 to contain zero or near zero levels of PFAS in accordance with guidelines established from the advisory group's recommendations and quote after the phrase quote dated February 11th, 2022, and friends comma quote period. So that's where it goes in that order. The motions and amendment and motion to amend has been made is there a second. Second Shawnee. Thank you. Mindy Joe would you like to speak to the motion and meantime I think Athena you do have the motion. I can send for the exact wording or she needs the exact wording. We've heard a lot of concern about PFAS. This is a way to move forward with the turf option. While doing having the right people do the due diligence to find the materials that limit that potential, that dangerous material to as low as a level as possible. I've heard from at least one public comment her that those installations are absolutely possible a turf field. I just want to go back and say a new grass field won't solve the overuse problems we've heard so much about it won't solve the wet field problems we just heard so much about. No matter how much maintenance we put into it. If our fields are wet, they can't be played on if they're played on when they're wet, they are damaged and then they can't be played on while they're rehabilitated. If we even find the money in the operating budget, and that money would be three or more times the amount of money that a turf field would cost to maintain. Wouldn't it be better used to pay our school employees more or to offer more programming in the schools instead of maintaining grass one grass field. Beyond that, I just want to use some numbers on what 500 hours a year means for grass field versus over 2000 hours a year. A grass field as the reports say can be used not overused at a max of about 500 hours. One high school fall sport is about 130 hours 13 weeks times 10 hours a week. One high school spring sport is about 130 hours 13 weeks times 10 hours a week to gym blocks in the spring and fall is about 200 hours. 16 weeks, two months in the fall two months in the spring 12 and a half hours a day a week. One spring rec sport. It's a weekend one day two hours on the weekend 10 hours. One fall rec sport. It would be 20 hours total 10 weeks for two hours one day a week. Same with the fall sport. That's it. That's 500 hours of use. That's no use in the summer. That's no ultimate tournament one weekend a year. That's nothing else. That's all to keep a field from being overused. A turf field can be used four times as much. And if split over 10 months a year, a turf field can be used seven days a week, almost eight hours a day, seven days a week for 10 months a year. That's what we can offer our student athletes. It's what we can offer our recreation department. And it's what we can offer our summer camp students and kids. We install one turf field at minimal PFAS levels. I urge this council to allow us to do that by voting this amendment and then voting the appropriation. Superintendent Morris, you have your hand up. I also want to be respectful that amendment was just made and there's counselors with their hand up so again, as a not super frequent visitor to the council. I just want to respect the counselors may want to weigh in on that before my comments are a little more general. Okay. Thank you. Motion has been motion has been the amendment is on the table. It's been made and seconded. Kathy Shane. Mike put me in an awkward position because I would really like what he to hear what he has to say. And then I'm pretty sure you won't give me as long to speak as you just gave Mandy since she was proposing this amendment, which I hadn't had time to read before. And I, and I remember a few weeks ago when she said it's a complicated thing she didn't have time to think or read about. She didn't want to do it in the same night. So I would like to hear from Mike first before I respond to the amendment because I thought we would be having a discussion on the motion that was on the floor, not the amendment. I would like to wait and talk about the motion that's on the floor. Sure. So I'll give you my and so I apologize this is a, I'm a early to bed early to rise kind of person so I get a little punchy when we get into double digits as a school committee undoubtedly could tell you about so I'll apologize for my bluntness but in my opinion is sort of have three options. The second option, and I'm not, you know, I can tell you my advocacy at the end, but is to move forward with, you know, whatever motion ends up supporting with, you know, some contingency perhaps on PFAS is, you know, right that piece but essentially moves forward in the option three camp, right, or direction. So I think a second option that could happen, in my opinion is that we go forward with option one, right so we have the funding for the track is already established. And then the town undergoes a review and looks at multiple grass fields to replace and repair. So some of the fields there like community field is owned by the town of Amher so that's not a regional property. So that's something that the town could do independently in the way that it would like there's a cost to that there's an operational cost as well as a capital cost to that but I think for some of the reasons that were I'm trying not to repeat comments that were made earlier that that I think you know one grass field probably doesn't accommodate the level of sports and you know with both genders and some sports that are only of one gender who play it. Primarily, right it doesn't cover that. So, you know that'd be the financial expense that the town council, you know, in my opinion would really commit to. If you don't if the town so doesn't want to move forward the turf field. I think for me, hearing the testimony students and coaches and families. I guess I'd want to have that commitment that that's going to be a large ticket item. But that it starts in earnest and that the town council is going to provide both, you know, again capital and operational support for that to happen I'm not saying that is a threat I'm just saying I think that's I believe that's a reality if we're trying to resolve the issues that the students are sharing. The third is I think the thing I would least recommend which is just do the track. Right and the current status right and so for me, I'm, you know, I think it's the part of the meeting when where I'm able to share my thoughts or should I just list out. Okay. So, you know, for all the reasons that the coaches and students thank you students for being here. I appreciate it you're probably better at staying up late than I am. They indicated that'd be what I'm in favor of our students are playing on turf fields when they're not in season on their other teams all the time right turf is pretty root nice. At this point in Western Massachusetts for most of our sports teams when they're not playing at our high school. So I'm not going to repeat those reasons. I think for option two as I see it is move forward the track and then the town council take leadership of replacing multiple grass fields over the next couple years. So in my order of interest, I think the financial impact to the town is going to be significant there's not going to be regional participation for some of those fields that are just owned by Amherst and I think we'll get a lot of pushback from other towns in the region for for doing that. But it's certainly, you know, it's something that could be considered I've seen some examples of grass fields where so the orientation changes each year so you're getting like, you know, one year, the fields are one way and the next year you flip the orientation so the that's all the things like that get the rotation, but that involves not just one field but multiple fields to be able to work that rotation and keep grass fields and really good condition, especially as we know are the grounds that we have, you know, and Dave's all mix about much better person to talk about this than me but, you know, we have some moisture issues in our community that make it hard, you know, I don't want to bring up plum brook but I certainly could and those of you who are living in Amherst. I don't know about how much expense was put into plum brook and the outcome of that which was suboptimal, to say the least, and so I think we know that we're working, not with the driest and best surfaces to do that. But I want to reiterate what Liz hey good said, because Liz knows it better than me and she's lived it much more than I have. You need to get changed and then the track needs to get done I mean Liz was one of the two US ATF United States track and field master officials who did a review in 2021. And they described that the track is this quote is not only unsafe for competition it's unsafe for practicing and training. Historically this track should have been resurfaced two to three times but never has been all of these issues are unsafe and can lead to athletic injury so the track can't wait. We really can't wait for now we do have students and adaptive physical education classes us that we do have students who are doing track and field to use an assistive device for mobility. It's not great for students who have full mobility and adults who have full mobility let alone students who are using devices around that. So I do feel like the track needs we have support from our four towns it needs to move forward at the quickest possible time. I think if the town council wants to support the school committee direction, right, that's what I would support. If it wants to move forward with a more independent replacing track grass fields, multiple grass fields. I think, you know, again, not