 Okay, so this is the January 8th, 2020 meeting of the Community Resources Committee, starting at 9, calling to order at 9.34 a.m. We have a quorum present, and our first item of business is general public comment, so I will open it up. Is there any from the public? Not seeing any. We will move on to our item 3A, which is the Percent for Art bylaw proposal that has been referred to us through the Percent for Art ad hoc bylaw, I don't know what its total name was, ad hoc committee, bylaw ad hoc committee, working group, it was an ad hoc committee I think, but they've finished their work and they've referred it on to finance and to CRC per the referral from the charge on the town council, and so we have here to talk a little bit about that, Bill Cazan, who is the chair of the public art commission, you're welcome to come on up and all. We also have just for the public's reference, Andy Steinberg was on the ad hoc committee working on the language, and one other CRC member, Steve Shiber, who will be here a little late today, was also on that ad hoc committee, so we're actually well represented from the people who worked on the language today, so I'm welcome, Bill, and thank you for your service on the public art commission, and give us an idea of what this is and why it's in front of us and what you guys did to it, I know it was in town meeting at some point and there's some changes to that, so, you know, give us an idea. Okay, thank you for having me. I'm here, my name's William Cazan, Bill Cazan, I'm the chair of the public art commission, and I'm here to speak for the percent for art bylaw. Let's see, I don't want to go back over the whole history of it in great detail, but I will just say that it was originally presented to town meeting by Eric Brody, who at that time was on the percent for, was on the public art commission, he was not yet the chair, he subsequently became the chair and which then passed to me, he's currently not on the commission at this point, but town meeting did pass a previous version of the bylaw, it got hung up at the state level for a variety of reasons, came back to the town, and then that bylaw was never enacted, and so now that the council has been seated as somebody who joined the public art commission expressly to work on this bylaw because I was excited about it and I really thought it was a great program for the town, it sort of has fallen to me to try to see that it actually does get passed and to realize what I think at that time anyway was the will of the town as enacted by town meeting. So I've worked with Eric who's been involved in this whole process even since his time on the commission, as well as with this ad hoc committee. So I'd like to thank Kathy Shane, who was the chair of the committee, Andy Steinberg, and Steve Schwartz from the council, Jim Barnhill and myself were there representing the public art commission, and Eric also was in all of the meetings and really sat at the table in many ways as an equal partner in helping us think through how we might rework it for the town. Sonya Aldrich was also there for almost all of the meetings and gave us a lot of really important and key feedback in this process regarding town finances and how the town might be able to afford to structure this as well as pay for it. It was a great, it was actually a great working committee. We had a, I think, a very productive series of meetings and then we work quickly, I think, and we produce what we feel is a strong new version of this bylaw, so I look forward to the conversation today. So I'm not going to give a big PowerPoint presentation if and when it comes back to the full council. I can do that again. I've done it in the past. I just want to go over fairly quickly the major changes we've made because, frankly, we completely rewrote this bylaw and I think we came out with a better bylaw in the end. We made, from my point of view, big, big compromises, but I think actually in the end it'll be better for the town given the financial constraints on the town and what's possible at this moment. So the biggest changes are that, and one of the things we were tasked with was fixing the problem that got this thing hung up at the state level in the first place. And in the previous version there was a provision that was going to set up a fund to hold money beyond the yearly budget cycle. And that would have had to have been approved at the state level. And it got through the house and actually even mostly through the Senate, there were three hearings in the Senate and the Department of Revenue Attorney had some questions and flagged it. And the issues were all surrounding, for the most part, whether or not we could hold money in a fund and how that would be structured beyond a year. So we completely took that out. The reason why that had been in there originally was because in town meeting, some town meeting members wanted to see the town support the performing arts, as well as the visual arts. And I am 100% in favor of that. But in order to do that for complicated reasons, we set up this piece that would have held money and that's what kind of tanked the previous version. So unfortunately we had to pull that whole piece out and in the current version there will no longer as it's written be any support for the performing arts. But hopefully we can find other ways to fund those in the future. The other really big change was that the trigger for this went from 100,000 to a million. Which basically the reason why it was so low before was because the idea was to have less expensive projects be set aside in this fund that could then be used for performing art projects. As we took that piece out, then it made much more sense to raise the trigger. So that now this will only be triggered for what we expect would be projects that would go out for bond funding. And as tied to the four big capital projects, probably debt overrides or at least for one of them, if not more. So that's a very big change to how we're thinking about this. The idea for the new version is that it would have minimal impact on taxes in the sense that it wouldn't be competing with other capital projects. It would be folded into the construction costs of any given project, these big new capital projects, and wouldn't be competing with other projects that were happening in town at the same time. Another big change that we made is that we've given town council the power to lower or even eliminate this bylaw by majority votes at any point. Particularly our thinking was that if the town did hit rocky financial circumstances as it did in 2008 with the Great Recession, it would allow the council to not eliminate the bylaw. If it passes it, as Lynn said at the previous meeting, it would have the intent to have this up and running in perpetuity. But it would give the council the opportunity at a moment in financial crisis to say, you know what, it's not appropriate at this time to do it. Let's put it on hold. We can come back to it when things have changed at the state level, at the federal level or when the town is more flush with money for various opportunities for the arts. The other thing is that we've given the town manager or the town manager in consultation with the public art commission the ability to kill the project if it gets hung up by the artist at any point. Because we absolutely do not want these projects to hold up any of these big, big construction projects in any way. And so let's say we choose an artist and that artist is fickle to work with or problematic or the project gets caught up for whatever reason. If it's going to hold up the construction project beyond any reasonable length of time, we also created the possibility of the power for the town to stop it. And then the other thing that came up was this issue of how we define where these things would go. And in part this came from a conversation with Andy and things that he was very interested in seeing in there. So it was about public accessibility and whether or not the buildings that these were going to be in would be publicly accessible and in what ways. And so we define public accessibility in such a way that, for example, if a DPW building was built on some remote plot of land out in the middle of nowhere down a dirt road that the public generally wouldn't have access to, then potentially it would not trigger this bylaw. There's some flexibility there or some, we could have a conversation about that, but that was how we sort of thought about it in this current version of the bylaw. Everything else was mostly Scrivener's changes or responses to comments from town staff. The previous version went out to town staff and got a whole raft of comments and we really sat down and tried to answer every single one of them and tried to not just answer them, but actually change the bylaw in response to what was being asked of us. So we really tried to, in every possible way, we tried to be flexible and make this thing work. One of the things that I was very sensitive to was making sure that the town manager was given appropriate appointing authority throughout. In the previous version that was a little bit unclear or there were moments when I felt like he should have appointing authority or for the juring process, et cetera, and so we made sure that that was cleaned up as much as we could. And then we just tried to simplify clarity, clarify, simplify and focus the intent of the bylaw. So to conclude, I would just say that we've presented this to the finance committee, it got unanimous support from finance and they're working on a report which I haven't seen yet that's going to be written by Kathy in support of this version of the bylaw. There were still a few minor language issues that were flagged in the version that you have that we wanted to check with Paul, the town manager, KP law potentially, and Sonya just to make sure that some of those things are correct and it will go to GLL, of course, who will have lots of things to say about the minutiae of the language. And then I would just say finally that there's really never going to be a better time to do this