 Good evening and welcome to the April 30th 2018 select board meeting before the special town meeting and annual town meeting of Amherst it is 6.05 and we're calling the meeting to order Just quickly I want to check in with my colleagues regarding opening remarks agenda review anything that Need to change on our agenda for this evening If not, then I think You will perhaps Take things a bit out of work in Mr. Hornick being here and and wanting to speak to a particular article So Are the well, let me ask this question. Is there anyone here for public comment not related to something on the agenda? It's really no This is on agenda. I do have One brief announcement related to this article and that is we got a preliminary report from Alan Weiss Whatever told spring Engineering and it looks like Almost all of the property Surrounding East Street school. It's going to be buildable There's a tiny little corner of it. It looks like what? But for the most part That's good news. It's really worth it to go through with fixing this article All right, so I believe that what we're doing here at our action discussion items is Which is section four of our agenda, but be taken review positions on April 30th 2017 special town and annual town meeting and so the article that mr. Hornick is mentioning is relative to article 27 of the warrant And we have I don't think we do Some modified language relative to that article I think I shared that with each of you. I don't know if we got a printed copy We didn't get a pretty unless it's on our desk It's different than the script that was on our desk tonight Because I don't know Looks like more than 11 words So I had sent out just to sort of update you on this so I had sent out so the the original suggestion of the Municipal affordable housing trust was to Take out the last 11 words of the article 27 However in testing that motion with the moderator In relative to some conversation at the trust meeting relative another way that we might be able to operate The moderator felt that taking out those words were such that they wouldn't be allowable as being within the scope of the article and As such some alternative language was was put in place and if you look at the script from tonight For article 27 Most of it remained most of the motion or most of the Original text remains the same, but in that last sentence starting with Find the right place For the end of the Fourth line plan provided however that the town shall not convey said property that part of the original gets Changed To provide it however that the town shall not provide a conditional Commitment to convey said property to the immersed affordable Housing trust until the town council determines that these building project meeting the above objectives has been identified and shall not convey such Property until financing commitments have been obtained and keeper myths have secured What this does are we are we finding yet? Okay, I'm just asking people are fine line, and I'm looking at mr. Hornick's version And I'm not clear yet as to whether or not that's conveyed in the draft script And if not, I don't know what the difference so mr. Slatter you sent us a red line So it's easy to have it pop out right when I'm looking at this in the script, right? It's not the replacement article Where it says not provided I think they moved the knot it so that's wrong. No, that sounds like oh, okay. That's the replacement. Sorry Okay, right Yes, you're correct to provide it. Yeah. All right. Thank you. So really the last three and Quarter lines of the the original is being replaced with some small terms. Okay, so the intention is that a commitment to convey Which is sufficient for a developer to Perhaps go and get financing that sort of thing Can be made Without having to fully have it fully financed permits granted and all of that which was a concern was that as it was originally Stated you would have to have all the permits and financing in place before the conveyance could occur And so what this allows for is a commitment to convey Which allows an RFP process? developers can work with the trust to to To Move forward on a project because they have a certain level of Guarantee that if they meet certain benchmarks that conveyance will occur But the conveyance doesn't really of the property that doesn't happen The actual conveyance doesn't happen until They meet the you know the appropriate financing and permit criteria But by allowing for a commitment to convey then they can seek financing and Work through the logistics of the project with some some reasonable guarantee that that They'll get Convance it if they meet the other things So that's the intention there Did you want to add anything else to that? No, I just want to assure people that we're not trying to go around The new town council we looked for a long and happy relationship between the housing trust and the town council So we wouldn't want to make a mistake of going around them with that first project The basic problem was a study stated that the language of the article required that the successful developer Actually had everything in place Before the land could be conveyed and what that meant As a practical matter is that they really couldn't pursue the financing and the licensing Because they couldn't have assurances that the land would be conveyed Once those elements and others were in place So This kind of cleans things up. It doesn't require Potential developers to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars And moving the project forward without the assurance of the property will be conveyed if they follow through appropriately The expectations that are in the contract Well, I was just wondering since this still has to go to the council so it's a Possible conveyance, but we're not actually authorizing a conveyance How we would Why we need to act now on just in Practical terms what isn't what would be done between now and when a council would be seated at operational Which we don't exactly know when