my recommendation but certainly would could achieve similar goals, but the price tag operationally in capital is something that you all need to consider I know you have a lot of pressure on you for multiple capital projects that are going on in town and that's what I have to share. Sorry, that was longer than I thought but again, get me past 10 and I'm going to ramble a little bit my apologies. It's okay. Thank you very much. Dorothy. I'm very interested in what the superintendent has just said, because his grass option sounded interesting to me. I was being persuaded by Mandy's amendment, and I was going to offer a friendly amendment that discussion of grass would be included in the future. But then she went on totally totally against grass so I cannot support that. I think that the, we've heard very serious statements made about a long standing problem in the town. And we're talking about things that are going to go into the future. So I think that we need to do it right. And I think the grass option is the right way to go. I think we need to do things as much as we want, but if you're going to study all these artificial surfaces, then you need to include studying the grass possibility with that thing. And if that's not included, then I cannot vote for that motion. Dr. Marsha, your hand up again. Yeah, if I could just clarify and this isn't trying to sway anybody one way or the other but I don't think the grass in my opinion, the way the school committee voted and the direction I don't think the grass option. It's a different option that's option two. And that wasn't what the school committee direction was. So if that's a deal breaker for folks, you know, I think it may be a deal breaker for folks but I don't think the amendment. You know, and I'm not going to speak to many Joe's amendment that's on my role but I don't think a modified amendment that opens it up to which option are we actually supporting here. I mean, I think the amendment passes muster of moving forward. So I mean I think if that helps people make a decision to help make a decision but rather be clear than people vote for something that they're unclear about. That's consistent with how other people have looked at the issue. Pam. I appreciate the, the effort to take a look at look studying the health concerns. In the time frame though if an advisory group is formed. All of that has to happen before any spring town meetings occur in Leverett Pellum Schrootsbury. So I don't know exactly what what time frame is is being considered for this. One of my, one of my, I'll say critiques of of that consideration or the, the hours that we're being listed. The center field within the track is not used for typically, I don't believe for practices. A lot of the practice fields are between the track and cottage street. So, a lot of the activity including the lacrosse snake pit are. We're not talking about fixing the snake pit. We're not talking about fixing the, the practice fields. There was a lot of confusion in presentation presentations tonight. About the condition of all the fields. They were not speaking directly only about two people actually spoke to the condition of the center field within the track. I think I would support also what Dorothy Pam just said is if we could do the friendly amendment and study again the comparison with grass. A well drained well constructed grass field as a comparison to the low. It will never be zero PFAS option. Yeah, I am Athena would you mind putting the motion back up on the screen. Because I feel like I've gone full circle here and we're back to the beginning conversation and what I don't feel like I'm clear on is how adding grass, adding the idea of studying grass to the amendment. And then a direct contradiction to the motion itself which said that we're going for an artificial turf field right so we're back at this square one of we can't add that to this motion because it would contradict what the motion is. Does that. Okay, thank you so much make sure I was right there. Andy. Yeah, I need to get back to the. I don't think we can do an addition of anything that has to do with the option to that would replace option three. So you could have a simultaneous discussion about improvements to grass fields. But we are back to the original motion that is actually the school committee motion. The school committee motion is what it is. So that putting an amendment in it would say, and we should look at improving the grass fields that are there. It would be something that we could do additional, but not in replacement of moving forward with the option that is provided in the original school committee motion. I think the other thing that I would say is to remind everybody, and I'm speaking now as chair of the finance committee that we are desperately trying to find money to do our part to build an elementary school reduce the amount to the extent possible. In the debt exclusion override and complete three other projects, all of which were spoken about during the forum earlier is being very important to the community. And the cost of doing the work that's being talked about for the grass fields, and the annual cost of maintaining those fields. It hasn't really been studied at all, and would have to be a part of the study that we're talking about. And we could do that. Not, but it does not replace the option of going forward with the option that school committee is placed before the four towns. And I guess the other thing that I just say is that there's nothing that's happening in the other four towns that is going to change the underlying motion that was the original school committee motion. All that we're talking about in other towns is votes to do what we're talking about doing, which is contributing some money to the process, so that it can aid the plan going forward that was originally defined. Sean, you have your hand up. Yeah, thanks Lynn. I just wanted to maybe confirm or clarify with Mandy Joe is it the in this motion is it the vote that would trigger approval of the funding for the regional school district is it just the initial vote if that's taken. And then the funds would be approved and be available for the regional school district or is there some other piece that would have to happen before it's available because I just want to make sure we know when technically the regional school district has secured the funds and when they're available. I attempted to write it so that it's upon the formation the vote to form the advisory committee. So that vote if it for example happened in December January that would be essentially the step that needs to happen the funds would be available. That was my intention with this motion. Okay. So it's the vote is the trigger, not the actual establishment of the committee. Correct. It's written that provided that the regional school committee votes to establish a group, and that that group is set to do those one, two, and three numbered items. Was that your point of order. Okay. So, does that mean that we that we would do we wait for a vote to appropriate any money until the subcommittee has been formed. Because otherwise you're promising money. And maybe they'll do it and maybe they won't. They've already gotten their money. So, if they didn't do it, they wouldn't get the money because the vote that we would take only releases the money if they vote to form that committee. The money is there, but the school committee needs to vote to form that committee in order to release the money. Does that help him. Huh. It does that clarify it for you. Okay, thank you. Mike you have your hand up. I just wanted to clarify because I think there's still maybe some confusion. If the project goes forward as voted by the regional school committee there would be no votes at spring town meetings and leverages very impel them because those. The money has to be secured by January. We already voted the pieces they'll vote their CPA committees may vote that but just to clarify that this is not waiting for spring the money has to be established by January but in two months from now roughly. I just wanted to clarify that point because it got raised mention of spring town meetings has been come up multiple times about this particular project and I wanted to clarify that the timeline that based on the regional school committee vote was in January, not in May or June of this year. And thanks, Mike, I, the motion is the amendment to the motion is the point of discussion at this point. Is there anybody who wants to speak to the amendment to the motion. So, Melanie, you have your hand up. Yes. So, my understanding is that introducing a grass option is not going to work just because what we've heard from the athletes and all the athletic coaches is one of the fundable fundamental problems is regarding the usability of it, and the seasons that we have. I did hear Pat say that the central field is not used as much as you know we saying that we need more use and 600 hours. And, but what I heard Pat say is that it's not used as much so can someone clarify how much will that central field actually be used. Well, Mike probably has a better response but I'll just say one reason why it may not be used very much is that it's not really the right size for any sport. That's one of the things that the, the new project was going to do is expand the inside of the to make it actually a multi purpose regulation size field for many different sports. But Mike probably can speak more to why it's not used currently. So what Sean said is true but it is used currently for soccer. And so it can't sustain the wear and tear of soccer let alone adding other sports onto it so the idea of having it