than I can imagine, our debt is going down and our bond rating is high and we have these big projects coming down the pike. And so if we can tie a wonderful art project to all or some of these construction projects, I think it'll be a boon to the town economically, socially for both visitors, people who live here, people who work in these buildings. So I am excited with the new version and I'm hoping that we can figure out a way to come to a version that everybody can be happy with and get through the council. Thank you. Thank you. How we're going to do this discussion, I think, is to first ask questions of, if we have any questions about the bylaw, any questions about the wording. We've got Bill here, we've got Andy here, we've got people who work directly on it, let's start with those questions. And then once we've answered questions like that or we can move on to a discussion that relates to whether we're going to recommend the council adopted or not. And those, any concerns we have about, any concerns or non-concerns we have about the bylaw itself regarding a recommendation. But I thought we'd start with questions first. So are there any questions regarding what it applies to? It's, you know, any of that. Dorothy. Only when you read it aloud did I begin to worry about the delay part. I was thinking, don't we need a Michelangelo exception? Because sometimes something really wonderful is happening, but it might delay something. Yes, so the idea is that there's a conversation that would happen. It's in consultation. And so it would be, for sure, a conversation between the artist, the town manager, the chair of the Public Art Commission. And obviously council would be able to weigh in. So absolutely, I wouldn't, you know, automatically kill an art project, especially if you're close to, you know, there's a conversation that would take place. Would it also potentially depend on where on the plot of land it's going, if it's an outside standalone structure that affects less timing than if it's like integral to somewhere on the wall or something as part of a structural element. Yes, and Andy's about to speak and I know what he's going to say. Well, I think I do. Maybe I should. I think an issue has come up relative to whether or not when we go out for bond funding for these construction projects, these projects have to be integrated directly into the building or if they can be adjacent to the building or how far away. And so that's one of our, that's one of our outstanding questions that needs to be clarified. So Sonia will reach out to bond council to make sure that we know. So obviously if it's going to be for the elementary school project, wouldn't it be amazing to have one of these, you know, ferris wheel type projects that I showed or playground projects that I showed previously to the council, but that wouldn't be integrated into the building itself. It would be next to the building or in the playground area. Would that be possible? We're not entirely sure. So that's an outstanding question. But that's, yeah, to your point. Andy? Yeah, I was going to, first of all I have to start by saying I really appreciated working with the ad hoc committee. It was a great group that worked together very effectively. And I think we identified problems and then really worked hard together to address them. And it was one of the better processes that I've worked on in time. And really excited about the outcome that we have. As far as the whole thing of public accessibility, when you get to, you know, the idea is that if you want to make the, we wanted to make the art accessible to the public, so that if you have a building that is not in a self used by the public or visible to the public that said the entrance is accessible and visible to the public. That's something that should be considered. I think what we wanted to do was to create maximum flexibility to the process that visualizes and creates the art. And not do anything in the bylaw that limits that creativity because that's what art is all about. And the concern of the staff about not letting the process of the creation of the art delay the construction of the project is a reasonable concern. And we didn't think that it was a barrier that it was, but it was just something that we recognized as important and I think is a soluble and has, we've created, I think, a structure that does that. So the two other things I wanted to just comment on the supplement is that a lot of this had to do with how things are funded. It was certainly we got gummed up because of, as Bill said, the performance part of the art. But there were also this thing anytime that you raise funds and then don't spend them right away or don't spend them for the purpose for which they're raised creates all sorts of legal problems and financial problems as to how the money is held and accounted. And that played out for that, it played out for the small art projects, as Bill said. It played it again into the question of maintenance of art also because there was a question of having funds available that could be held into the future for maintenance and that's why maintenance is treated as it is in the new version of the bylaw. But all of that is really to address the central issue that really got to what caused the Department of Revenue Attorney to say, hey, wait a minute, we have some problems here with this and that kept the senate then from finishing the process in the last bylaw and why it died. And so I think that we did for all sorts of reasons say, well, we still had a great idea and we got the feedback and let's work with it. The last thing I wanted to report is that the finance committee is very close to finished on its work but there is one piece that is coming up. When major projects come along or any project that's going to be bonded which is probably all of the kinds of things that we're talking about, the effect of the bond comes in one of two ways depending upon whether the bond is going to be funded just through town finances and paid back on an annual basis but is being done within the general budget process and the other is if you end up saying, well, we don't have enough funds, we're going to have to ask voters for debt exclusion. So what we're trying to do is to be clear with the public and with the council about what the cost would be in either of those two scenarios because if it is to be just funded through the town budget process with authorization of debt to be paid from the budget in future years then the question is what is the annual payment because that comes out of the whatever amount is set aside for future years for capital and it really is not going to appear to be a large amount of money in the end. It's not going to keep us from doing a major piece of road work or buying a truck or making a significant investment but we want to put the number and we're waiting for Sonia to finish that. She's given us some rough estimates but she was going to give us some more exacting estimates and then the other is if you do it by debt exclusion how many pennies per year get added to the average tax bill as a result and so as soon as we get that back from Sonia it can get plugged into a draft that Kathy's already developed and then voted on and we hope that that happens at the January Finance Committee meeting. But we are moving along with it. However the questions will come back if I talk about housing later too. We try to focus on the financial side and leave questions about the art and the importance of art in the community and how it's designed to achieve those goals to other committees because we don't view that as finance committee purpose. Dorothy. Something that I do think does belong to this committee and way at the beginning of this process I submitted a little memo of some things I thought were important for the percent for art and I don't see it here and that is to do with sense of public ownership, buy-in. I notice that the committee, the art jury does not have any members of the general public or more specifically some of the people who would be working in the building. I just feel that we need to do a little bit of adjusting there too because for this to be successful it's not how many pennies it's onto your tax bill that's going to make people feel good or bad about it but if they feel yes this is wonderful, this is great, this expresses who we are or who the town is or some kind of more personal contact with people who would be involved with the building and people who are members of the town but not necessarily artists. I think we would be amenable to adjusting the language where it describes the jury to potentially include a member of the public and then somebody who actively uses the building on a daily basis. I would take another look at that for sure, that's still a concern. Pat, I supported this in town meeting and I still support it but I am having a little bit of concern we're talking about folding the costs into capital projects and then therefore it doesn't compete with capital projects and that's not accurate and my concern is we may need to get exclusion over rights and how do we get the public really on board because the few pennies, those are people's tax bills and I'm getting a lot of pushback from a lot of people about taxes in our town right now and I still, so I'm trying to figure out how do you justify, you know, I grew up very working class so we didn't have, you don't necessarily need to have a lovely statue or a fancy climbing structure to have a good building and so how do we address that seriously? Yeah, well I mean the way I present it to people and once we have these exact numbers is to really look at, you know, what is the median property tax payment and exactly how much if it's bonded over 30 years would somebody have to pay and when I've looked at those numbers the maximum was about $3 and change and that was only for a few years over that lifespan so I think it's, you present it to somebody and say would you be willing to pay this much money over this number of years to have this type of project in town and then it's up to them to