this. Thank you much. Thank you. Yes the red card back in the corner there. Hi Marla Jamate precinct seven. So my family very much enjoys visiting the North Amherst Library but our visits are quite necessarily short given that there are no rest rooms there nor is there any water which is really quite trying for young children. And I guess I I I will support this article because I think this is really a pressing issue. Essentially we are operating a public building which cannot really fully serve the public and probably causes significant discomfort for some members of the public and and that also by continuing to do this that we make ourselves vulnerable to lawsuit because of the ADA and because of state laws requiring buildings to be properly equipped. And so I think this is fairly urgent if the library is going to stay open that we look into making the necessary repairs and and that the process of beginning to assess this building could begin now with this $50,000 expenditure. We would just be voting on this sum not on allocating the sum for renovation. I think we should give this a chance and and see where it goes. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah right down here in the corner. Thank you. Chris Hoffman precinct seven library trustee although I'm only speaking for myself not for the board at the moment. A few things I wanted to bring up first of all and just so I don't run out of time we bring up the most important one. One thing if you're thinking this is just symbolic or such motion pay attention to the fact this is not say look at these things including this this says do these things. So you're voting for $50,000 specifically not just to make it a better place put in a water fountain etc. But specifically to make all three floors accessible make meeting rooms in the top floor. And so I am enthusiastically asking you to refer it back to the trustees so we can look at meet with people talk with people and decide what makes sense in that building to keep its historical nature and then come back and say hey if you want to give us $50,000 to do a study because we need to obviously bathrooms nobody's going to die bathrooms. But given realistically what's there that's great. But remember you are actually voting for all those items. Including a design that does not take into account that what we know is going to happen we don't know exactly what with the intersection. The other couple of things I just wanted to mention somebody mentioned the library director that is true one of the three goals for the director this year is to develop plans for the branches and particularly the North Amherst library her evaluation one third for evaluation is going to be based on that. This is not going to be a forgotten issue from the trustees or the director or the staff believe me. And just as a brief thing to since people had talked about possibly some of the same might have let people think that we don't have a commitment to the branches in North Amherst library in particular. We have always been strongly supportive of the branches. I can't tell you how many people in town and a few people. Luckily only a few but a few people in town government who said why don't you just close the branches to save money. We've never done that. We've never done that we've never even considered doing it. It's been tough. It's been we've had to stretch our budget but we've never considered it. We consider them they are important. They are a surprising a surprising amount of traffic. They are important part of the communities. So I'm asking you to refer this so that we can look at it. We can make a plan. We can have meetings with the organizers and other people in the town of Amherst North Amherst regular parts of Amherst who weren't involved in this article. See what they want. We can look and see what sort of grants and funding might be coming up. The JCCC can look at what sort of money might be available and we can put together a plan. We're not going to this is not going to be thrown under the rug. We're going to put together a real plan for things we could realistically do to this building in the next few years. Thank you. Yes. And the one two three four or five Mr. Riddle with a red card. There was no easy way. You didn't use my name I know why I was my name is Chris Riddle. I appreciate two. I retired architect. I would look what I want to vote for is the referral and the study by the architect. I think that having a spending fifty thousand dollars to sort out how this building would be made accessible how the upper floors would be used in a I would suggest in my terminology a design development sort of level not construction documents not big documents that the plans and elevations and perspective views of what it would take to make this building accessible. I think that would inform very much the work of the select board and the library trust trees in working and demonstrating the feasibility or lack thereof of making this building accessible and making the additional spaces available. So what I want to do is vote for yes yes for the motion to refer and yes for the motion to do the architectural study. I can't do that. So I'm going to vote no for the motion to refer. Thank you. Yes Mr. Neil I like your card. Well to Neil Precinct for I am not speaking for the finance committee right now these are my own personal thoughts. I will I am in sport of referral and let me talk about the finances on that. One of the problems that a previous speaker said was we might have willing enough necessarily willing but we have a variety of projects that might come up before this body for debate outside of the process and that's a real concern. In this case had this petitioner petition through the normal process perhaps funds could be have been gathered from the CPA funds and not come from the free cash because of the historic nature of the building. In other words the debate really hasn't gone through the normal process and I just don't see the urgency for that. And we can certainly have this petitioner as any other petitioner go through our processes have the proper people talk about it and maybe