reoriented everything Sean said is true about size but the benefit is because it would be artificial turf. And so they could withstand and maintain multiple sports and multiple genders on the same field without it getting ripped up so that it's no longer playable and I think that's really what there was a couple stories about the center field in terms of soccer about previous injuries but also about before players come up. They can't use the field because if they use too much for practice it's not suitable for games. So, it's really a state of status of condition of the field. Not about, you know, so other things but it's trying to make it as playable as possible and I'm using that phrasing intentionally because I've seen games there and all the stories that we hear from students and coaches is absolutely true. So my sense is that we're not talking about turning all our fields into turf. We're talking about just one field to have that option for additional playing. And, you know, it is about like the middle path right like when all of us are making changes in our own lives moving towards choices that are going to reduce green gap house gases and all of that. We don't automatically change everything we're doing it in balance so I think what I'm asking all of us to think about is in balance. And in terms of the balance of the health and mental health and well being and all the opportunities access that many of kids don't have and they can't go to private schools. So there's so many points that have been raised and I am not in favor of throwing plastic in the world, trust me, but when we look at it from a bigger picture point of view we're talking about one field. And that to me feels like I'm okay with that and given that we are forming, asking for this forming of a committee committee, and that was my second question. Isn't that normal process for something as big as this to have a public advisory group of residents I mean do we need a motion for that, or is that part of a process that they would be a public advisory group of residents that would include, an environmental lens that would include a health lens and that's so that's a clarification I'd like. Unless somebody else wants to speak to that I can only point out we have two very big projects going on right now and we have public advisory committees, very similar to the makeup of these one for the elementary school building and one for the library. So it's, it's very common to have that Mike, did you want to speak to that. I could just make a brief statement. And again, as I keep saying it's true now we're at 11 so you know my family doesn't want to be around me at this hour so let alone you all but I just want to be really clear I'm going to try to say it again so I think, I think option three with the school can be voted I wholeheartedly support for all the reasons that the students and coaches and others have commented. I want to be unequivocal about my support of that. And I think as it relates to tonight, I think, I don't want to get in the weeds of the motion and Town Council business but I think what we need at the schools as a yeah or nay. Are we moving forward with option three with or without this additional motion which I, you know personally I'm supportive of, but that that's for you all to sort through. Maybe not. And if we're not we'll have another conversation about you know potential for grass and the bill that that's going to come to the town of Amherst and for you all to consider. But I do think it's my belief that most people here know which way they're leaning. And the school committee the boosters who are doing tremendous amount of support and fundraising, they need to know which way they're headed. Right they've been very clear they made public comments to school committee. They've been fundraising only willing to fundraise for a turf artificial turf field. So they need to know whether to stop what they're doing or keep doing what they're doing. I think our students and our school committee need to have that direction from the town council about whether they can count on this $900,000 or not. And just based on comments and I'm not trying to be cross a boundary or be disrespectful. I get a sense that many counselors here know which way they're, they're leaning or which way they're voting and I think, you know, our folks need that direction. Our students need to know what they're what direction the town's headed in and our coaches and our athletic director thank you Victoria for being here. And our community does and so I guess I would respectfully push on to say, you know, which direction are we going here are we moving towards option three the school committee supported option as a town council feeling really differently and not going to support that. But, but I do think we need to get closure and we need to get to a decision. And I think there's lots of comments we've heard both ways but I, you know, I'd hate to get lost in the minutiae. But, you know, in my in terms of my professional opinion and talking Victoria athletic director or coaches and our students. We're very supportive of the regional school committee and I'm very supportive of their, you know, what they're trying to do, how they're trying to support students and the impact it'll have on our student athletes. Now and moving forward and if we don't have the support of the town council for that, then we need to have some different conversations but I think we need to get over the hump of what the decision is going to be so that we can move forward but I do think, you know, just to put it out again. So, whether the has this contingency or not. It can't have grass in there. That's not consistent with the school with the school committee voted. So it's either we're moving forward with that with the contingency which I'm comfortable with, or we're not moving forward with it. But I think we do need to figure out which way we're moving forward in short order because our time is short and our boosters are doing tremendous amount of fundraising and they need to know what they're fundraising for if they're fundraising and get to that vote, you know, in my opinion, it's going to be expeditiously and tonight. Thank you. I think we'll give you a council seat because that was like calling the question. I appreciate it. We're only speaking to this amendment, and I would like to ask counselors to be respectful of the fact that we have many students in the audience right now, who need to get home, Dorothy. Notice that this amendment does not include anything about maintenance. And yet I've heard that there are the talk about maintenance when it comes to grass fields. When it comes to turf there's this kind of like magical thing that you put it down and it just stays there. But I've heard otherwise I've heard that there's a expense for special equipment that can be used only on the turf fields not on the other fields. And that's not here. So, I just feel that things never quite get to be balanced. So I would like to have if we're going to have this motion, I would like it to have include ideas of money for maintenance of the fields. Thank you. I'm waiting to see whether there's any creative thoughts on that one but Jennifer, I'm going to go on to you. I did want to ask him asking Andy again, if would this amendment, because it's different than what I guess went to the other towns. Would this amendment be on what. Yeah, I guess I just want to what the process is do they. Does that is that a reset for the other towns or when it goes to their CPA committees will that amendment be part of what they're considering or does it not have to be. I don't, it doesn't need to go to the other towns because what this is about is our whether or not we're going to give this additional sum of money, which is part of the fundraising effort. And it's not changing the original motion that was passed by the school committee and has been acted upon in the spring by no action of three towns and Amherst council saying that we favored it. So, that piece is done. And the amendment really is running with the additional money only Amherst additional Amherst additional money. We, we, we know that it's going to be much more difficult for the boosters and other towns to reach the goals by mid January, if we don't vote the money. That's something we all have to consider to. And that motion could include looking at the totally different sounded like very different kind of term that you talked about. No. No, in during the testimony when she was talking about coconut husks, I mean that would be what this this includes looking at all of the other options that increasingly companies that are doing this are looking at and using. Yes, it does. Kathy. Okay, and recognition that Mike said keep it quick. There isn't anything that's zero. PFAS. So this is holding out a false promise. And I even heard Weston and Samson, our consultant say this and two separate occasions so it just near zero maybe. And I did want to echo what Dorothy said, I asked the UMass field maintenance people about the maintenance of artificial turf. It's a long list. And I'm wondering whether a lot of these places put fences around their turf. You can't have gum on them there can't be any metal you need special equipment. There's a danger of fire if cigarettes go on it, it can melt. However, or under taking care of it with special equipment matters. So the estimates of much higher much lower there's, there's a difference. So it's, it's care on this turf, and one of the, it's going to be true for a new track to if we allow bicycles and skateboarders and all sorts of access, it'll rip up the track, but it'll rip up the