decide for themselves whether or not I think if it's worth it. I mean that's how I have conversations with people about it and to some people it might not be worth it or it might not be financially prudent for the town at this moment and maybe they can imagine a moment in the future when that might be the case. In my looking at the town and its finances and my understanding of it I don't think there will be a better time and certainly there won't be any big capital projects and after these four that I can imagine any time in the next decade so it's to me it's sort of for this kind of project now or never there are other ways to raise money for the arts and to have the arts in town absolutely let's have those too so that's how I have conversations about it I mean it's tough it can be a tough sell not everybody's going to agree or want this so the question is is there enough will in town to see the town support the arts by adding to people's taxes in one way or another and if there is then let's do it that's that's my that's how I talk to people about it so I've got a few questions and since everyone else has asked I'm gonna ask mine so the qualified arts jury sorry when I read through the bylaw I couldn't totally figure out what its purpose was in terms of I mean I could guess that they are going to weigh in or have some sort of opinion on the proposed you know proposals from the artists on what though but but there was to me when I was reading the bylaw I couldn't find any concrete non-advisory role of the qualified arts jury and so I you know if that's the case is it necessary is something I would ask or if you still feel it's necessary the one thing then I thought was missing was we've defined this qualified arts jury we refer to it in the bylaw a number of times but there's a whole responsibility sections that talks about the responsibilities of the town and the responsibility of the public art commission but never actually talks about the responsibilities of the qualified arts jury and so that was something I felt was completely maybe missing or unclear and then to me that actually goes back to one thing Dorothy was saying that I'd like you to comment on which is you know the way this is written I think is the public art commission makes the final decision with advice from the qualified arts jury on which project to go with and sometimes the artists and people steeped in arts and visual arts necessarily disagree with what is a fantastic piece of artwork then the public that has to stare at it for 30 years and that goes directly to sort of what Dorothy is and how do we ensure that when the proposals come in that the people are actually going to be happy with the one that is chosen and so I think it goes it goes to Dorothy's point of is there a way you could write in that there would be a public vote on the proposals similar to what there was I'm not I don't know whether the bid picked the public one and obviously there's no final decision on that but when the band stands the performing arts stand the outdoor venue had many submissions they they asked for public opinion on that right no like I said I I don't necessarily agree with how they did that but could we do right no I know but could we you know I wouldn't want to say well we're doing a vote but then we're going to ignore that vote too so how do we get the buy-in but also get the of you know the expertise on things like is it maintainable or in three years is it just going to cost us millions to keep it up but also give this jury something concrete so I have a very easy answer for that and I think it has to do with the language or maybe some clarification that's needed in my mind the process would work in the same way as the electrify Amherst project has worked which is that the jury votes so the jury actually is the decider and to my mind that was how this process would work as well so that you you get the jury with a mix of qualified people from a variety of arts related fields and potentially from the public and people who are using the building and then they vote and that's that's the project that ends up getting built so that could be spelled out more stars and that's and that's what that's the process we've used with electrify Amherst so there are stakeholders on the jury there's members of the of the of the public art commission and others and we you know they review proposals sit down in a room together and the public is invited although I don't think we've had general members of the public there and then a vote is taken and then those are the artists who are selected I would not want to see a big public vote but I do think that the jury voting as long as the jury is felt as being representative and fair for example you want the sense of ownership of some of the rather heroic art that's on some of the fire stations in New York City the people who the firemen like the art the public likes the art so and I think by having a broader jury that it's not just the vote it's the discussion that goes into it I think that you're that people will learn from each other and that what comes out is not which either one of them might have thought of at the beginning so that it's really something good now if you want to have total free art then you do it with you know big people with big private money and they can kind of get permission to put up whatever they want but whether the public likes it or not like some statues I can think of but if it's this art that's going to be owned by the town we do have to feel that we like it and I think we can trust in the people of Amherst if there's a good fair representative group another question I had one of the pair this one might be easy one of the paragraphs in section three had a comment from you that said rewritten as necessary or rewrite as necessary to clarify you know and this potentially goes to it was paragraph the third paragraph in funding this paragraph will be rewritten as necessary to clarify so I guess one of the things I was thinking before this bylaw was coming out of the ad hoc committee was that it would be final language and so I'm curious when that paragraph might get rewritten what it might do and whose job is it you know after this conversation do we essentially if we're looking at things like we want the composition of qualified archery to be changed is that a recommendation we make to the council and to the go l or is that a sort of is the recommendation to say send it back to the working group the ad hoc committee to make these changes before we're willing to vote on it that's something I think we as a CRC need to decide that sort of process but but to that specific paragraph when is that rewriting is it going to happen is it on a holdover from some long ago comment or that's mostly holdover it was Sonya it was a question of just making sure that Sonya was happy I think with the final language in that paragraph we were happy with it as far as the committee was concerned okay and then the last question I had goes to the the interworkings and this was a question I also supported this in town meeting when I was in town meeting I was bummed the first time that performing arts wasn't in there I talked to Mr. Brody when I was on town meeting and he explained to me why you know as a performing artist I was like he explained to me why and it totally made sense and so I was on board you know I get it but that the concern I had back then is also some question I have now about the interrelationship between the definition of construction project and the definition of public building facility or space because public building facility or space is defined as structures infrastructure parks and landscapes and infrastructure is my big concern because then construction project is a capital project to construct or remodel public infrastructure essentially when you submit you know change that within the corporate limits of the town and with respect to what bidding is required under law so some of this might be for Andy more than you but we potentially sometimes bond out bridge work right which is infrastructure and some of it will cost over a million dollars is is that something that would fall into this definition such that there would either be a need for the town council to say no we're not going to apply it to the bridge you know or or to put public art on the bridge and I understand there can artwork can be on a bridge you can add balusters and stuff but so I'm I'm I'm concerned about that in a relationship how the definitions are done and what is really intended you know if it really is just intended for buildings why is infrastructure parks and landscapes still included on the definition of public building facilities and spaces right well it would be a lost opportunity if we didn't put public art in our parks let's start with that on the other hand it's very difficult to do because most of the money that comes in for our park rehabilitation and rebuilding as grant money that's not eligible as far as bridges are concerned I'm not sure but one of the things that I had in my mind is that in Vermont I believe there in a relatively small town there were some road projects that were done that actually had roundabouts and that was public art included in those as part of their percent for art program so that's the kind of infrastructure I didn't mind of course bridges you know may or may not be an interesting place to have public art but they certainly can be I mean the bridge of flowers kind of comes to mind you know yeah okay well but anyway I know it's not the same okay sorry but but you know that I'd be willing to have a conversation about whether that particular word stays in or not I would I imagine that these are the kinds of questions that might come up at the GOL level but you know if infrastructure is a big concern I'm open to I'm gonna speak up for infrastructure lived in the New York area many many years and I travel under bridges and over bridges and most of them have artwork although some bridges that I've traveled in say up here in New England are themselves works of art in the design so I mean