bring it up at the Springtown meeting perhaps with different funding perhaps with a different plan etc. So I am going to strongly support that we refer back to the slack board and the trustees to have those discussions. Thank you. Yes right here fourth row with the white card. Abby Jensen precinct four I call the question. Most of the previous question has been made in seconded if two thirds of you vote yes then we will come to an immediate vote on the motion to refer. It's the motion for the previous question two thirds vote to end debate. All those in favor of the motion of the previous question please say aye. Opposed please say no. My reason doubt we're going to have an electronic vote on this one. Yes 94 no 66 we did not achieve two thirds vote so we will continue discussion. And I see a green card on the aisle right there please. Change of glasses Alex LeFave precinct 10 I am also a Jones Library trustee and I serve on the buildings and facilities committee. The board I am in favor of the referral we did not vote on that as a board that's not something we discussed. We did however vote unanimously 6 0 not to endorse the article and I'll explain why in a minute but I think first and foremost what needs to be addressed is the fact that the North Amherst Library has had issues relative to accessibility and lack of a public bathroom for far far too long. And I think that people are genuinely frustrated by how long that process has taken and I understand that and quite frankly I appreciate this petition and I appreciate the people behind the petition because they have kept the North Amherst Library and the South Amherst Library at the top of the needs and when I joined the trustees less than a year ago I heard about the North Amherst Library. I used to live in the South Amherst area so Munchin was my library not the North and it was their voice that brought it to our attention and I can tell you that it has been a topic of conversation with the trustees at least since I have been on the board. So to that end as people have already spoken to the goals for the library director she has three for her contract and one of those is addressing the needs of the branch libraries. Also the action plan for the library for FY 19 we identified gaps in services that have been identified as well as the immediate priorities for the library also under those sections of our fiscal year 19 plan are the needs of the branch libraries to that end the director and staff of the North Amherst Library will be developing at the behest of the building and facilities committee which has already met and discussed this with community feedback a building program this year for the North Amherst Library a building program as many of you may be talk heard me talk about last town meeting is identifies the services the branch will offer such as community meetings spaces adult fiction ESL rooms children's etcetera and the space needs associated with each service. The library's fiscal year 19 budget includes a placeholder for the architect fees for design work once the building program is complete. We don't know the full scope of the work to be done yet so there's a placeholder rather than a dollar figure while the trustees appreciate the estimate of fifty thousand dollars in this article for those design fees and the efforts to request the funds from town meeting the request is premature the particular concern that we have with article 14 is that it specifies the design of a plan under the constraints listed in paragraphs A through G we don't necessarily take issue with any of the items in paragraph A through G but without completing the building program we're prematurely setting the design priorities for the building for example the warrant calls for doubling the public square footage from eight hundred to sixteen hundred square feet within the existing building placing the entrance at the rear of the building on the ground floor and creating a community room on the third floor these may all potentially be great ideas for a building program but we don't know yet if it makes more sense to put the community room on the first floor where the entrance is going to be finish up please okay um or if it's better to leave it on the third floor um we just we don't know yet how best to put all of the services in the building what we also don't know is if we finish all three floors will we need additional staffing is that fiscally responsible can we do it can we not do it I'm sorry you need to finish up okay I'll finish we're thrilled that the petitioners are requesting funds for the design process and we would hope that they would do so again for fiscal year nineteen after a building program has been created this particular warrant however is premature because it constrains designs to a plan that did not involve the library staff library director or the full community that relies on the branch thanks sorry for going on the aisle there you waiting to speak or you just standing around yes okay okay are you are registered voter in Amherst but not a town meeting okay a microphone wait for the microphone please Sarah McKee precinct six I would just like to address the point made about there might be community preservation act funds available for an architect's design once there is a design yes for the building but for the design I mean for the building whatever's done for the design however no thank you right in the front corner here Mr. moderate I think I'm sorry identify yourself please Alan route precinct five I think after forty years of waiting for somebody to do something about our original public library for the town which is the North Amherst library it makes sense to take it out of a lot of people's hands who say wonderful things but for the thirty four years I've lived in this town I've been waiting for something to happen up there at the North Amherst library I find it exceedingly depressing to find that after all of the years that I've been in this town and to find out that beyond my years there are many people is we're talking about forty years that this issue has been talked about talked about talked about I think we