turf. And the makers are bad on artificial turf, because you need plates. The women's soccer team refuses to play on it, and the men's World Cup is not played on grass. So I just want to say that zero isn't realistic on this. And we shouldn't be thinking that turf means no maintenance or low maintenance, or easy maintenance would be the other. It needs specialized maintenance. Thank you, Michelle. This is a really, really challenging decision for me. And I just want to acknowledge first that I feel horrible to let the folks down that are here in this room that have spoken so passionately and I really truly believe that something needs to be done that is clear. However, I have spent hours researching this issue. I have spoken to many people, including the facilities director in Springfield, and they run an organic program in Springfield, a natural program in Springfield. And I don't, I feel that we can have a state of the art grass athletic field. And I feel that's the vision that we have as a community to move toward reducing harm to move toward environmental consciousness. To move toward climate action that is so necessary. And so I have a vision that we can have a state of the art grass field and that we can maintain it. And right now what we're doing is we're comparing to a field that was installed a long time ago is probably was installed with antiquated installation to the fields. And it sounds like the maintenance with out putting anybody down has not been optimal. And so I don't think comparing our options to the field now I think it's clear that we need to do something we need to do something fast. But I do not believe that moving in a direction of installing artificial turf is the direction that as a community, at least from my perspective, we have stated as our values and so I just I'm very much struggling with this decision but I did want to at least provide some of the insights that I was having. I'm sorry to prolong this, I need to clarify something. The issue isn't about whether we can build a grass field or not. We can build that it's the intensity of the use, you'll get 25% of the time, our fields were in good shape during COVID because nobody was on them they were able to rest at an artificial turf field is able to use with much more frequently. And that's a really important thing a vote to not move forward with an artificial field does not address any field issues. It addresses the track issue. So I think that that's the decision tonight is whether you want to address the track issue, or the track and the field issue, and that's the decision before the council. I will be certain, really brief. This is, this is a tough one and I am and myself, and along with the rest of the council we are not experts. But my question is, in regard to maintenance, I don't want to assume, but because of the, because of everything that has been put into this was there already, you know, discussions include that included maintenance and what that would entail. And how, how that would, you know, how that would roll out already, because we're talking about it as if it hasn't been addressed and I don't know what that is, but I'm just again assuming that it's been part of the process and conversation. Hello, and I'm going to try to answer this maintenance is put into operating budgets. It's not put into capital budgets unless special equipment is needed. And that would be something the school district has to decide so normally emotion like this just like emotion to build a new elementary school building will not have anything in it about maintenance. I really appreciate that concern and I, it's not that I don't have that concern, it's just that that's, this is capital maintenance is an operating budgets. And that that really was to address that that question that's been raised by several counselors not just an ECA. Sure, so I'm, I'm really struggling with the example that Michelle gave because from my research which also turned up Springfield. That was a, that was done as part of a case study that they received grant funding for and tracking the hours that they use those organic fields. It's far less than the numbers that we have received from our schools. In terms of the usage that our fields get central high school in Springfield has a turf field. Springfield just spent $5.7 million on a public park renovation that included track that included a track but also included synthetic turf fields. I mean I think that we need to look at the full picture of what these communities are doing yes they're doing wonderful things with looking at organic fields, and they also have synthetic turf fields to meet their needs. And replacing all of our fields with turf is what we're doing right now we are saying replacing one of our fields with turf is what we need to do to meet our needs. Thank you. I'm going to use my privilege as a counselor. My son went to Amherst regional high school. My son has overall learning disabilities, and he played for the tennis team. And frankly, it was one of the only things that gave him equal opportunity. When I look, and that's when our tennis courts were crap. I mean, totally. They've been since improved. We used to have to borrow the Amherst College the UMass ones once in a while Amherst College. The next day at 28 years old he plays tennis every Monday night with my husband. That's what they do while I'm sitting here okay. We cannot afford to sit here and not do what we need to do for our students. Once we build that track that tracks in place we're not going to rotate the field after we build a track. You build the track. Done. I really want to just, I want to echo where Mike is everybody knows where they're going to vote. People need to know what's going forward. We have had an amazing show tonight of people showing up both for our public forum on the budget from the schools and tonight now for this. Let's be respectful and take the vote and move on. Jennifer. Yes. Please ask your question about the amendment as a regional school committee member this might be my only chance to talk to all of you at the same time. My question goes back to Sean's clarification about what triggers compliance. So, let's say hypothetically that the regional school committee votes on January 16 to establish a public advisory group as you've described. Does is that when we've come by. Yeah, or. Okay, thank you. Yes, that means the $900,000 transfers. Yes. Any other questions, Jennifer. So the turf field will be for the track and the field. Yes. Right. Okay, so what did you say just the track, and if there was a piece of equipment that had to be obtained to maintain a turf field. That would be a capital. Any number of ways that piece of equipment my understanding from talking to booster separately is that they're trying to raise enough money to have an ongoing maintenance fund that also would include that equipment. And they want that fund to be perpetual if you will. So, I mean, I don't want to speak for the boosters but that's what I've learned from speaking to the boosters. Yeah, I think I again want to highlight the problem we're seeing here like Michelle found one set of research and Anna found another set of research and I found another set of research from Europe and, and the fact is we're not experts I have a PhD and I do research and I am so befuddled about all of this, and which is why I believe that we have to allow the committees that have been elected to do this job to do the job and since we've heard so much of concerns we can move forward with more caution, and which it sounds like what I'm hearing from the booster club from our coaches and everyone is everyone is aware of these issues, and there is a way to move forward it's all about balance. It's not about, let's all go and make all of these fields into, you know, terse but we're talking about one field, and let's work through that, do it in the best possible way. And, but I don't, and that's that again is the problem that's why we have committees we have not been part of these discussions from the beginning. And for us to come in because we've heard and note, I have no doubt all of us have spent hours and hours studying this issue but the fact still remains we were not part of all these conversations with the athletic directors with the athletes with the team that are going to be using these fields and for us to come and impose a personal values, I would like all of us to stop eating meat because that contributes to green gas house green gas greenhouse gases. And, you know, I mean we all have personal values, but when we come here. We bring up personal values, and then we look at who else is being impacted. And we work together to come to some sort of a solution that's balanced. So I really urge us to work together and let's get this done. It's been 10 years. Let's do this. The question on the floor, it's amended the amendments but made and seconded. I'm going to move to the vote. Shalini. Just to wake everyone up. Just a clarifying question. So if you go ahead again just, I think I heard that if you do put in this clause for advisory committee it's not going to delay the process. Am I correct. It will not delay the process. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We're going to start actually with Lynn Griezmer and I am an eye. Mandy Joe Hanneke. Hi. Anika Lopes. Michelle Miller. No. Dorothy Pam. No. Pam Rooney. No. Kathy Shane. No. Andy Steinberg. Hi. Jennifer Taub. No. Alicia Walker. No. Shalini Balmille. Yes. And Anna Devlin got here. Yes. The motion is six to six. And it fails. That's on the amendment. Now we're going back to the original motion. To amend appropriation transfer order. FY 23-05 C an order appropriating funds for the portion, et cetera. We'll start with Mandy Joe. Hi. Anika Lopes. Point of order Lynn. I'm sorry. Can you put what's being voted on? Can somebody put that on the screen please and take this one off? Thank you. Anna. Do we have any further opportunity to discuss this motion? Because we were told to keep our last comments to just the amendment. Yes. You can now discuss this motion. Okay. You sounded like you were starting to call a vote. Okay. So I actually, I tried to find my comment from the first vote on this because as a reminder, we voted this very overwhelmingly. Once before. I think I was more eloquent the first time, but we needed a new track when I was a student at ARHS over 15 years ago. The state of our track is embarrassing. And I believe one student said the state of the field is like a dumpster fire. And I want to take that analogy one step further and kind of to give our facilities craft staff credit say that it's like a dumpster fire and we've handed them a squirt gun. The field in the middle of that track has the opportunity to fill a serious gap that we have in our field access at our public high school. Adding another grass field is burdening our facility staff when they're already facing an insurmountable task, hence the squirt gun. And on those fields, I have absolutely eaten, eaten it on those fields. Sorry. I have seen the many, many attempts to aerate to dry out to reseed to heal those fields. I have also run on that track. And I need you to remember that a no vote on this is tanking that project for the time being, and based on our discussion, I think it'll tank it for a lot longer. On that track and surprisingly not actually because of my own inept running skill. I have fallen hard on that track. It is more patches than it is track at this point. And again, that is not the fault of our facilities team who pour so much love and care into it. But at some point, that's not enough teams from other towns won't let their kids run on this track. We have to hold competitions on this track delaying it is something that is inexcusable. Once again, I will remind this council that we are not starting at zero in action does not mean we stay at zero. We are starting in the negatives to say no to vote down this track because of the field to vote no on the field itself is incredibly out of touch with reality. We have to make sure that our students, their parents and their coaches are begging for these facilities are limiting opportunities for our students, they go to other schools and get to play on fields they've never been able to experience before. And while I do care about Amherst winning games, and with all and truly all due respect to our coaches, we all know that that isn't what's on the top of our list. We have access and well being for our students, and I believe that we have talked about and demonstrated that the turf field is what reaches that goal, most fully. We want to talk about trust. This also covers trusting our committees and their votes. The regional school committee has voted on this. They did the work and created this. There have been a lot of times where I felt like this council has overstepped their role and this is one of them. The regional school committee has shared with us their rationale for supporting this plan, and I still want to make note that I am not comfortable with not reorienting the track we have to get it away from being that east west orientation. We have a master plan, we have athletes we have parents begging us. We have the opportunity to bring together a group of folks with the knowledge to create parameters and minimize risk. And ultimately, that's what this is about mitigating risk and increasing opportunity. We still have multiple other grass fields at the school. And while Coach McDougal will still have to choose between the soggy field and another one, at least this time the other option could be one he can actually practice on when his season starts. I urge my colleagues to once again, as you did before support this measure. Go Canes. Yeah, I, well, first of all, and I'm sorry to go here now, but I am frustrated with the conversation about committees. I really need to get that off my chest. I proposed a committee recently, as my colleagues know, that was very strongly opposed to. And for reasons that I feel now are not in the forefront of our minds. And also, we had advisory committees that we rejected essentially the advice of. And now to hear on my colleagues say that we should trust the advisory that we've received from our committees is challenging for me to, to hear that. I just want to put that out there. I also want to get a clarification here. I heard our superintendent talk about the possibility. I think it was his second option. And I'm trying to understand that in the context of what Anna just brought forward, which is I thought. Anna said that we would get nothing if we vote no on this. So it's my understanding that voting no on this gives us the track or reverse us back to the track. And I'd really like to hear from our superintendent more. I don't want this to be like a stalemate. I really feel like we need to find a pathway here and so I'm just would like to hear from superintendent to understand more with that second less preferred option was that he had brought to the table earlier. Superintendent Mars. Yeah, so I think you're two things. So I think, I think if I understood your question correct and please correct me if I, if I'm not, if I didn't, is that with the track still happen if the fundraising doesn't occur by January and they answer that the regional school committee motion said it would revert back to that. So, you know, that's a yes. I think on the grass piece I think it's not just less preferred that is true. But I want to caution us that the cost of doing multiple grass fields over time is significant and so I'm not sure I don't typically use emotional, you know, strings or whatever but I want, I want to be realistic that if the council wants to pursue that. It's likely going to have to pursue that on its own. I don't think there's going to be regional school committee participation, or not regional school committee but you know the other regional towns because the price tag is going to be more significant. And it's not one field because I heard that mentioned a couple times it's fields plural. And I think we need to move forward the track is we need to move forward the track. There's other fields need to be done. You know you have a lot of capital constraints right and I'm not trying to pretend I'm a counselor because I know Lynn was meaning it complimentary but you know when you joked about that before I was like whoa, you know, you all meet too late for my sleep patterns. So, so I want to be realistic that that is a slower more. That's an option that's not going to happen quickly and it's going to have significant different significant price tag as well as maintenance issues and I think there's going to be a lot of people myself included who are really disappointed if we move forward in that direction because I think we need to shift the capacity of the community and the town to not fund just the maintenance of those but actually the operations of putting multiple grass fields into play that are high quality that level up fields to deal with drainage and irrigation and all those pieces and maintenance. So I think we need to shift the capacity of other demands. And it's not going to happen soon enough, right. So, I think when I think about the students who are either watching or still, you know, still in the room perhaps, and all those pieces right we're talking about years and years and years down the road. And actually we have some we have some bad past experience in this community of solving grass field issues that that's real and people will have long memories of that was long before I was concerned about fields and kids and things like that. But if I talk to my, you know, constituents, you know, Plumbrook's a four letter word for many people. I'm not trying to put it through any one of the bus but that's, I heard it when we're, you know, people are asking me about the former building project I heard it with this current project or we feel like we'll make the fields better. So I want to be realistic that that option involves given time planning and one time and ongoing financial resources and it doesn't really get at some of the pieces that the turf field would. I'm not going to convince people who aren't, you know, we're going to be in different places on my goals answering a question, Michelle. But I want to be honest in answering it, because, you know, you have to vote your conscience, you're going to vote the way you want to vote but I want to be realistic that the grass option. It's it's both long, long road, long costs and short costs right all at once. So, when I say it's not my preferred option, you know, I'm not going to again repeat what students and coaches said I agree with all of what I heard before. But also it's not a fantasy it's not something that's just going to happen very quickly or inexpensively. And, you know, to ask the town for that level of financial commitment. You know, is frankly what I will do because I need to actively advocate for our students if the council and this project doesn't pass with turf. So I want to be realistic that that it's not we're not talking about the same cost we're not talking about the same operating or maintenance costs as we move forward and that that's a really, really significant commitment that I think myself the school committee and I imagine the community will be raising with you all