that's something that can you can consider art at roundabouts I'm thinking of Block Island I notice it wherever it is I notice it I remember it it matters so I don't want to see it go away Andy can you potentially talk about give me an idea of what projects might be subject to bidding public bidding because I know that would limit things too do you do you have an idea or maybe Dave has an idea better about what might be you know I mean because because the definition included you know it was of which bidding is required under state law so I understand when we did the temporary station road bridge because it was a structure there was a determination that it didn't need to go out for bid under state law so is there a distinction what types you know do major road rebuilding projects if we were to say we're going to rebuild 116 or something you know would that have to go out to bidding it would probably cost over a million dollars I'm trying to get an idea of what the scope of these two definitions together encompasses I was gonna echo some of Dorothy's comments about plugging for infrastructure this is a slightly different question I'm not on a day to day basis involved in bidding so I think we need to seek Sonya or other staff input on that on the infrastructure question I was just gonna make a plug that you know I too when I travel particularly bridges bridges bridges are actually wonderful places for public art when you think of particularly the the walls if you will when you're going over a river for instance I'm always troubled that we wall off rivers and so the opportunity to add art to from a safety standpoint you may not be able to have spaces between you know going over rivers for instance or even train tracks but to add art to those spaces that might reflect the context of where you are for instance you're going over the when I go the back way to the to the pike and go over the swift river in the three rivers area over near Palmer I'm always troubled that the new bridge which is only about six years old has a complete concrete wall and you can't see the river so maybe from a safety standpoint you couldn't make spaces but you could reflect fish or wildlife or whatever along that bridge which would to Dorothy's point make make it a an experience going over that bridge so but we can look up the we can get more information on the question of bidding it was just a question I had doesn't necessarily need a total answer but Bill wanted to respond I was just going to add to Dave's comment I you know we moved here from excuse me the Somerville Medford area and on the the bridge that passes through where we used to live on 93 the artist who painted the mural the mural on the back of the building in town has this ongoing mural project there where where he's created these amazing rules and that's part of their percent for art program so actually it must be in the Cambridge stretch because it's sorry the program but so bridges have been a site for exactly the kind of thing you think of going into Northampton the train the former train trestle which is now the rail trail bridge which often gets hit by trucks the one that's kind of famous that has had some really beautiful artwork on both sides going into Northampton and leaving the downtown for years and it really does add to your experience going into Northampton whether you're on a bike or walking or going by car Dorothy I think I think art adds to a sense of place for example when bridges and things look different from each other you know where you are you it it locates you in space and I think that one of my concerns at this point in Amherst is wanting to keep some of the distinctiveness of the town not wanting it to be just an anonymous place that looks like any other town you could go into and I think that the town's public art is part of its personality and it expresses itself and it makes us feel very grounded so I'm very for being very inclusive on it candy think it's a good discussion to have and I really appreciated hearing it I don't know that we want to spend too much time on it because quite frankly most bridges are built with state grant money and I'm not sure how much this is going to be applicable to this process when I think of spaces that might be covered I think of things like we build a new elementary school I want to have the qualified arts jury be really open to thinking about the entire space of the elementary school not just the building is to where it might propose it would consider art absolutely yeah yeah and I having one child in Wildwood and another about to enter Wildwood I'm extremely excited to be involved if this gets passed by the council in you know making something exciting happen and whatever our configuration on new elementary school is so I want to welcome Steve our other member I know you were a part of the ad hoc committee so you've probably had much of your say but do you have any questions or sort of on more of the questions for about the bylaw itself right now no you're good on any other questions before we just move into talking about a potential recommendation see none I think yeah I I think we can say thank you to to bill for coming here and spending your time and presenting and answering our questions we'll move into sort of starting a discussion on what we might want to recommend and what that recommendation should look like what our role is so thank you I'll stay here but I'll go back into the audience does anyone want to start that conversation so so we need this was so so so we were more talking about questions we had about the bylaw itself but we were the referral was the referred to us you know to CRC for a report back to the town council I assume that report potentially include a recommendation of something now that recommendation I brought this up earlier what if we've got requests for changes to the bylaws that something we draft and sort of include or is that something we would say we have these concerns so we would recommend that the ad hoc committee go back and look at that you know what what would our report and recommendation look like is it you know that and and frankly what the recommendation is is you know at some point we'll get to a vote but probably on we recommend passage or not but but we had some other things so Andy so to be very specific you started with the question and about the qualified arts jury and so the questions where does it come up in its most important place and so I get back to section five of the proposed bylaw under responsibilities and responsibilities the public art commissions include and then it goes to number five soliciting proposals for review and selecting such projects with the assistance of a qualified arts jury and in consultation with key stakeholders including but not limited to the construction project architects and manager users of the proposed buildings neighbors to the project and appropriate time officials and agencies I will skip the next sentence I think that the question that you were really getting to and the Dorothy was getting to was whether that statement is sufficient about how the users of the building and the public in general can have input or whether there's something more specific so obviously I've been through this and I'm not sure that I have a lot to add that I didn't add at the ad hoc committee but I think I would encourage some consideration as to whether that provision is sufficiently strong one suggestion I could make would be to potentially add the final decision on the public artwork shall be made after public hearing by majority vote of the Public Art Commission and the qualified art story or some way of thinking about folding together the question for me would be have you know would it be the full commission how many members of the commission if not would sit on the jury you know how many people do we want sitting in on the vote itself if we were going to include the jury and change the wording I mean right now as it's written the commission could potentially ignore the will of the jury and if that's the concern that might allay it I mean one of the things that we thought about a lot when we were redrafting this I'll just add is how how specific do we need to be in the bylaw and then how much do we want to allow to come out in process because in process things will necessarily there has to be flexibility and the potential for going through it once and going whoops we made these mistakes and we want to do it differently next time so you don't want to be overly specific in the bylaw either and so you're trying to balance you know creating a structure that will be useful for everybody so that they can understand how it will work and then also allowing for some flexibility in the kind of day-to-day realization of it I mean you guys are familiar with legislating so yeah I mean so I don't you know that provision seems to contradict what you had said earlier about how electrify Amherst works at the same time maybe it's better than the electrify Amherst because and this is where I'm struggling with qualified arts jury and it doesn't have to go with the decision of the arts jury that might contradict what the users of the building are seeking when they see the proposals or what the public seeking the public art commission which is appointed from a sort of potentially a broader array of people because it doesn't have as strict guidelines as this qualified art jury does for qualifications might be the better group to make the final decision I don't know but it was something that caught my attention as I was thinking this I don't know what people are thinking but maybe it is our public art commission that should be able to overrule the thoughts of the qualified art jury I mean on the other hand a play devil's advocate the jury would be appointed by the committee but and the committee there would be a committee members on the jury but there would be a little bit of distance there too so the process it could work it can work it either way for sure and I don't see this as being something that we need to get hung up on at this point but you