what? What couldn't happen that The trust is in the process of doing if it were to wait Entirely because really it just it says the council gets to decide so Why do we need what how would we defend acting on this article at this time? Good question Connie. I think there are two reasons to move forward with change in the article One is it gives the trust Some confidence that the town really is interested in seeing us do this Even if we have to wait for final approval of the town council So I think that's important to us we've already gotten started and There are a lot of steps that we can do between now and the time the town council is seated ideally We would have a request for proposals drafted Which would have embedded in it essentially what the contract language would be between the town and a successful bidder By the time the town council is seated and then we could take that to the town council and say We've moved this project this far forward if you Approve of this RFP which has this contract language embedded in it Then that provides the insurance assurance to the successful bidder that they will get the land and That they should contract with the town so There's no reason why that can't all happen When the town council is actually seated we can go through and take all these steps But I personally would feel More empowered if you like if we have this assurance The other thing is the language now as Doug has said as I said is kind of confusing And I would hate for that language to be standing and someone on the town council Says to us. Well, we can't convey the land because your developer Hasn't taken all the steps necessary to get the money and the permitting and I really don't want to hear that I Mean obviously that Needs to be in place before the land is formally conveyed but We don't want to expect the developer to have that in place before they sign a contract and The way this reads now In my judgment read a feral judgment. Who's our consultant Tom Cagle's new judgment? And this is a state job. That's a problem So we want to be able to assure Whoever comes forward to work with us in development That that's not going to be an issue other questions Yes, you're speaking to this yes, so you're not tonight that would be something right now. You're comfortable with the logic behind this in terms of what we're doing then Right that gives me Right, I think that miss Krueger's question though is is one that we haven't measured against this I think we we looked at this before and Voted to recommend but then we were still at that point time waiting for advice from our town attorney relative to things that Under the transition provisions of the of the charter should or should not be taken up and so we do have to In a sense sort of grapple with that particular component of this and whether as you ask a little bit Whether it is Sufficiently Either something that you know frustrates the implementation of it or is necessary and essential to the the function of the government so The debate shall be I guess I'm sitting on the fence not because I don't support this initiative, but My question was was around necessary and essential and it seems from my reading of the town attorney's Guidance because it would advance affordable housing. We have a kind of broad umbrella to work under But I but you know we're trying to be very consistent and I'm not I would like to hear from other people Why it's necessary and essential now given that really nothing can happen until it comes to see I mean I sort of have the same question that you had I was going to frame it differently But I think it's the same question the way I was going to frame it was What is it that? the affordable housing trust can do if town meeting passes this article as It's now being proposed versus what it could do if it doesn't town meeting didn't act at all Like it won't right. So essentially it was the same question didn't seem to me that Affordable housing trust can do any more With this action than it can't originally when we came up with the reason for putting it on the warrant it was because We understood that it was very important to the That the housing trust would be able to do some things that in Advancing the project and getting it ready that it couldn't do If there was no steps taken But now it's less clear to me as Miss Kruger knows Probably a lot better than I do with a project like this. It seems to take forever There are lots of things that can happen one way or another as you're trying to move things along and My concern is partly I don't know what exactly the consequences are or not having authorization From town meeting to move ahead Someone can say well, why are you taking all these steps? Why don't you just stop everything? Until town council is seated and then inform them about what you're trying to do and see if they're comfortable with you're going ahead It basically means We're stopped for nine months or a year Given the time it'll take town council to both get seated and settle itself and organize itself To the point where it's ready to address this So I want to feel comfortable that at least town meeting has said Who knows they might not say this that you ought to move ahead with this. I mean we could get the Historical Commission to move with us the conservation commission to move with us the school board to move with us and Then the last thing we'll need is town council But in the meantime if anybody else says, oh, you're rushing it. You really don't need to get it done Let's wait until town council is seated and then we'll go back and look at all these issues again. I Really don't want to do that Makes me anxious. I understand why you want the comfort level, but I think for me I'm trying to be very consistent with this Filter that we're trying to apply to these and somebody might say why are you doing this now? You're rushing but the trust can also say because we're confident that we have a good project And we're going to continue on until we get to go before the