frequently and vociferously if we move forward without a turf field. Sean, you also have your hand up. Yeah, I just wanted to add again that a new natural field, it doesn't solve the problem. Again, if we don't change the programming that happens on the fields we're just going to spend a lot of money on a new grass field that's going to get torn up, you know, in a couple years, and we're going to be back in the same place. I just want to remind everybody, all well not all this to start a long time ago but in 2019 we put together a working group that did a recreational field study and a lot of this comes out of that report, where they looked at all the recreational fields in town, how much they were used, and consultants who completed the report made some recommendations, and they recommended at least one synthetic surface field, and that was sort of phase one of fixing all the fields. But we don't need to fix the other field to some point we heard about the lacrosse field. That still needs to happen, but if you don't have a location where you can rest the other fields, it doesn't matter how much money we put into the natural grass, they're going to get ruined eventually. And that's what we've seen, it took one really rainy bad weekend where we hosted a tournament and we shouldn't have allowed play and we did, and it completely sort of devastated a field. Again, we just have to think, will this solution of a natural grass actually solve the problem. One other thing I'll just say is in that report. They looked at a number of different fields and what they said is that the current usage of those fields is 150% of their safe use annually. They looked at, I think it was eight of the core fields that we use. So again if we don't change the programming if we're still going to use the fields that much, we're just going to be putting money into something that's going to get ruined, you know, pretty dramatically. Alicia. Thank you Lynn. So I've just, I've been pretty quiet just listening to everyone talk so I just wanted to voice my opinion just so that everyone who is watching can understand, like where I stand on this issue. And first I do want to say thank you to everyone who has come out to comment tonight, because it is really meaningful to be able to hear perspectives firsthand from those who this affects directly on a more daily basis than it does for myself. And I do really appreciate that. And I do strongly agree that something needs to be done to address the track situation which again has also been an issue since I was in high school there. Also over 10 years ago. So this is not a new issue. It is long overdue long neglected. I think like my discomfort and frustration with the situation is that I feel as though I am being backed into a corner to make a very specific decision with the allocation of this funding that I which didn't have such specificities. So, I, I, so like what Sean just said, like will it solve the problem the usage of the natural grass field. And I think this route is eliminating the possibility for us to even find that out. Because we don't know that. And I think that is the point is that we don't know. And I think that we're missing the long term impact versus the short term impact in terms of more usability. And in terms of the long term impact in terms of environmental issues, and what so have it, because I know I also tried to do some research and I also found arguments for both sides so there are pros and there are cons as to most issues. But I also did see a lot of people removing synthetic turf fields. A lot of them have been removed within the past year. And so what would that look like if we were to have to implement this and then later down the road have to remove it and come up with a second plan and I just think that the long term impact hasn't been thoroughly investigated and that the way that this is being presented to us it really narrows the focus of what that investigation could entail. And so I want to just make it very clear that I am not against the fixing of the fields. And I agree and I wish that there were a different option in front of us today in terms of moving forward because I cannot support a motion that is so specific on recommending specifically the synthetic turf itself. And Joe, except this council for two votes did support motions that were specific and recommending a synthetic turf by 11 to one and 11 to zero votes. The school committee is not an advisory committee, the school committee just like us are elected members and elected officials that makes them different than an advisory committee that's appointed by the town manager. A vote no here. If the boosters cannot raise an additional $1.2 million by January 16 saddles multiple generations of athletes with an East West field position and games, because the field will not be reoriented. The track will not be reoriented. It leaves us with a track that is not eight lanes wide that is only six lanes wide with a field inside that is not the right dimensions for athletic events, because it would only allow us to resurface the track as it stands today, which would not meet my championship guidelines. So we still would not be able to host track championships, despite having a brand new resurfaced field, if we vote no, and the boosters aren't able to raise $1.2 million in the next two months. I believe the schools and the towns with no option for outdoor games or practices during winter, during wet events during rainstorms and a couple of days after rainstorms. As we heard, they'd be stuck practicing inside for the first three weeks of the spring sports season. I know I've practiced inside before for lacrosse for field hockey doesn't really work for field hockey. I believe our teams and our athletes and our students, no option for extra use a turf field is about giving our students, not just those athletes that play after school sports, but the students that take gym class options to be able to run play outside in athletic endeavors, even when it's a little wet out or even just after a rainstorm. A no vote today says we don't care about giving students those options were okay with wet fields and not able an entire high school that's not able to use those fields. I can't do that to these students. I'll be voting yes to reorient the track, make it eight lanes and put a turf field in so that our students and our educators have options for athletics and physical education. Andy. I'm not going to repeat everything that Mandy just said because I agree with what she said. There are only two options. There is no grass option here. We can't afford to do it as a town ourselves. And we can't afford to maintain it ourselves without regional participation of other towns. So it's not going to happen. So the choice that we're making tonight is do we go forward with the full package and providing the boosters with enough of an assistance that we can help them to achieve their goal, which is still fairly lofty. And create the kind of athletic facility that we have been hearing from coaches and students all night long, but they really want. Or are we going to disappoint them and deprive this group of students with all group of students coming up with an opportunity. And what is it going to say about the reputation of our school. What is it going to say about the attractiveness of our community. People are considering whether they want to come into the Amherst regional school district, knowing that their kids are not going to be able to play on healthy playing fields and attractive playing fields. I think we're doing it to service to our town if we don't vote yes, we are doing it to service to our students. We're doing the service to the athletic professionals who are trying to help our students succeed. I just can't do that. And I hope this council can do that. Michelle. I just want to respond to both Mandy and to Andy. I am not okay with Mandy asserting that a no vote on this means that we care less, or that we have not heard fully the comments that have come through tonight. That is an unfair statement. It's a bullying tactic and I do not accept it. I want to be very clear about that. That's not how we make decisions by bullying each other and I see it all too often in this council and in this community. And it really, really hurts and it makes decisions like this so much worse than they need to be. To Andy, I want to say that I feel it is dishonest to say that there are only two options here. Without having assessed and gone through the finance committee to see what it would cost to maintain natural grass fields to have a vision where we are proactive in addressing all of our fields. So chronic problem in this community with maintaining things facilities and fields clearly. And so I feel we should be thinking about what we can do proactively as a community that's in an alignment with our goals. And as far as the argument around balance goes I want to share my perspective on that argument. It has been said by many folks who have written in that we have PFAS in even our newest installation potentially at Graf Park of the water park that we have there where our young children are using it. And that we have PFAS likely in many other parts of our town so from my perspective, we're not balancing something out by putting in one artificial field. We're adding and creating an aggregate impact by adding to the things we know have PFAS already in the community and the things that we don't know because they're not detectable they haven't been tested. So I don't feel that it's a correct argument to say that we're balancing things out by putting in or the balancing our needs I want to meet the needs of our