need to take it out of the hands of the trustees of the library I think the I find some objections with the way member of the select board is trying to gain some business from us with the town meeting I'd like to see a few things come out of town meeting that don't run through the various boards here I criticize the way in which we're left out in the cold somehow if something comes out of town meeting it's captured very often by existing boards and so forth that want to take over we have something here that if anybody has an objection to the situation and the ideas that are forward concrete and could be added to I suspect by the people who come to do the job my feeling is that everybody can come away from this happy rather than conflicted so I would hope that we would defeat the substitute motion and that we would pass the original motion thank you very much thank you for throwing the white card there Marcy's globe precinct to I'm trying to understand the legal language of the paragraph before A through G so if the architect sees the building and says oh wouldn't it be great to have an addition put on is it limited that there cannot be additional plans that are outside of these of these listed A through G and if it looks like it would be awful to do the third floor as a community room so are they committed to doing the third floor because it's listed this way I'm just trying to understand how limiting this this is Mr. Bachman thank you Mr. moderator when if we were to go out to bid for A's architectural services for this we would list items A through G as the tasks that the architect would be required to meet so the architect would be said this is your plan this is a schedule you need to meet and this is what you need to design for and that's how it would work thank you see a white card third row from the back there these very precinct to move to call the question most of the previous question has been made and seconded if two thirds of you vote yes we will come to an immediate vote on the motion to refer all those in favor of the motion of the previous question please say aye opposed please say no moderator here's two thirds we now come to a vote on the motion to refer article 14 to the select board and the Jones library trustees this requires a majority for passage all those in favor of the motion to refer please say aye opposed please say no moderators in doubt we'll have an electronic vote we have 79 yes and 92 no so the motion to refer has failed the main motion is on the floor and this also requires a majority vote are we ready to come to a vote I still see some hands so I'm going to call on hands until we're ready so right way down in the side there I am Nina Mankin precinct one and I went to Mark's meadow and had principal Greenabown as my principal and and I spent a lot of time in the North Amherst library and I live in North Amherst and now I bring my child to the North Amherst library and it's been a long long long time that we haven't had a bathroom and a long time that we as as neighborhood people haven't seen any movement and recently we've seen some really impressive movement the town has put up $650,000 am I correct to buy the parcel of land around the library to be able to do the work that needs to be done on the North Amherst library this will allow a planning process to go through that is not limited by provisions that have not been worked through with the staff and the people who usually make decisions about these kinds of building changes I hope that I get to participate in that conversation about what's needed there for myself and my child and I feel as though we've had 40 years of waiting and that's been many different groups of trustees of the library over those 40 years it's not like it's the same people who are making those decisions now who who have been holding us back for all these years we actually seem to have a group of people at the library who want to move forward with this and I encourage everyone and I'm also really appreciative of this because it does outline the problems and it does tell us that this is where our attention needs to be and it's people who love this little library the way that we all do and I encourage us to vote this down and to come back and make sure that this money is there in the spring for the right project thank you I see somebody I'm not calling on you if you want to be called on if you're a town meeting member you really need to be down here if you're not a town meeting member you should be at the front of the aisle but I'm not going to call on people who are way back there okay you know if you need to stand for any reason and can't sit talking about it and let me know yes look Ms. Brewer I actually have a question and that is in regards to process I know we said we don't do process for the sake of process but how if I could ask the town manager or finance staff how will we manage a financial expenditure like this outside of the JCPC process because that's where it would normally be so where do we put this to keep track of it Mr. Bachmann thank you Mr. Chair so typically first you have to understand the JCPC process typically what happens in a JCPC process which Ms. Moran explained represents from the school committee finance committee board of library trustees and select board get together any proposal that's presented to JCPC has a very detailed sheet that goes with it includes the project cost or estimated project cost how did that estimated project cost get established is it per foot did you get a bid done did it estimator how do you characterize the project is it health and safety how that helps set the priority how does the department rank the project in terms of all the other projects what is the time frame for starting and finishing the design the permitting the procurement the acquisition the construction the training and the deployment and then there's a detailed cost for each one of those steps that's required to be presented to JCPC the financing sources if any are asked for and then the impact on the operating budget which is very crucial is asked for does this is going to is this going to require additional