council. So all the things you just listed. I Understand we prefer this but you could do all those things that would be a judgment of the trust whether you wanted to go ahead and talk to us for so I'm trying to be I Need I need to be convinced that there's a material difference to this Being acted on well, I understand I totally appreciate your commitment to this in the comfort part But I want to know what the material difference is It's not just the trust We're going to need to go before the conservation commission the historical commission and the school committee and So if we have the backing of town meeting in the select board We are in a much better position To talk with them and if we don't have those things Mr. Wolton I understand the Questions here, and I think in the abstract. I have some of the same questions miss Krueger and Mr. Steinberg do on the other hand, you know I think we keep going in circles because we have this idea We shouldn't we certainly don't want to do things that would frustrate the purpose of the charter or tie the hands of the council I Get that and we have this idea that we should be doing urgent and necessary business But I think is that I mean maybe it's and it's our fault or our town attorney's fault We're going in circles as to what that means because the one view is do nothing except keep the lights on and the fires burning and the other is Continue thermal business We are going ahead with inclusionary zoning. I'm not sure if that's any more urgent than this is The thing is we are paying our town attorney to render opinions and the opinion was very clear that this is legitimate So I'm you know not being a lawyer and a constitutional expert or anything else I tend to defer to the opinion of our town attorney in this one So yeah, I have some of the same mixed feelings, but I'm not I'm not sure was what is served by blocking this at this point As opposed to what is gained Did you have any Okay, I'm conflicted, but I do appreciate the and I know we've all used slightly different variations of what council has said when I was at a Warrant Review meaning I mentioned the idea of this being something that Puts promotes affordable housing that we have continuously as a community Done as KP law references as well So I leaned more on the we're all going the same direction as opposed to it's something new that will somehow for the work of the council I think the critical question for me is whether or not because one of the things that that the affordable trust could not do Without this is to go forward with really an RFP process. I think they could put one out, but they really couldn't I Don't know that anyone would want to participate in an RFP process if if the trust didn't have Some of this kind of assurances and so it's and I think it's really relative to When might that happen and because I think your point's right all the other steps You know regarding the school committee and those kind of things the trust can continue to do that I think it's really around the RFP process and actually seeking to partner with a with a developer to move ahead can that happen and does That inability to do that and the delay in that is that too great Relative to how important we find affordable housing In our community, I think that's really the for me. That's the the question Fully resolve that in my head and not that we have to fully resolve it tonight necessarily It's unlikely this will come up at tonight's meeting, but but that is the for me the real crux of it is is is Is that piece so I think that I think that's That's helpful because in that that sort of gets to the same question that we've been struggling with all along and Because mr. Hornet if we're not going to act tonight either way it gives mr. Hornet a chance to consult with miss Farrell and sort of Come come back at us With an answer for the question that we keep asking if in fact this Provides them with the ability to get out an RFP and to actually get Significant responses to the RFP Then the answer then there's an answer to the question the yes, it is important to have this So maybe the best thing to do would be to just take no action this evening take this as an instructive Conversation that we all have benefited from and give the People who've been working on it a chance to provide additional information to us We have to figure out all the steps anyway, and like I said, it's gonna take us until Probably town council is seated The one thing we might do is a step for example before an RFP if we have time is to do a request for information as a way of bringing developers in to see What concerns they may have about taking on this project before writing the final RFP? And again, that's a step that we'd be more comfortable taking if we had this authority I don't think we have to take an action this evening if we have some time because So I we can Take a motion or not, but I'm happy to not take a motion if we want to move ahead and take on other topics So unless someone wants to offer one, I think we can we can move on to our other so What is our our current position is recommended and so the question is just are we changing From recommended isn't that we have no position Well and recommend was relative to the original original which was not the language that's now right That will be offered as a motion So it will be a slightly different motion than what we were originally reviewing Yes, but to be clear we often have motions. We're lucky we had this one in the script But we often have motions that we don't get a chance to revoke right and so it doesn't sound to me like the crux Of this matter is about this language. It's more although that's part of it It's more about the big picture associated with the guidance we've received and how we're interpreting it And while this helps us toward that direction. It still doesn't Completely solve that that challenge So what are we gonna? There's an idea since we did vote in the affirmative to support this I can keep that could stand