student athletes and I want to give them the best. And I believe that means this community this council needs to step up and give them the best and do whatever investigation it needs to do to study what it will cost to put in a natural turf throughout the town as needed and quite honestly I want to go further and say to remove the stuff that is harmful that is already in our community. I believe that's how we should be thinking about this. And I believe that's possible. Thank you. Mike, you have your hand up. Thank you. So, it's 1145 is part of the last coherent thing we'll see if it's coherent that that I'll be able to come up with tonight which is just if this doesn't pass and and I think I'll be disappointed, right, I'll be disappointed for our students who are advocating. I don't want to guilt or make anyone feel bad who's going to vote against it but it's just, I think I'd share my opinion as a superintendent I'm responsible for these kids. I'll be really disappointed that I don't have an incoming solution for the challenges that they face that we heard about tonight and I hear about routinely and Victoria here's about every day and deals with every day in terms of moving those those where students are in the practice and the opportunities that other students at other schools have that the students at our schools do not. And so, respectfully, I'm not as interested, and I'm not trying to be play with semantics and exploring other options I'm actually interested in the Council committing to other options, regardless of price tag of solving it if we're not going to solve it with artificial turf. I know it's late, but I will write a more coherent letter to you within the next week on this topic. I want to have a commitment, right, because I know the price tags can be really high it's going to be a lot higher than what we're talking about here to redo multiple fields at the high school. And you have competing demands but if this this proposal from regional school committee that was supported you know by comments tonight can't pass muster the town council explorations not good enough. We need a commitment that the Council is going to fund things at a pretty high level to move forward, expeditiously with the field, we can handle more long winded 18 month studies on this we need an action plan. And so that's probably the last coherent thing if you call it coherent that I'll say, if it goes that way, that's what I'm going to be expecting I think that's what the students who are still they're very late, and those who are watching or will see this tomorrow and on tape will be expecting that's what the coaches and athletic director will be expecting and I think that's what the community be demanding. I just want to be clear that, you know, again I'm not trying to play with words but I use the before and use it again that it's a commitment to solve the problem and there's multiple ways to make that commitment. And, you know, I think it's the town councils I want to be respectful you're voting on this not me not school committee, not the students not the coaches. But if this isn't a commitment you want to make we're going to look for another commitment very very soon. It's an exploration kind of commitment. Thank you and thanks for putting up with me late at night. It's not fun for anyone, as I'm sure you found out. You're good. Dorothy. I wish I could have the eloquence of Michelle, but I will say that the students have been deprived of what they need for years. It is not the fault of this town council. The fact that we're given a motion which is not a good motion, and that we show some of us some of us choose not to support that motion does not mean that we are not did not listen, did not hear or not aware of the serious problems. Right now we've been given false choices and I feel like there's been great attempts to manipulate a motion. It assumes that we are not very bright. I totally agree with the superintendent. We need to make a commitment we need to make a strong commitment. And I think that you'll find that those who are opposing the artificial turf are very, very desirous of making the commitment to the students and to the residents of this town of safe, viable, playable grass fields. And I know if it costs money, that's great. I'd rather spend money on grass, then on a bunch of artificial stuff that's going to decay. And we're going to find out later that we should not have ever put down for our students to play on. Thank you. Shalini. Oh boy. So many things. But, okay, so there was a statement we feel that it's being rushed. And what we're hearing is that this has been discussed for 10 years. There has been a committee working on this. There were consultants involved, there was a public process and, and yes, today we'll, you know, not today but recently we learned about the PFAS, and that was, at least for me and for many of us, a new component that was added to the conversation. But we also heard there are ways to mitigate that. And so we are ignoring that and we're talking about just one out of the six fields. So when I talk about balance. Yes, we should be looking at this holistically in terms of maybe making a recommendation and if that's a motion we need we can do that to send to ECAC to look at PFAS in our town and what is the process. If you look at Europe and the European Union, how they're going about it. They didn't just overnight say oh no you're not going to have any more athletic fields because they know that athletic fields is really important to the health of the communities. We're talking about the models out there, the most progressive of countries like Netherlands 90% of their fields are turf. And the way they are transitioning out of that is by bringing in these alternative materials, they're still artificial. All this to say that if you want truly a balanced approach, we should be approaching ECAC to look at PFAS and add that to their list of how do we reduce that in our diets in our packaging in our, you know, wherever it is there. And do that in a systematic way and not at the cost of our kids who have been waiting for 10 years. So I do not feel this is a rushed. It is a difficult one. I am not doubting that it's been very very this is one of the most difficult decisions I have made in console. So this is not easy, but weighing in all the pros and cons. I think we owe it to our kids and I haven't heard the alternative plan from the counselors were saying there is another way there isn't a yeah there is another way but does that mean that because what I'm hearing is that the tracks will have to be put in by next year and we're stuck with that orientation and so we're really solving for the problems. So, maybe the counselors who've said there is another way do you want to offer what that looks like and what that's going to. I mean, I don't, you know, it's like easy to say, oh there is a way and we can do this and, and, but there are cost concerns there are budgets there and yeah so I just believe there is an elected committee the school committee which is different from a town committee town committee is our advisory but an elected committee is has the same responsibility as we have and they have made the recommendation to us and we should honor that and moving forward let's have a more balanced approach and conversation about PFAS. Following up on Shalini I just did some math, based on the Weston and Samson report that a sand based natural field of grass would cost 1.5 million or so over 12 years. In terms of that's a life cycle cost so 11.68 million for eight fields. We've been struggling to find a way to pay for DPW and a fire station and a new school and a library, as well as even this proposed project, while still given the budget forum today, wanting and people arguing for a youth empowerment center, a senior center, a cultural center. We need 1.68 million more to maintain grass fields. That's only eight. We heard that there were they were each used 150% too much means if we want them to only be used and not overused we need four more fields. Another five and a half to $6 million for those four more fields if we can find space for them. I think that's one of the factors that say that's the way forward. Where do you propose we get that money. Anna. Oh Lynn the way you said that makes me know that you're so happy this discussion still going. So couple things. First off. I think that's one of the things are feeling personal to to folks and feeling emotion and expressing opinion. Well, feeling emotion I think is a job of being human but expressing opinion is our job as counselors and so I want to just you know encourage all of us to to reflect on if we're shutting down folks sharing their opinions. I think that's one of the things that's really important to me. We may have differing opinions and that's okay but if my opinion is that not reorienting the track and not doing the field is essentially a zero sum game then that is my opinion and it's my right to express that. And if I feel that we have not listened to our students tonight. If we vote down this project that is my opinion. So resurfacing the track without expanding it and without resurfacing the field to be synthetic turf is not a net gain when we have had this opportunity in front of us, and we have voted on this already. We have heard from our own studies. We have heard from our regional partners. We have heard from our educators we have heard from our students. Future money is not funny money. I think folks are grasping that cost that Mandy just said, nor do I believe the superintendent is saying that it's the right choice. He is saying that we better be prepared to pony up. And I was