staff are there additional is there debt service that's included with it are there maintenance cost insurance cost energy costs are going to be included in this so all that information is gathered together and presented to the JCPC in this case this is outside the JCPC process so what would be expected is that we have in the article is very explicit about what the program of action would be it's not coming from the board of library trustees is coming from the petitioners and so we would put that and we put that out to bid for an architect to do these things the architect would come back and we put the parameters on the on the project you know we have half a percent for art that's been approved if it applies to this the same for the zero energy buildings if it if it applies to this as well that gets approved by the attorney general so we would look at all those things and put that into this project and then we look for an architect who can meet all those needs the architect would then would just move forward with it and then the request for funds would then come back into the JCPC process thank you yes the white card in the corner there Lawrence Quigley precinct one clearly there are more efficient ways to do things but I feel uncomfortable accepting the notion that this is not the proper channel sir this is a proper channel I'm wondering Mr. moderator if there's any way for the previous speaker architect to address whether this 50 grand is going to go to what he wants it to go to or whether it's going to go to this whether this meets his needs of a general design overlay this seems to be much more specific and not what he would like to vote for I'd like him I wonder if there's a way for him to address that if somebody raises their hand and I call them they can address it nobody's required to I wasn't exactly clear who you were even asking for but I see a green card right in the center there Ruth hazard precinct three I'm going to vote in favor of this it may not be perfect but I think that to say that these are are overly specific when I read them I'm the only thing that seems really specific is that the third floor would be a meeting space as opposed to stacks other than that there's actually a lot of flexibility in this this design and I think it would move us forward in giving a vision and an understanding and a design for how these needs could be met in the existing building I think that in itself is a worthwhile accomplishment it doesn't mean that we couldn't also or in the future say you know what we'd really like it to be bigger let's get another to let's go again with the design that that meets because we have other needs but it would allow us to preserve that building as it is and make it serve the functions that it needs to serve we're just making a plan we aren't that plan will then go back into the JCPC process or it might open the door to some other sources of funding that are not available until we have a plan so I don't see any real downside of voting this and going forward with it it moves the whole thing forward which is so important I'm very grateful to the people who brought this petition because it is an important part of our government process here and let's respect that let's honor it let's try it. Yes second from the aisle right there. Andra rose precinct four so I'd like to hear from the petitioner what kind of input you got. Can I ask that I just want to know what process it did go through because it does seem a little problematic that it's so specific and it does say to include you could include other things as well but if it has to I'm I'm just not sure that's what everybody needs. I don't know where the petitioner is sitting. Oh there you go so did you raise your hand yes so you've been recognized it's Holland. It's an interesting question that you asked. I'm sorry you still throw it down for yourself. Yes I'm Patricia Holland precinct one and the petitioner among a group of us and this group has been meeting together now for close to a close to a year maybe nine months something like that and sort of brainstorming what we would like to have in that library besides the most obvious thing which is accessibility right from the start it was that we need an elevator there's no way else to have that building accessible and then we remembered that the bathrooms don't aren't for the public the one bathroom isn't for the public and then it was we looked into the library and looked more carefully at the basement area which I've seen before and by the way I used to be a Jones Library trustee in fact I was president of the Jones Library trustee is for two years I guess it was. So I'm familiar with libraries and as we looked at it more closely we realized there's a lot of usable space in that library and that's why we talked about making that top floor available to accessible to because it could be used for all sorts of things actually not just for meetings but for gatherings of any kind and there is a shortage of such places in North Amherst now as you may know. Thank you. Yes way over against the wall there. John Michaels precinct 10 I call the previous question. Motion the previous question has been made in seconded. If two thirds of you vote yes we will then come to an immediate vote on the main motion under article 14. All those in favor of the motion for the previous question please say aye. As opposed please say no. Moderator here's two thirds. We now come to a vote on the main motion before you on the screen for article 14. This requires a majority. All those in favor of the motion under article 14 please say aye. Opposed please say no. Moderator here's a majority but we're going to have an electronic vote. We have 100 yes and 73 no. Article 14 passes. We now move on to article 17. So I write this down and I call on Alice Swift to make a motion. Alice Swift precinct 8 I move in terms of the article. Motion has been made in seconded you may speak to your motion. Good evening my name is Nadine Schenck and I'm sorry I'm sorry I should recognize you to speak actually. So Ms. Schenck is speaking she's the petitioner and she's making the statement so now you may proceed. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight about article 17 which is a nonbinding resolution for the Amherst town meeting to call on the state legislature to pass the end of life options act and make Massachusetts the seventh state plus Washington D.C. to allow citizens to request and receive compassionate aid in dying medication from their doctor. I'm a long time Amherst resident some of you may know me through my work at UMass where I've been a piano professor since 1980 or you may know me from local gyms where I teach aerobics and spinning classes. For many years I have been a firm believer in allowing medical aid in dying to people who are terminally ill and are also desperately seeking relief from unremitting physical pain. Like me many of our local citizens wish for and seek legislative action to permit this. In a short time I gathered 142 petition signatures and many more people wish to be added to the list. In 2012 Amherst voters voted over 72 percent in favor of a statewide referendum to approve medical aid in dying feeling that no one should be made to suffer needlessly and should be allowed a death with dignity. Two weeks ago the North Hampton City Council unanimously approved such a resolution. My 98-year-old mother Jerry who lives alone with my assistance and has survived breast cancers and a stroke actively worries that her life could end slowly in terrible pain and with no quality of life and that her only choice would be dehydration and starvation. Dying from such self-induced renal failure could take five to 15 days. Regarding the Hippocratic Oath some doctors feel that patients are harmed when they are forced to endure unrelenting pain while waiting for an inevitable death. If this end-of-life options act were made law doctors would be able to end the continuing harm to their patients by helping the mentally capable patient die in her own time and on her own terms. Annual public health data in Oregon and Washington shows that of every thousand people who die for have requested and been approved to use this option. Out of that number one-third of the terminally ill people don't end up taking the medication but are greatly comforted just knowing that it is legal to avoid a protracted painful dying process. There are many safeguards in the end-of-life options act which are listed in Article 17. The patient must be able to take the medication themselves. The terminal illness six- month prognosis and mental capability to make an informed health care decision must be confirmed by two doctors, both licensed in medicine in the state of Massachusetts. First, the attending physician who has primary responsibility for the person's care and a second, a consulting physician qualified by speciality or experience to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis regarding a terminally ill patient's condition. Patients are not eligible for medical aid in dying because of age or disability. The attending physician must inform the requesting patient about all of their end-of-life care options including hospice and pain and symptom management. Medication can't be prescribed until mental capacity is determined by a mental health professional. Two separate requests for the medication must be made, one oral and one written, within a 15-day waiting period between the first and second request. A retired emergency physician, Dr. David Nielsen and Amherst resident recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Hampshire Gazette. In it, he wrote, I can personally attest to the anguish and unnecessary suffering of dying patients who are denied death with dignity. I feel it only humane to maximize our options as we each traverse this final rite of passage. No one should be made to suffer needlessly waiting for the merciful release of death. So I and my fellow petitioners and countless others hope that you will vote yes at this town meeting and show our state legislature Amherst's support for this end-of-life options act. Thank you again for allowing me to speak tonight. Thank you. Is the select board, Mr. Slaughter? The select board voted to take no position on this article. And although each of us has our own opinion, we decided that as a board we would not take a position. Thank you. And it's my understanding the finance committee also has no position. Correct. This is a resolution, requires a majority vote for passage. Is there discussion before we come to a vote? Yes, I see a hand back there. Helen Burr, precinct one. It's difficult to live. And it's difficult to die to. And I've been beside people that have in my family that have died and have suffered. And they have suffered because doctors have done harm and not prescribed adequate pain medication. And there's now a so-called opiate crisis now where we're denying people pain medication. I just don't understand. The state can't get rid of people fast enough. It's like the veterans administration is trying to do the veterans. They're trying to vet the list of the roles. And the state wants to. We've grandfathered in mass health for another eight years or so because it was bought out for $62 million. Or billion or whatever. At the state would like to take a lot of us out. And we're going to give them that. Living is precious. We don't know what's on the other side, if anything, at all. Now, maybe you do. I don't. Yes, I see a white card there in the fourth row. Joan Temkin, precinct eight. I have a question. The petitioner talked about the long process that is necessary to obtain permission. And it made me wonder, because there are a lot of professionals involved in that decision. Who pays for that? How is all of that funded? Is that through the hospice thing or do you know? Ms. Schenck. I would suppose that going to the doctor would be like any of us would with regular insurance coverage, Medicare or whatever. To just go to the doctor and request their opinion and diagnosis. Further discussion before we come to a vote? Yes, third row right here. Frank Addie, precinct eight. I'm opposed to the article with some considerations. One is the concern about money. That is, it seems like there