and and We have the opportunity because we always meet before town meeting To carry this is an agenda. I mean if a member at some point makes a motion differently, we have that discussion and we could take a different position like we could with anything We're gonna learn more tonight from town attorney and others about how we're applying that standard So we could just leave it the way it was That's enough for you to prepare your remarks Article 27 and if any of us feel either we need more information the trust or Uncomfortable letting this reaction on by town meeting we will have probably maybe two more opportunities to change that and so we Status quo and come back to it, but we did decide we had to talk about it tonight And there's one last question that I have is the with the new Provided language are we actually conveying anything and if we're not conveying anything do we need two-thirds? I? Think it authorizes conveyance later and therefore I think it requires a two-thirds. It's sort of Yes I Does take care of Voting to transfer from the school committee so it does kind of take care of a piece of the business of moving it along, right? That's great So I would All right Potentially come back to we'll let you know if we do we sketch Mr.. Harnock you understand why we're asking in such a detail I Asked one other question so at this point Do we know of any attempt to schedule this for a time certain or date certain? I'm not aware of any of great what to schedule this particular article for a date certain just because that Decreases our flexibility in terms of how I mean was there going to be any? Motion by the trust at this time that you're aware of to say we really need to talk about this on a certain No, I just do we come up in order, okay? It's good We hope for better in time for when it right It's not Louise from that would be a lot better All right, so let's move ahead on our agenda and another topic that's under that same one relative to Physicians is is article 28 which has to do with a change to the Agricultural Commission and so I think Again in this regard we have not taken it in in context of the advice from town council relative to transition I'll say I would Suggest this does fall into the the transition provisions in that one of the difficulties the The Agricultural Commission has had is is attaining corn and both pieces of this article Helped it to promote the form one is by broadening who can be included and number two It reduces the total number of members in in the Commission And both of those allow the form to be attained more easily and therefore I think to function of it better The question to function a bit better because it has been At times unable to meet for extended stretches because it can't can't reach quorum So that's what what I would suggest relative to this one If it weren't that circumstance where they were having some struggles with quorum then Then I would suggest that but given that they have I think this falls into That essential category to put slightly more of a point on it. I don't think that in theory We generally care people can meet quorum unless it means that they can't get work done Those two things are not necessarily related with some of our committees But in this particular case there is work that they can't do that the tap that the community needs them to do It's not just a convenience. It's a work So again this our motion I mean our I'm not sure if we need to take any action on this because we did vote to recommend it before it's really a question of whether we think it's False the transition provisions which I would argue it does and then and barring anyone objecting to that Then I think that we can probably Again not have to take any specific action tonight That hearing none, I think we'll move ahead And so I think I think that Let's see We have been reviewing the KP law opinion on transition about it before town meetings So that's been part and parcel of taking positions and that sort of thing. I don't we have any Perhaps so next is our Consent calendar which has The annual Taste of Amherst which I presume is why you're here. Yes, so would you like to why don't you tell us about that? We're still at Peter victory here as president of the board of directors of the out area chamber of commerce And I'm here to ask you to approve a Licence application for the taste this year scheduled for June 14th to 17th on the common very great If you approve it, the pawns will be from the pub Jerry jolly with whom you're familiar and his insurance Certificate is in when the new insurance kicks in I will be happy to provide that if there are any other pores in addition to those identified early today with the Certificate numbers and dates of certification Provide those as well, but this is something we're doing in conjunction with this year They're taking you go and coordinating and I'd be very grateful for your approval Thank you We're having questions So I'm fine with moving forward on the liquor license. I'm still having a problem with the parking proposal All right, those are separated in time we can I mean it in consent happy to move forward liquor license But to hold out the metered parking and road section that we attempted to address last time But has now become more complicated again So if someone would like to Move The portion of the consent counter Or excise the piece that you don't want the consent counter and then move the consent So I moved to approve the items listed on the consent calendar for the April 30 2018 agenda as amended Removing the item metered parking and road closure for the 27th annual taste of hammers June 14th to June 16 2018 is there a second all right, so what we have before us are the special licenses Is there further discussion on those I'm willing to move forward as a Consent calendar item except the motion is insufficient on the taste in terms of the alcohol service because it says the Service is being done at the taste It does not specify that the service is being done