know thinking about the past art was included in lots of things how did they do it I mean for example the Coolidge Bridge it's got art on it or it is it has design let's put it that way it has it has designed which is not structural but I know but but there is there's surface treatment on that which is beyond the utilitarian so how was that done I think it would be interesting to check out how it was done because art has been put on public places in public places using public money for many many years and I know sometimes there's a big outcry but I don't have haven't heard any funny stories about Amherst having an art fit so take a look that I also want to say that there have been many art movements that have called forth the basics of utilitarianism and made us realize how beautiful they were the whole thing a lot of this speaks to elitism and an image of Amherst that is not necessarily really reflected of the economic diversity that we have in town and that brings my hackles up in many ways and so art is in the eye of the beholder I wonder if you actually we did a poll of people of all types if you'd find that the demarcation is as strict as you think it is so at some point we need to get to a recommendation I oh sure I was thinking when you brought up whether we have some issues with the bylaw and I think that our recommendations should include those to the council because that and and to GLL because we're working just like the finance recommendations are important we're working across committees so I don't think we should only share the design issues I think that that each of these things has impact and we can send it to GLL so that's my I'm coming late to the conversation but I thought I would weigh in with a little bit of history of architecture but so what you all are bringing up is a really good point like the Coolidge Bridge and so we used to know how to do this right we used to know how to organically integrate what we now you know art into architecture was and then for a million different reasons new technology in interest in paring down sort of getting away from ornamentalism we sort of forgot how to do that so really the purpose of these kinds of laws is to bring back into the DNA something that we used to know how to do so I think a corollary art is form-based zoning so we used to know how to build communities like Amherst right so downtown Amherst around the common and then that was all done without any zoning so then we forgot how to do that and then we thought we you know knew how to do it by introducing zoning which did even a worst job it sound now things like form-based zoning have come back as a way of bringing back something that once was in our DNA so that's why I'm supporting this is that we had had a great history in Amherst and elsewhere in Massachusetts of really valuing art beyond just buildings and then something happened that and so this is a way of sort of reintroducing part of our reactivating those genes a total aside again it seems to be my leitmotif of the day the first time I saw Van Gogh's starry night was in the Guggenheim I was a teenager and as I came up the curve I saw it was on a corner wall and I burst into tears so believe me I understand the value of art but I also understand the value of simplicity the value of nature and that those things you know if we think about some of the things that have happened with natural design in art so I just get tired of never mind doesn't matter what I get tired of but I have a very broad and expansive sense of why the arts are important I just don't like some of the language that we choose to use that makes it exclusive makes it different and one more thing since I'm on a roll if you're going to put art in the school in the building on the playground there need to be children on that jewelry because they're the ones who are going to be using it so the jewelry needs to be very flexible and we need to really ask the people of Amherst what they want we're not good at that we pretend so one of the things I was gonna say is bring this back to something we might see at our our no our our retreat actually which is what this committee is tasked with making a recommendation and what do we consider and what should we discuss when making that recommendation and way back a year ago there was a town meeting advisory committee proposal for a community impact report and I have been working on potential modifications on how CRC might be able to use that to structure conversations and so I just want to mention some of the broad areas that we probably as a CRC need to at least think about when saying yes no to something you know we seem to all recognize the importance of art but how might this bylaw affect various other items in town and so those sort of areas were I had seven listed one of which was financial but was cultural natural and historic so you know museums historic buildings neighborhoods traditional customs natural areas economic you know how's it gonna affect economics employee employment business development town budgets taxes tourism vibrancy crime schools were some of the options there environment open space and recreation and commons parks recreational and wildlife architect agricultural lands housing and land use and you know various things on that that include house prices rents supply demand affordability infill construction all sorts of things social neighborhoods businesses college students area character noise visual sustainability transportation services and facilities so that that very wide right there energy demand energy resources pedestrians traffic complete streets services that that one's a very broad one and then the financial you know the lifetime value expenses to towns and residents the real cost of that that probably falls better into the finance committee discussion there and all but but when I look at that list myself I I don't see other than the financial potential you know that certainly is a drawback of the cost to the town the cost to the residents there you know when I look at the social the neighborhoods we've we've touched on some of that the historic the cultural the economic in theory this could potentially bring people into town to spend not just to look at the art but to spend money in town it could bring neighborhoods together it could bring you know could have good social impacts on on some of that stuff and you know some of it it might not actually affect housing and land use maybe maybe not depends on who's building stuff and all but but if we look at it if I look at it in that lens I see many benefits and few drawbacks especially with what I want to say I appreciate the committee having included in the bylaw the ability of if there are major delays to pull out for the council to say you know public art in this particular area really isn't appropriate and so we're going to exempt this project from the bylaw those things I think really limit the drawbacks that were presented and potentially there for prior bylaws and so if any other people want to comment on those sort of areas or things like that that'd be great that's my thoughts on them I would like to recommend it and to say that we had some but we needed more thought on the jury and I do think that's right the jury should be the flexibility and inclusiveness of the juries I do think it's funny just thinking about it we're in a row here we have three performing artists dance theater and music and our part but so we and Steve is the one who's architecture the permanent building so we do have we do have some people here who know about art and its relationship to people yeah you can give us money for for performing arts we'll take it we'd love to produce performing arts events it would be fantastic so is this something the committee feels we're ready to vote on a recommendation today or should we pause this conversation and come back at an at the next meeting with a recommendation we can vote on a recommendation I can draft a report that includes things like some of the benefits we've identified some of the concerns we have but despite those concerns you know we're recommending it but we you know the biggest concern was that jury and potential language surrounding who is audit how it's decided what their role is versus other roles it's not necessarily fatal to the passage of the bylaw but there were significant concerns it's the construction of the jury as it relates to the relationship of the art to the public and then the towns the towns buy in Andy so I'm gonna comment two different ways first is said that if a majority of the committee believes that there ought to be changes to the composition of the jury or the functioning of the jury I think that that has to be very explicit in the recommendation of the committee it is we can't put that off for later because there's nobody there's no later to put it off to you know if you're recommending the bylaw as it was drafted by the ad hoc committee then you're making that recommendation if you are recommending it with changes we have to be very explicit about what the changes are because we are a legislative committee so that's I think the major point I think that my personal feeling is that I am happy with where we came out with on the question of how the jury is structured and the flexibility that it provided but you know it's sort of this is one of these awkward places where because I was on the ad hoc committee I'm in a different space so I really respect what my colleagues here who are looking at it for the first time have to say about it in the observations that you've made so I do want to comment on the qualified arts jury I know we've all had different thoughts on it and different concerns about it many of mine have been alleviated I want to point out to Dorothy who's concerned about the membership of it that there's no set number in the definition so it's a varying size but it also only requires all of those experts to be a majority you know a group appointed by the town manager that shall include a majority of professionals who work in the arts which means it does not eliminate public