on JCPC. I've seen our capital budgets I know you all have to because we voted on them last year. We don't have that money. The superintendent literally said that that was not the top choice here. We heard from our finance director that even if we fix this grass field, even if we commit to fixing all of our grass fields, the usage is the problem. Either adding fields which I'm unclear where they'd go, or reducing use that means cutting athletic programs or phys ed, or limiting practices, and that's not the right answer either. So for me the, the, the solutions clear and maybe we've hit the point where no one's going to change their mind and we should just do the vote but I felt like I needed to say that people are asking questions that are that are great questions and that we're getting the answers to. I felt that folks are hearing those answers from our finance director from our superintendent and from our regional school committee. Kathy. Kathy. As far as I can see embers has $1.8 million on the table for the fields, and the track is another 1.5 so it's not that there's only a track on the field, and that's the option to that the school committee that would actually fully fund it. It's not adding additional fields. So I think we're at a point that no one is changing their mind so I've never called the question before, but I feel like we need to just call the question and get ready to vote but I agree with everyone have said, we don't think the fields are right now. We think they need to repair it and we don't think the track is a good shape. This is not a vote against putting money in there's embers has got between the CPAC money and this 900,000, it's real money, and it's there to be had, if there's a change in it, and it could be had pretty quickly as far as I can see from the embers from from the way from the way our finances work because we've already said these two pieces are possible. So I'm ready to Lynn I don't know how to do it I'm ready to call the call the question, call the question. Okay, the question been called. And that is, is there a second. Second. We move to immediately to a vote on that. We start with me Andy Joe. This is on the question of whether to end debate right that is correct. Yes. Anika. I, Michelle. I, Dorothy. Yes, Pam. Yes, Kathy. Yes, Andy. Jennifer. Yes. Did you say yes. Yes. Alicia. Yes. Shalini bone. Yes. On the Devlin got here. Yes. And Lynn grease mercy. Yes, we move immediately to the question. The motion that's been made in second is in front of you on the screen. This vote means that we go ahead and appropriate the 900,000. A no vote means. Excuse me that we don't even I get tired. Okay. So I'm going to begin with Anika. I, Michelle. No. Dorothy. No. Pam. No. Kathy. No. Andy. Yes. Jennifer top. No. Alicia Walker. No. Shalini Balmoune. Yes. On a Devlin got here. Yes. Lynn grease Mersen. I'm Andy Joe. I still six to six. The motion fails. Okay. Okay. Thank you all for the time use. I'm going to suggest that we take a break. And I'm going to confer with the town manager as to what he would like to suggest we do. I would like to suggest that we postpone the executive session until the next meeting. Okay. Please take a five minute break and then come back and then we'll decide how we're doing with the rest of the agenda. I'm sorry. December 5. Okay. When you come back, please turn your vote video back on and we'll be getting ready to adjourn very soon. I appreciate y'all being here. You know, I understand that it's difficult. It's difficult. And I know there's a lot of them. You know, I still love this town. Thank you. This council. Same to you. Thank you. When you come back, please turn your video back on. So I know you're here. Michelle. I'm going to turn your video back. Yes. Thank you. I've conferred with the town manager. And the town clerk of the council. And basically. The action items, seven D, eight D. Is going to be done on December 5th or whenever I schedule it. So I'm going to turn my video back on. Michelle. The issue of the. Goals for the town manager. There's something in people's packets. Would you like to have me solicit individual comments with that? Or. And go back to GOL for further discussion rather than try to do it now. That's a suggestion. We have the report plus a draft in there. The reports clear about the direction that we're heading in. Mandy was integral in creating the draft. So I don't know if she wanted maybe to speak to that briefly, just so people have something to think about if they're sending you. Individual comments. We need to. Do you have an initial conversation? And part of that was. What are council goals and what are manager goals? And so what this draft initially attempted to do was show a potential path for. You know, the prior town manager performance goals were split into policy goals and management goals. And so what we're trying to do is we're going to be able to say what are the goals and what are the goals. And so what this attempt to show away forward to basically say. Policy goals or council goals. The council is going to state those goals. And they're going to be the council goals instead of a sort of. Kind of claiming them through saying they're the manager's goals. We're just going to come out at the right and say, these are our goals for the next year. And so we're going to be able to do that. And so that's a significant goal to the management side. And all and saying. One of the manager's duties is to. Implement the executive portion of those policy goals. And so this document, it didn't. What I want to make clear is it took last year's, or I guess this current year's. Gold document and basically split it into a council policy. And it didn't. Without changing. Very much language on the council policy. It did delete a bunch of things because they related to manager duties, not. Council goals. And then. You know, it added the one goal on the manager side, but it wasn't an attempt to. Transform them into. The manager's goals. The GOL has not asked, has not done that conversation yet. So. It was an attempt to say, can we do this differently? But I'm sure we love feedback on what the goals should be both on. But what the council policy should be. Policy priority should be and what the manager's goals should read and what the manager's goals should be. And so I think we should have more of a reorganization proposal. Right. And having sat in with GOL while you were doing. Most of this, I think, you know. What it does not include is. Ideas from counselors of things that they want. To make sure are in the goals. That perhaps have been discussed this year. But it will be a question of not just formatting. How do you like this way of present presentation? But it will be a question of what else are you, would you like considered in the town? In the goals. Okay. Yeah, go ahead, Michelle. I was just going to add one piece. About timing just to make sure. So our next GOL meeting is not until November 30th. We don't have one. This week. Right. I'm losing track, but. I believe that will be the last time that we will be discussing it. Before in terms of timing, maybe Athena can help me with that. But I think we should have one. I think that Athena had some concern about timing. And so I just want to make sure that if counselor comments are going to come in. That they come in before that meeting so that we can. Have that final discussion. Right. Kathy. Just a quick comment. I'm totally willing to send my comments in directly. But I did understand what the. Shift was that was being considered. And when I read them as council goals, I had major comments. And some. Maybe not reactions to the goals. So. Stating them as our goals as a council. So I think it. Is a larger discussion, Lynn. And I don't know how we do it. You know, it was easier for me to. Read the goals for the town manager with the changes there. That it was. Asserting that we have these specific goals. There was some. Subtle changes. Subtle wording that I could read in a particular way. And I. I would want discussion. So just, I don't know how you want to do that, but I'm totally willing to send my comments in. And share them with the committee. And then I would want to do it in a. However, however, we plan to have this discussion. It has to be discussed. It has to be discussed at the next meeting. So. I mean, it is. 1212 at night. I don't want to discuss. They can do it tonight. I don't want to discuss it now. So I just. I don't know how you want to do that, but I'm totally willing to send my comments in. And share them with the committee. I don't want to discuss it now. So I just, there was, I understood that shift and I didn't think it was an insubstantial shift. It's not. Jennifer. So if. We had a specific. Like goal that we wanted to propose for the town manager. We should do that in another meeting. Are we going to discuss or should I. We should. That's part of what you should respond to when I send the email. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Andy. I moved pursuant to rule seven point one of the rules procedure to adjourn. Second. Is there any other question? No. We're adjourned. Anna. Yeah, I just, can you send me a word document of that. Of eight C. Thank you. That's all. I'm sorry. It's only in PDF form and I wanted to make comments. That was a question I had. Thank you. Thank you. Lynn, I have one quick thing. I'm getting more documents with small print. I really don't like documents with small print. We have so much to read. And it's very difficult. Okay. Andy, you still have your hand up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The motion has been made and I accept the motion. We're adjourned.