where it's being done Which we normally list just as UMass has to list its property or addresses are listed It's just missing a section and it needs to reference the Amherst College address that Mr Vickery helpfully put here 49 to 62 boatwood Avenue. It's right on their liquor license So Minutes taker could include that that would into the motion that would be helpful To make it clear it's on the Amherst College property Yes, we don't want me to say a year later. Oh, you did it on the common that year All right, is there further discussion he has made an appropriate note I saw him do it If there's not any further discussion all those in favor, please say aye opposed That's unanimous. Thank you And then relative to the meter parking so the reason I'm sorry So so this this is where I have to ask my colleagues to go back in their memory banks because I didn't bother to pull This out because I didn't know this was going to happen And I was too busy working on other dates this weekend to possibly have looked at these details So what I complained about last time to be clear Is whether or not things had changed since last year and the only change I noted was that it says Saturday June 16th From 2 p.m. To 10 p.m. Whereas it had been 1 30 p.m. A mere difference of 30 minutes Which appears to still accommodate the parking for the farmers market so on and that conflict We always work on so I'm fine with that and I appreciate that the language was put here Unfortunately, it doesn't say when we did it and so I'm frantically searching here for the minutes or packet that shows when that happened Just saying it happened in 2017 and the reason I care is because I Remember part of last year's conversation I remember the part where I said over and over again They send us this letter where they work in at the end of a paragraph that they want us to remove the food trucks from the Common and we should actively address that yes or no rather than just ignoring the statement in their in their request I Didn't believe that we were had actually gone ahead and done that but I could be convinced otherwise It says here in the material that was brought forward on our motion sheet that we did suspend food truck service So I'm not going to pretend it I Can't believe it, but I'm surprised that we allegedly did that Does anybody else remember where we ended with that conversation because I can't since no minutes or referenced here I can't find it Would I remember and I don't remember if it was for this request or when we were looking at lunch We did a couple times in that that instance where someone's doing the event with food on the common and not wanting the competition You know or siphoning off customers from their event. Yeah I remember saying I I wanted to keep on trucks Just to be there and I remember other people saying no It wasn't fair it wasn't fair to do that when somebody was having this kind of an event So I don't have a different answer from this group, but we did have a conversation about this so maybe we need to decide I mean does this have that caveat or Supposedly according to what's been transported on to our motion sheet. We did do that. I I'm a little surprised. I don't actually About removing I remember more people wanted it removed then Wanted them to stay and I was in the minority, but I don't I can't tell you So I guess what I'm asking is can we just go ahead and do the parking because now we know that that hasn't changed because we were Given a map in terms of the locations just that half and it's just that half hour It's not physically changed so that isn't going to cause any problems with people who get mad at us when we change parking and at this time Not it again on our motion sheet doesn't say anything about the food service for this The food the lunch carts for this year and so at this point. I believe we should Take that to mean even though it should be our choice whether or not to do it No, the person is writing the motions for us That we are not going to take action on that request and that if someone can find Information that indicates we did truly do that last year and wants to revisit it Then I think we can revisit it another night So food trucks are not removed if that's specifically asked for they would have to come back and ask that Yes separate conversation. I agree. That's what I Just don't like ignoring a sentence and somebody's request and just pretend But Given the statement you just made I think that The minute if the minutes could reflect to that that we are not taking action unless one of us or The applicant comes back and says you did don't you remember you did this last year worked out great And we don't have to do it the same way So Just as long as I'll make I'll read the motion, but I just want to make sure I don't think I'm including anything in the motion about Ignoring that sentence on their request. I think we're just making sure the minutes that hopefully we can somebody can find in a future year Show that we are not making any to not taking any action The request on food So Therefore I moved to approve the following street closing parking requests from the Amherst Business Improvement District and Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce For the annual taste of Amherst event to one to place no parking bags on parking meters around the perimeter of the town common Including the north and south sides of the spring street lot Beginning Thursday June 14th 2018 from 12 p.m. To 9 p.m. Friday June 15th 2018 from 5 p.m. To 10 p.m. Saturday June 16th 2018 from 2 p.m. To 10 p.m. And Sunday June 17th 2018 from 12 p.m. To 4 p.m. To accommodate taste vendor parking and to to close Bultwood Avenue between Spring Street and Root 9 on Friday June 15th 2018 and Saturday June 16 2018 from 7 p.m. To 9 30 p.m. Peak pedestrian crossing times for the beer and wine tasting at Amherst College I am adding the words to the motion at Amherst College Do you want the address? Yes So you just gave it to us and it was 49 to 62 