from that jury it does not potentially eliminate children from that jury if it's going in or educators in the school where that item would happen I guess I have one question are the is the qualified jury made up of Amherst residents who have these understandings or are you thinking about people from outside of Amherst that just came to me and well the I mean it's open that that could be something that would come out in process I mean in my mind it would it would be built of people from Amherst but you know we might want to pull in somebody from neighboring town or maybe somebody from Cambridge from there but you know I mean why not if somebody was willing to step up who's worked on the percent for art program in Cambridge and wanted to help us out that would be fantastic so why would we exclude having somebody from the outside so the way I read it it would be a multiple member body and under the charter multiple member bodies need to be composed of residents of the town of Amherst unless the town council vote you know specifically says a non-resident is okay now the manager could propose non-residents I believe we've done this once before for either water supply or ag or something I commissioned where so they could be but but the default is under the charter for multiple member body town residents and Steve not Andy I think this needs some thought and I don't know if it needs to get resolved now but there's also a very good argument to be made that it shouldn't be people from Amherst in the same way designer selection of the you know say of the school will not happen it will not be the people of Amherst that make that decision it's basically a standing body of the Massachusetts school building authority with Amherst input so in some ways there's a benefit to having people that are not outsiders basically so I don't I don't know how this gets resolved now or but I think that we can also go ahead with with trust that we will resolve this so I think what I'm gonna do given the time we have we're gonna postpone a vote and recommendation on this till the 29th meeting what I would like that what what what I'm hearing is that there's concern about the definition of the jury unless everyone's okay with moving forward with it as defined and I'm taking Andy's potential recommendation that if we make a recommendation to the council and we want language changes we should come in with what those language changes are and it's possible since it's a bylaw that if we wanted the charter default not to apply it might be possible to say because that would be sort of considered a vote of the council a majority vote of the council to put into the bylaw that that non-residents may be included you know you might be able to do that and if that's something that's really important I think we should come up with language and I'm not sure drafting that language right now today is the most efficient use of our time versus people thinking about it and coming to the next meeting with potential language but I'm open to thoughts well I think that the two parts of the bylaw that talk about the jury five five and one on the first page two six if you put them together I really hadn't done that if you put them together and I think it's possible for you and some of the community members from the ad hoc group to take what we've talked about in consideration put it together in in language and send it to us so we could respond and if in fact we do agree this could be moved forward I mean it has really gotten better as time has gone on I mean that's that's the good thing if the picture is becoming clearer I think we're very close to it as long as there is some of the things you've said there's no set number on the jury that it may include these variety of people the relationship of the jury to the art commission and that something that nobody's been mentioning but I think it says that that overall the town manager is in charge isn't that in here somewhere he has he would have a pointing authority over a multi member body so if that was like all put together and discussed more I think that because some of these questions are the Gia town council as a whole is going to want to go into this in detail this is one of the major areas I think that they're going to be want to talk about I think Andy's done a great job in responding about to the financial implications so that many of those questions that people would have have been answered so I think that this could the language could be put together and could be sent to us and maybe we could be able to bring it to the town council meeting I'd like to I guess I'm responding to how long it's taken this poor bylaw to get to where it could be implemented and so I feel more comfortable I guess with some of the of recommending it knowing that GOL is going to look at it as well so I feel like I can go with the language the way it is because it's not completely specific in terms of the jury and that I just hate making it wait because that means February if we're lucky it just feels odd so I'm happy to be overruled do I hear a motion from anyone you want can I can I ask your recommend your motion wants to recommend the council adopt the bylaw is that what your motion is trying to get to so then I think the motion that you would make if I've got language correct would be to recommend the town council adopt the percent for art bylaw as presented by the ad hoc committee is I don't want to put words in your mouth so so we can do a separate motion after that about that yeah at the end of the ad hoc committee process we actually had a brief discussion as to whether we should dissolve the ad hoc committee and I suggested that we not dissolve the ad hoc committee at that point because if comments came from any of the committees that were reviewing it which is CRC and finance that and it got referred back to the committee to do additional work in relation to comments that the committee still be in existence in order to reconvene and do that and so we did not dissolve as a committee the key thing for me is that I do not want us to get to the point where we get so far with any of the four major projects that the bylaw doesn't get applied to that project because we delayed that's the practical side of the whole thing and I don't see any of them moving on a track that is that fast the one that is moving on the fastest track potentially because the mess board of library commissioners is the library the library is one building that I'm not sure where it fits into the process because it's not a town building but when you get to the school TPW and fire station they certainly are not going to be affected if we have a few months of additional time to address concerns that counselors may have given that Pat do you still wish to make that motion okay do we want another motion now or do we want to come back later with a motion because I can given what Andy said given what Dorothy said I could foresee us making a motion to recommend the town council refer this back to the percent for art bylaw ad hoc committee for revision of the qualified arts jury language something like that I don't know that's a great motion but in terms of wording but I think that was a statement of strong interest and support so that the town council knows that this is still puttering along but it's in a very positive direction so I would say we could have further discussion about the during issue and I apologize for mis-presenting the electrify amherst project which I had in the forefront of my mind because we got our next round of funding for that with this and the way the jury instructor was different from how we presented this I feel like that got us off track a little bit and but the way I see it is we have two models on the table to follow something closer to what we've been doing for electrify amherst or to do the model that's actually in the in the bylaws presented to you which actually gives the commission the final vote and that would be the conversation I would want to have when we got back but we may come back to you with the same thing and say we've talked about it further and we feel like the better option is the one we have here and so I just point that out so I think why don't I make a motion because I fear I feel like the committee wants to do something today not postpone some sort of recommendation three weeks so I'm going to move to recommend the Town Council refer the percent for art bylaw back to the ad hoc committee to address concerns regarding the membership of the qualified arts jury and its role in the process in the in the art selection process in the process so that's the motion I'm going to make do I hear a second from anyone on that motion Dorothy seconds do we have any discussion on that motion Steve so now I'm confused as to whether or not that's actually would be a multi-member body or not because the way it's being the way it's being presented is the Arts Commission is the multi-member body and then they basically are being delegated authority to create a jury so I guess some clarification on our part would be necessary so for me part of it is do I trust the process I got us to the Arts Commission that will then appoint the jury because I'm not sure that we want the well I don't know so maybe this is what needs to be discussed I don't I don't think we need to get to the point where we're the appointors of the jury or that even the town manager is the appointer the town manager is I'm sorry the town manager is the appointer so the definition of multiple member body in the charter is any board commission committee subcommittee or other body consisting of two or more persons whether elected appointed or otherwise constituted but not including the town council school committee or library trustees Andy and I think that I was conscious of the charter provision that you just read when we had the discussion and with many things that happened in that committee because we did did a lot of work together if it was an issue that seemed to be being resolved in the right logical matter that was in this case consistent with the charter I was