would be pressure on people who would be facing medical bills and that would be both the care of the illness and the need for supportive people to help them to stay alive. And therefore in the interests of their loved ones, in the interest of being able to have something passed on from them, there would be a pressure to try to get it done and therefore it is difficult for people without resources and easier for people with resources under these circumstances. Also, the medical profession is in itself reforming. That is at UMass, they have a course for medical students before they actually have any clinical knowledge. They're for freshman medical students and they become people who will spend time with a dying person and their family throughout the process of dying and then for some months after the death. And that leads to also the new specialty of palliative care in which a team of people are working together to no longer cure the illness but to help the quality of life in the last days and months of the person's life. So it's becoming less necessary. I do have objections to the ethics. I think doctors, what was it, 4 to 5 B.C.? I've been under the idea that one would not study or one would learn how to cause death that would be against the ethics of the profession. It feels that there is a loosening of ethics in general with psychologists and psychiatrists working on torture as a activity that they've been paid for. It would seem as if holding the line and saying there are just some things that doctors don't do is worthy. And it would require study. That is, if you're going to be good at killing with medication, you would want to study that. And it seems that that's not particularly an area to go into. And I would point out that we are increasingly kind of unkind. If you heard the debates on the Affordable Care Act, it is that medicine is a business and needs to be run as a business. And it seems to me in that atmosphere, one would wish to have somewhat rigid standards of what people do in the medical profession. Thank you. Just a second. I see a green card on the aisle back there. Yes. No, no, no. I'm sorry. I was behind you. Pat DeAngelo's precinct six. I support this resolution. And I think about three people in my life who have been incredibly important to me who made different kinds of decisions. My friend Olive lived until she was 93. And the last five years of her life, she was in extraordinary pain. And she kept contemplating whether she was going to walk out into the snow to freeze to death or starve herself or and she had no options. And she lived much longer than she wanted to. My friend Kit at the age of 60 had Lou Gehrig's disease. And with her family and friends around her, she made a decision to take her mouth off her respirator. And she chose her death and celebrated it. My brother-in-law, Dan, lived with prostate cancer and they diagnosed him eight years ago saying that he would live for three months. And he lived eight years longer than that. So all those three deaths swirled around me. And I realize how important it is that the individual make the decision, not the state, not but that we have the opportunity to choose and to choose an ending that fits our lives and how we wish to end them or live them to the very end. Thank you. And right on the aisle there for a throwback. John Kool, precinct two. I urge you to vote for this. I'm going to die. I suspect all of us here are. A little control over that seems a small thing to ask. And the restrictions proposed in this resolution are very clearly meant to cover and eliminate any abuses. I urge you strongly to vote for this. I think it's human, humane and the way we should as an advanced society look at life and the end of life. Thank you. Are we ready to come to a vote? No, I see a hand over here. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Peter Vickery, precinct two. It doesn't diminish compassion for those who are dying in any degree to have some compassion for two other groups of people. And that is one group that I hadn't thought about much until I did my research on this article. And those are the people who, when they were asked why they were taking their lives in Oregon, gave the reasons and among those reasons were they didn't wish to be a burden. It wasn't the only reason but it was one of the motive reasons. People who were opting for physician assisted suicide in part because they didn't wish to be a burden. The other group is those who choose to take their own lives without the assistance of a physician. As you know, we have about 30,000 gun deaths in this country every year. 20,000 of them are self-inflicted deliberately. 20,000 gun suicides a year. We have no shortage of suicide. And how many of those people who survived suicide have expressed the feeling that they regretted it once they had done the act. Those who've survived suicide have said they regretted it once they had done it. How many of those who succeeded in the act could have been saved if the stigma had remained, if the taboo had remained and this taboo is evaporating. This taboo against taking one's own life. It's a valuable taboo. And I ask that we make a life affirming decision tonight and help maintain it rather than help it vanish. Thank you. We're ready to come to a vote. I see no hands. So we will now come to a vote on the motion. I don't think you need to if no one's raised their hand. So we are gonna come to a vote on the motion in terms of the article for article 17. This is a resolution that requires a majority for passage. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Opposed please say no. No. It has passed by majority. Before I call on the select board to make a motion, a couple quick reminders. We still have a set of keys up here. So figure out if they're yours and come get them and please clean up after yourselves. And now somebody in the select board, anybody? Mr. Slaughter. I move to dissolve the November 6th, 2018 special town meeting. Motion made second to dissolve town meeting, November 6th special town meeting. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed please say no. We are dissolved.