Bultwood. Yeah, as opposed to if it's a cross route 9 It's a cross. It's a cross. So you got nailed down. Okay, then we have a second. Is there further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vigory for staying with us All right Manager, if there are any key information updates relative to the logistics of town meetings? Since when? Note that town attorney Joel Barge here. Is it for coming? Special padding suits, helmets, shields. All good suggestions? How about candy? Oh, that might help. Like at Mardi Bras? That's generous. Since Joel is coming to me and just asking him to come by your meeting in case if you had any last minute questions or things to bring up If there's any updates on your end, Joel, that you know of? Well, is everyone aware that there will be a proposal? This has to do with the election calendar? Article one of the special town meeting. Thank you. So there will be a proposal to come up with dates that somewhere between what's in the special act and the default. I gather another set of dates. The ones that were sent to us in a minute. The ones we've seen are additional other ones. I think there are other ones out there that people are involved in. Yeah, that was a brief one that suggested a date that the election would be held in early October, I think it was. And that was simply a date. What's that? It's simply too close to when the actual election will be held because you can't print ballots, of course, until the preliminary is held and the results are certified. If there are any recounts, then forget it. But even without recounts, it doesn't move at all. The other one has an earlier preliminary election. The election calendar is always very tight because you need to print ballots and they have to be available to mail out and so forth. I haven't seen, I guess, a detailed calendar that will be proposed. But anyway, that will be presumably proposed as well. And by the way, one other point is that, and by the folks who sent you all some opposition a week plus ago, that runs into its own issues because then you run into the holiday grade for students. And we actually have more than the same email. I haven't talked about it in the drive-out here, but essentially near the actual election happens just as a student. I mean, there's no perfect time. I think we need a lot of transitional students. So I guess I'm failing to understand why if the charter is as clear as it is about the election alternatives. I can essentially say we should be asking the legislature for an election in November, the November specific date, and the specific date in September, which we've now interpreted was with good intent, but has been out of mode and needs to be shifted because it was intended to be the primary, or it is stated as primary and still would be primary. That's one, and then there's an alternative. If that fails, then these are the election dates. So it seems to me that the voters have spoken and that there is no authority to do anything else besides those two alternatives. I think so. I mean, this new alternative is designed to address a problem that we don't think exists. And I guess that would be their argument, but I don't see that the fallback schedule has any of the problems that they are pointing to. Nor do we think that the original calendar has that, the original calendar tweaked. And keeping in mind that the calendar in part had to be tweaked because the state primary election date got moved, as you all know. So therefore is, so there's a couple thousand layers here, but one of them is that we believe this group, plus the attorneys, believe that the tweaks that are being made in the motion that's going to be made are to do the things that we talked about at some length now, and not necessarily just here, but previously, about the incorporating because of the actual date of the primary, and then how that flows with overseas and military ballots so that everybody kind of gets everything and can get everything at the same time. And it actually makes elections more accessible to people in terms of all the different peoples. But it sounds like at one point the moderator was considering, since we were making those changes, that that somehow meant that within scope of the article would be anything that makes updates that are in between that range of the original special legislation question. And so I'm trying to understand if we are saying we support this, but hey, the moderator does what the moderator does, or are we still trying to say the moderator, you know, I mean the moderator can do what the moderator does, but are we saying that actually it isn't a preference, it's that more along the lines of what Mr. Steinberg said, it is what it is and it's done and it's not appropriate to try and tweak it within that time, beyond the fact that every practical application that which I myself have also spent hours on trying to sort out, well if we did this, then 20 days ahead of that and 20 days ahead of that, that's why they chose these dates, because it was insanely hard to pick dates. And the fall back dates are after Hampshire College students come back. I mean before Hampshire College students come back. So there was a reason these things were chosen. So I'm just asking for some clarity. What action do we need to take tonight regarding, but our vote was on different dates, and what do we need to do to affirm what message should be delivered in like 8 minutes to figure that out. If I could just address what I heard, I mean I didn't have a question, so I did call the moderator this afternoon to ask him about this intermediate set of dates, and what I understood through his opinion that it was within the scope. He said, you know, this isn't the same as a zoning example, a black and white example, where a meeting proposes to allow a district with 24 heights to 30 foot heights and then 25 is okay, because to the middle it's more complicated than that, and there are parameters presumably created by the Special Act, but the moderator and