happy with that just didn't even raise the issue are we ready to vote on this motion do we believe we need more discussion I've seen no other discussion so I'm gonna call for a vote all those in favor of the motion to recommend to the town council refer the percent for art bylaw back to the ad hoc committee to address concerns regarding the membership of the qualified arts jury and its role in the process raise your hand and say aye that is three oh no Andy for all those against raise your hand and say no any one abstaining we have five votes and all abstentions and that motion passes four to one I will draft up a memo for the town council meeting for the 27th to present those recommendations to the town council given that recommendation I am not going to forward this from CRC to GL saying we are done with it because I don't think we're done with it so since we're seeking changes and going back to our thing thank you bill getting back to our agenda I think given the timing I am going to say we are not going to get to the presentation and discussion item today Dave if you want to let you may have already let Christine and Chris Chris and Rob go but we've got a half an hour and we've got one more big discussion coming in minutes and so I would just say let them know that that will just get postponed to another meeting and so we're going to skip for a we're not there yet but I was just going to announce that we're not going to get to that today the next item on the agenda is the downtown parking study and memo from the downtown parking working group that was referred to us I drafted a memo based on the comments that this committee made last meeting that memo was put in the folder and packet it is addressed to the town council from the CRC we were referred this downtown parking working group priority recommendations to report back to the town council so that is why the memo was not addressed to you guys for me it is the draft of what the report back to the town council would look like in the form of a memorandum it is marked draft because this is what I am hoping CRC may vote to adopt I tried to summarize our conversations and I tried to in the bold come up with what our vote might look like that is the part that I kind of made up based on the conversation so I don't know what people think about that but let's discuss this I would really like to get this one off CRC's plate and move this back to the council for the councils next meeting as a report so thoughts on the memo well I have a question I'm still digesting the news the suggested new committee TSO which I believe would then have parking under it and I'm also looking at this and I'm dealing with people who are desperate to deal do something on Lincoln Avenue about parking and the way has not opened yet we don't know how it's going so I look at this and say all right so if we do have a point somebody in charge of parking where is this position who's supervising them just really how does it go for people to come to what would the process be to go deal with some parking issue under this so this is a person in charge and some money to run it those are the two recommendations that we're gonna push but I still don't see how how it works Andy I guess the first zone in relation to what was just raised this is a recommendation of the downtown parking working group and Lincoln Avenue is not technically a part of downtown and this position is being envisioned to manage parking process within the area that that working group was considering so I'm not sure that we envision this position or the working group was envisioning this position as being the group that would be involved with neighborhood parking issues Lincoln being the current one but it not being the only one that I've experienced in my lifetime on the select board and now the council so the other thing that I wanted to touch on is entirely different subject and I'll leave it to the chairs to whether I should mention it or hold it until we complete this discussion and I just want to respond to that and then I'll I'll let you move on so I actually disagree with Andy saying Lincoln is not involved in downtown the study that this is that these priority recommendations came from actually included Lincoln Avenue parking as part of downtown available parking spots unregulated but but parking itself so this position in theory that study that that consultant took a very large view of what downtown was compared to what some people generally think of downtown so even if the position is envisioned to manage parking within downtown that would likely include Lincoln Avenue and the issues that the Lincoln Avenue residents are having because their request actually competes with parking availability in downtown as envisioned by the consultants report and now you can go on with your other question no I understand the point you're raising I as to what is the definition of downtown and Lincoln is kind of on the edge and it's because it's not part of the permit parking area that's why I distinguished it because I was leaving downtown as the areas that were encompassed there and this is a valid discussion to have I didn't want to cut off discussion which is why I didn't want to bring up the other thing there's several points where we talk about having supplement going back in future guidelines for the financial guidelines and I don't think that that's necessary and I would be looking at that very closely and I went back obviously to look at what we just passed in the council for FY 21 guidelines and what it says and I'll try and not read the whole thing because it's pretty long nevertheless the council would like to work with you to consider the need cost other challenges and benefits of addressing some important unmet needs these needs include then there was a list of six because I left it as a open list that could be added to by the council but one of which was moving forward with the three recommendations of the downtown parking working group so and then it says consistent with the budget philosophy discussed above if additional funds become available the council want these issues considered as you develop a short prioritized list for budget additions so we actually were very careful in the finance committee in recommending this to the council and it was adopted as recommended to leave it that these issues should be considered for need cost other challenges and benefits of addressing those important needs kind of separate from whether they would get funded or not recognizing that they are financial issues that we'd like the manager to consider so I will have comments about some of the suggested language but I don't do it all goes into the same theme that I don't think we need to do anything more than say consistent with the guidelines we've already adopted we suggest you do something I can really didn't want to get in don't want to get into the discussion of my preference but the person was staffing in our fire EMS services the second was I mean it was there I was hoping we would is number one unfortunately I think 1130 at night when we discussed it's not sure I tried to get the council to go there but the council really wanted to go somewhere else called home and so I could go through those potential changes but are there any other general comments what is it about Lincoln Abbeyville what is downtown the neighborhood that I one of the neighborhoods I represent is on the edge of downtown and for example permit parking is allowed on a residential street and people cannot park in front of their own houses that they own so and there's a very strong feeling that we are very very involved in downtown and downtown keeps coming into the neighborhood so we do not have a structure that can deal with our parking problems this is not going to solve it it's it's something you know and it was recommended by the consultants so I'm not against these recommendations but I have the strong sense that there's just a world of confusion beyond this I'm gonna go back to Andy's that he was gonna seek some changes on the draft language regarding the budget guidelines I think the first one is potentially in the bolded part of what the vote would be on you know where I just drafted some language the council priorities prioritize these three strategies through the setting of town manager goals and budget guidelines was your recommendation to delete the end budget guidelines section of that okay so I'm making some track changes on here so I can keep track of that then the next paragraph underneath of that actually referenced the current guidelines recognizes the current budget guidelines for this year include working with the manager to consider the needs cost challenges with the fifth unmet need being moving forward with the downtown parking working groups so therefore our report suggests supports the council's current budget guidelines on these recommendations I'm not sure you were suggesting any changes to that language is that correct yeah it's possible that that was I looked at various options there is you indicate the under each recommendation the last paragraph talks about where the recommendation comes from so right amount the last paragraph of recommendation number one because implementation of this recommendation would fall under the manager's executive and budget authority CRC recommends including it in the manager's goals for the year and the council budget guidelines you would just recommend deleting that and budget authority and then and the council budget guidelines it's on page two second paragraph we could also just modify it to CRC recommends including this recommendation in the manager's goals for the year and recognizes it is already included in the council budget guidelines yeah and so the though would just would just add we would just add the phrase and recognizes it is already included in the council budget guidelines that recognizes it is consistent with that that better language for people consistent with recommendation to I think is full you know is that because final implementation of this recommendation would fall under that this is again the last paragraph on page two would fall under the manager's budget authority CRC you know I guess this one said CRC recommends including this recommendation in the council's budget guidelines we could just say CRC recognizes it is consistent with council budget guidelines and recommendation three would just be the same changes under recommendation one because I think the sentence is the same recommends including this recommendation the manager's goals for the year and recognizes it is consistent with the council budget the council's budget guidelines are there any other changes related to that comment Andy that you thought we needed to make in this report no I think you've got the saying that I just think we should recognize the guidelines already go somewhere let's go use it any other thoughts on the report as drafted so I want to point out that I added an extra recommendation you know so so in this vote that I envisioned you know that we recommend the council prioritizes these three strategies through the setting of town manager goals CRC also recommends the council finance committee make a recommendation regarding the minimum percentage of the transportation fund that should be dedicated to improvements and parking in the downtown that might actually need to be reworded to recommends the town council refer to the finance committee and I don't know whether people support that one but I added it in there because I thought we as a CRC decided we were not the correct committee to make any concrete recommendations on any particular minimum percentage so that's why it's in there I am welcome and happy to hear any thoughts on that and including delete it but that as I was writing this that's one thing I thought people would would logically follow from the discussion that we had and I wanted to point it out specifically well it's a very technical issue so the finance committee in consultation with town staff perhaps I mean how do you determine a percentage just you know arbitrarily you have to have somebody say what what real costs are that is how the finance committee we heavily rely on consultation with the town manager and with finance director in order to make to analysis make recommendations we are heavily staff-supported committee is referenced earlier when I said that we were lying on sunny to do some work on our percent for art calculations as finance chair would you be okay with the wording as is here yeah any other thoughts on this report and are we ready to make the motion referenced in the report I'm happy to do it myself since I have the modified language in front of me or I'm happy to read it and have someone else technically make it so I'll just make it then I move to recommend the council prioritize well I move that the CRC recommend the council prioritize I had these three strategies that the downtown parking working groups priority well hold on let me let me okay so let's try this again I move that the CRC recommend the town council accept the recommendation of the downtown parking working group through the setting of town manager goals it also recommends the council refer to the finance committee to make a recommendation regarding the minimum percentage of the transportation fund that should be dedicated to improvements and parking in downtown do I hear a second to that motion second any discussion on it see none all those in favor of that motion please say aye and raise your hand I see a five members in favor since our committee is made of five members that is a unanimous vote I don't have to ask for the other ones that takes care of that item on the agenda which brings us to I had already said we would postpone item for a on this agenda due to time I didn't think given where we were 15 minutes ago we'd be able to have a nice significant discussion to continue and so we are postponing for a that brings us to the minutes item 5a on our agenda December 4 and December 18 minutes and I'm going to bring up mine copy of these the we're going to start with the December 4th minutes I already received one request for modification and which is that the members present list Steve Schreiber and the councilors absent be none he attended that meeting until approximately 940 at which time the he left and the minutes already indicate he left so it was kind of an odd he's absent but he left the meeting so so the recommendation you know that that request is to move Steve up to a member present and absent is none and then it's already indicated that he left early and that he was then absent for some of the later votes are there any other requests to amend the December 4th minutes okay we're going to do these two motions together instead of separate motions and so that I will take any requested amendments to the December 18th minutes I had just clerical which was the members present and members absent in these December 18th minutes just listed our last names and we tend to just list our full names I think so I would just put our first names into them too otherwise it just looks really weird to me but otherwise I didn't have any requested changes does anyone else okay so then I will accept a motion to adopt the December 4th 2019 and December 18 2019 minutes as amended do I hear a motion Pat moves second Andy seconds any more discussion all those in favor raise your hand and say aye we've got five votes in favor that's a unanimous vote which brings us to announcements I put this I just want to discuss and I should probably pull up my memo it was in the memo that I wrote the report I wrote to the town council on for our last meeting the I just want to give you guys though an update on what the December 18th attendance my appearance in front of planning board was I tried to summarize it for the town council so I will announce it at this meeting sort of in that summary I just have to find it in my memo so the appearance at the planning board meeting I think I was in front of them for an hour answering questions and all and from my point of view most of the questions related to we're more concerned with the planning boards role in this than the process that we had presented which is why I went ahead and presented our process to the town council you know they they were concerned with the definition of necessary and obvious but I responded that's sort of our thinking but they're the ones that ultimately determine what that is that that was sort of a way of us as a council signaling no full rewrite it's it's how I responded when they asked about the six month timeline and how they would get it done it was also a way of signaling we're not looking for extensive changes here we just kind of want an update and a confined update and there was planning board discussion and questions about who writes the language and how do just changes and edits in general revisions in general to a master plan get to the planning board so is that something the council presents is that something the staff presents is that something the planning board makes up themselves so a lot of questions around that process from my response to them was this what we were proposing does not envision the council or the CRC making actual language recommendations prior to that final draft report and you know they asked a question about why the CRC did not recommend just adopting the master plan as is and so I explained to them what our conversation around that was and they had a question about the phrase changes in town priorities since the approval of the master plan in item number two so I did admit that that clause might be a bit vague but didn't think it was vague so vague to open up the process extensively and and then you know beyond that much of the you know there were a lot of questions about how the planning board would get done the work which doesn't really apply to us as the community resources committee and one question about whether the town council could give the planning board feedback on that on the revisions multiple times throughout the process I explained that that's certainly a possibility if they want feedback multiple times this process that we were presenting in vision sort of one big one but if they're seeking more we're open to that and then there was talk about the possibility of the town ending up with two master plans due to the charter requirements so we spent a little bit of time dissecting the difference between approval and adopt and the state law regarding who's math what master plan governs the town and all of that that and and how the process we were proposing is an attempt to avoid the town council adopting a master plan that is has not actually been approved by the planning board that the goal is to have them be the same document and that's what my memory of the conversation was when I got back to my house afterward because I did not take notes during the conversation Dorothy was there the whole time so I welcome any additional thoughts Dorothy had on that as this announcement just to report what I was doing well I was at a sub committee when some of the people on the planning board reported that that the town council wanted a complete updating of the master plan of the zoning and there was great consternation and I didn't you know I didn't say anything about it I was just observing that meeting so I think your major role was to acknowledge the planning boards major role in such language and doing their work but that we hadn't adopted the master plan we wanted to do really I think necessary and obvious are pretty good words some of the things that were at this moment obvious and easy to do and maybe approaching a couple of things that were necessary because of changes that had happened since but that we were not talking about anything major nor were you planning to take power and authority away from the planning board but we were going to work together on this and I think you did a good job in doing that so any questions on that so any other announcements for this committee any topics not anticipated things people want to bring up seeing none I'm gonna adjourn the meeting at 11 20 thank you all