his wisdom and discretion is going to allow it. So I think it's more a question of making the arguments against the substance rather than trying to argue with the moderator. So it seems like we had a discussion before that our understanding of the transition language of the charter says that the select words will make that final decision. We can make that final decision, but it would be the moderator that decides what action town meaning can take. So where does that leave us? I mean, what really, just a few minutes to ask one statement. It seems to me, I mean, there's one other aspect of it, is that does town meeting really have the authority to do anything more than to approve the submitting of the special legislation or not? Is there any other authority under the Charter to take action? The, I mean, those are good questions, but the problem is the moderator gets to decide that and he's made a clear, he's made his decision and he's willing to allow it. I frankly totally disagree, but I don't think that it changed his mind. Mr. Wolk, but I guess what happens then if town meeting passes something that we think is invalid, and it, next steps, I mean, wouldn't it be invalidated and higher up in the state government? Well, yeah, so that's a good question. I mean, so then, I mean, at that point you have two choices. One is not to submit it, and then just go to the default calendar, and the other is to submit it and see if the legislature decides to know that it's outside of the scope. Basically, it's not authorized by the Charter. And I guess if asked, I will say that one can predict what the legislature, in fact, I think I made this point to the moderator, that one can predict how the legislature would react, but the legislature might look at that and say, sorry, we're not going to act on that because that wasn't authorized by the Charter, which went through all of the Charter commission processes for the employees. And then what happens? When the legislature says no, where are we? Then we're at the default calendar. But automatically, yeah? Right. That's where I thought. Which prolongs, of course, the tradition for you. Who's speaking to this? So you have to know what to say. Well, I'm going to make the motion, which won't include any of those dates yet. So any subsequent, feel free to chime in is what I would suggest if you have an opinion to offer if other motions are made and amendments are made. Absolutely. If you feel confident and comfortable with that, please do. I knew this was coming in all your spare time this weekend. I know that you're somewhat prepared to speak to alternates, but I think it's most important that you do go ahead and speak to the fact that the default, if everything goes wrong in terms of people might love this new idea of new dates. And we might even think, ah, those aren't so bad. And then it's out of our hands. And it may still fail for at least two reasons that have come across. Even if we submitted it, it may be that the AGO says no, or it may be that before that, or it may be that I'm sorry, it's a special legislation AGO has nothing to say about. But when the legislators talk to the person at the elections division and she says no, then they're going to drop it like a hot potato because they aren't going to want anything to do with it. In which case, on the 12th, so I think it needs to be said at the beginning why the default dates are not as good in terms of meeting the same needs as this. However, my problem with that, Mr. Bard, is that I feel like if we say anything like that, it makes it more problematic that those dates exist. And it makes it more likely that people feel that if I say those are bad dates, then people are like, well, good, let's sue you over those. So they alternate dates. Because the default ones are clearly not as good at addressing all the things that we said were important about consistency of elections and availability of things. They are clearly not as good. That doesn't necessarily make them bad. And so what I'm trying to understand is do you recommend any limitations on how we describe this? Given potential, we always can be sued. We understand that any day of the week. But given how aggravated people have been about this particular issue, do you have any advice on? Well, only that to state the obvious, that there are two sets of dates that were vetted, if you will, by the townspeople over a process that lasted well over a year, and are more likely, should there be challenges of any nature, more likely to be upheld than some dates that have been put out at the one and a half hour coming before, which don't necessarily address some of the perceived shortcomings of the two other sets of dates. Can you mention that at the time? You're supposed to start in one minute. Yes. So my one cent on this is I just would like us to make a really strong cautionary statement that we are supporting these dates and that we don't know, we're not confident that alternate dates would be accepted and we're not, we don't know yet if we can submit it. And I don't want to get into threatening if this happens, we're not going to do that, but that people to understand that there's the possibility that no action would be taken if you can, you can't support the alternate dates through and then, but I just, I think a really strong statement might piss people off. Should we adjourn? Yes, we should. I move to adjourn. Second. All in favour? See aye. Wait a minute, let me. Oh, wait, wait, wait. Let's not adjourn. Let's, we're not adjourning. We are, we are. Suspend it. We are recessing the meeting. Thank you. I move to recess the meeting. Is there a second? Second. With the idea that we will, we will then come back to continue after this session. We can take an action, but we're not closing. We're not adjourning. That's great. We're still in session. Are you going to be meeting during time meeting? No. That's why we're saying it's a recess. We want to, it happens in that way. We have an opportunity. We are in recess.