 in the meeting. Okay, we're recording. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. It is December 4th, 2023, and this is a regular meeting of the town council. The open meeting law was extended and allows us to continue holding meetings where a quorum of the council can either be physically present in the room and or on Zoom. And tonight, thus far, we already have nine counselors in the town room. And at this point, two on Zoom were actually three. We are asked, however, with that new law to make adequate accommodations so that all people can attend the meeting either by Zoom in being in the room and or watching TV, live stream or on Amherst media or by phone. Given that we have a quorum of the council present, I'm calling the December 4th, 2023 town meeting, town council meeting to order at. Six thirty five. I'm going to call on counselors by name at that time. Please answer that you are present. That makes sure we can hear you and you can hear us. And then make sure you mute your mic again. Shalini Balmille, I am present. Patty Angelis, present. Anna Devlin, got your present when Griezmer is present. Mandy, Joe Hanna, present. Anika Lopes, present. Thank you. Michelle Miller, present. Did you? I'm sorry, present. Michelle, we can't hear you. I can. I'm going to go on, but come back to you for a mic check in a moment. OK. Dorothy Pam here, I said here, Athena. I'm hearing that folks on Zoom can hear the remote attendees, but we cannot in the room. OK, Dorothy, you can't hear us. No, I can't. I can't hear you. Right. Yeah. OK, hold on. We're seeing what we have to do to fix that. Dorothy, can you hear us now? Can can you test? Yes, I can hear you now. Terrific. OK, thank you. Thank you. I've been here before. You just couldn't hear me. Right. Thank you. So, Anika, you are here. Michelle Miller, can you hear us and we can hear you? Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Thank you. Dorothy Pam here. Thank you. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane here. Andy Steinberg, present. Jennifer Todd, present. Alicia Walker, present. All 13 counselors are present in the meeting. There is no chat room for this meeting. If you have technical issues, please let Athena and me know. Clearly, Athena is in charge of technical issues. And if we have technical issues, we'll decide at the time how to address those. There is only one public comment period at this meeting tonight. The agenda includes an executive session for the purpose of discussing the town manager's compensation based on his evaluation. It is our intention at this time to return to the regular meeting at the conclusion of the executive session and to have a motion and vote relevant to any recommendations coming from that executive session. With that, we're going to move to the announcements. And while you're looking at the board where the announcements are of upcoming committee meetings, I also want to note that the new town council will convene on January 2nd at six thirty. The plan at this point is that we will be in the bank center and we are going to be inviting all other recently elected officials to join us and be sworn in that night. We're going to try to make it a little bit more than we did during covid two years ago. So if you're here, that's great. If you aren't able to be here, don't worry about it. You can be sworn in by the work. In addition to that, we have several other committee meetings. And before I finish announcements, I want to go on to particularly recognize two town counselors that have been honored just in this last week. The first is a Nika Lopes. She was voted one of the indigenous leaders of Massachusetts, chosen by mass live readers, motivated by her grandfather, Dudley Bridges, restoration of the Civil War's tablets that are presently in the bank center, that shed light on the significant contributions of black and indigenous soldiers in her own words, she says, I approach historical work with a storyteller's heart, cultivate, cultivate meeting, meaningful connections, be adaptive to change and harshness for skills, diverse skills to weave a narrative that empowers and uplifts communities. The second is Michelle Miller. Michelle was recognized by the National African American Reparations Commission, NAARC and Robin Ru Sammons. First repair for her work advancing reparations now through the African Heritage Reparation Assembly in Amherst, Mass. At the third symposium, she was among three hundred two hundred attendees representing more than seventy five initiatives and Amherst was held up as inspirational to and generative of the spread of reparation. Her vision and leadership as an elected official in Amherst was genuinely honored and appreciated. I want to point out that you can read more about both of these in the front page of the town manager's report and on upcoming announcements on our website. Thank you. We have no hearing tonight. But we do have general public comment. So I want to point out that I am going to estimate at this point there are somewhere between 30 and 40 people in the town room, in addition to the counselors that are here, and there are fifty six people on Zoom. So I'm going to ask something just a little unusual, and that is Athena, how many people have signed up to speak in the town room? Twenty. OK, and if you are on Zoom, I'm asking you to raise your hand now if you plan to speak, I'm asking that if you plan to speak at any point, you raise your hand now if you are on Zoom. And that is true for the audience. I just need to get an accurate count. There are 12 people who have raised their hands to speak on Zoom and 20. With reluctance, I'm going to ask that you keep your remarks to two minutes. It's not something we like to do, but that means a full hour will be spent on public comment, which is fine. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes, two minutes in this case. The committee will not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment. So with that, Athena, we're going to start with the audience. Let me just explain. When you come up, please state your name, where you live. The street is fine. The district is fine. And then go ahead and make sure you're speaking into the mic and that the green light is on. You'll come up to this desk if you're in the room. If you're in on Zoom, you'll be let in. Again, at this point, there are 10 people in the audience on Zoom that have raised their hands, and I'm going to stick with that number. OK, so Athena. Catherine, please come up to the microphone, state your name and address before you make your public comment. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Catherine Oppie of Redgate Lane. And I am here to ask that I and tell the town council that I fully support the town council voting to authorize the bonding of additional funds to meet the requirements of MBLC so that the Jones Library renovation and expansion project can proceed. This vote will not raise the amount of money, 15.8 million dollars previously committed by the town and voted. Community members voted by an overwhelming majority in support of this project. Voting to do nothing is not an option. The many necessary repairs the library requires would cost the town more than this well planned renovation and expansion and would not meet our very important townwide climate goals. Thank you all for your very hard work on behalf of our community. Thank you for joining us. We'll go to the Zoom and it's Neil Emmerman. Please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Hello, can you hear me? We can. Oh, great. My name is Neil Emmerman. I live 37 Hillcrest Place in Amherst. And I just wanted to say echoing what Catherine Appie just said that I've lived in Amherst 32 years. My wife and I and our kids very much enjoyed and made use of Jones Library. We're very supportive of the plan renovations. And we hope the town board will will vote to support and continue this renovation. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us next in the town room. Anne Harrington, please come up and state your name and address before you make your comment. Anne Harrington, 72 van meter drive Amherst and I'm a patron of the Jones Library. I'm here to urge you to authorize amending the borrowing cap for the renovation and expansion. Think that to defer that decision or to deny the increase would put the whole project at risk. I understand the concern that's been expressed that doing so might jeopardize moving forward with the DPW and fire station projects. But those concerns have been addressed to the satisfaction of the finance committee and it seems it will not. What is harder to understand are other objections, some of which at best are misinformation, for instance, it's been claimed that some of the responsible changes that have been made in the building designed to cut costs are jeopardizing the sustainability measures and the preservation of historical features of the building, which is not true. It's been alleged that the new building will be an oversized colossus. But if that were the case, the mass library board of commissioners would never have approved the design and certainly wouldn't have awarded the sizable grant that they did. Further more, it has been suggested that if the entire project was scrapped, that the donations already received could be redirected to necessary repairs on the existing building. My spouse and I are donors and we definitely do not want our donation put toward patching up the existing building. And not incidentally, those repairs would cost the town more than what the town has budgeted for the renovation and expansion. The Jones Capital Campaign Committee is doing an excellent job of reaching its goals through the donations and the grants that have been succeeded in receiving and the Jones trustees in the town have executed legally binding commitments that ensure that the town's financial obligation will not exceed what has already been budgeted. In short, it's time to move forward with this project that over 60 percent of town voters have supported. So I ask you now to support amending the borrowing cap. So as not to jeopardize the renovation and expansion. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. We're going down to the Zoom. Ellen Boucher. Please enter the room and state your name. I'm sorry if I mispronounced it. That's fine. My name is Ellen Boucher and I live online in Amherst. Thank you all for the work that you do for our town. I'd like to strongly encourage you to vote in favor of amending the borrowing cap for the Jones Library. My family and I are heavy users of the library, especially the children's room, which very much needs updating. But to my mind, the crucial point is that town residents have already voted in favor of the library renovations. And as has been said, amending the barring cap won't increase the project's cost to the town. So if the council fails to vote in favor of raising the borrowing authorization, they will be effectively overruling the 65 percent of residents who voted in favor of this project. So to sum up, Amherst residents voted for this project and the council should see it through, especially since the costs to the town haven't changed. If not, then what was the point of having the public vote in favor of this project in the first place? Thank you very much. Thank you. There you go. Next is Christine Plett. Please correct your name pronunciation if I got it wrong and state your address before you begin, Christine Plett, 72 band meter drive. I'll be very short because everybody's already said what I was going to say. I am very much in favor of the council voting to amend the borrowing cap. Thus far, 38.7 million has been raised from all sources. More than 84 percent of the estimated cost of 46.1 million dollars. And the fundraising continues. The library renovation received overwhelming support from the town last year's referendum and the monies raised thus far are a testament to that commitment. Please vote yes to amend the borrowing cap and let this project move forward. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Erica Zikos, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Thank you. Erica Zikos, District 5 Holst Road. Joining the chorus tonight, our library has a plan that has been raising funds and is on track to fully fund this project costs. Approving the bonding for an increased borrowing cap for the library won't impact plans for any other capital projects in the queue. Our new library is a fiscally, equitably, historically and environmentally responsible design that the town of Amherst both needs and wants. The only way the town will pay is if we don't do the renovation, bringing the building up to code, repairing damage that all comes at a cost. These things are part of the renovation and addition design. They're baked into the plan to provide us a 21st century community hub, one that serves our children and teens. Our English language learners are differently abled and everybody else. The town needs to honor the will of the constituents, the overwhelming majority of voters who really want to see this private library project move forward. Thanks. Thank you. Going back to the room. Carol Johnson, please come up and state your name and address before you make your comment. Yes, my name is Carol Johnson. I was part of the group that raised money for and built the Amherst Cinema. And I was the executive director of the Cinema for 13 years until my retirement a couple of years ago. I'm here to say two things. First of all, this is a really important project. And second of all, fundraising is going well. It's important because the library is a community room open to everyone. Children, people of a certain age with hair, my color and all in between people who are new to town, people who've lived here for many years. We've lived here 25 years actually longer than that. We raised our daughters here. It is a place where people can come who don't have computers at home. It is really a community living room and it's a place where our goals of social justice and equality of opportunity can be made available to many, many people. So it's important. I know we have other important projects before us as a town, but there's nothing that is more important than a town library. Second of all, the fundraising is going well. I am I have joined the Friends of the Jones, which is the body that is raising money for this project. And I'm very happy to say that I'm working with some people who are very competent and experienced and the project is going well. So I hope that you as a town council will vote to amend the borrowing cap and support this project going forward. Thank you. Thank you for joining us on Zoom. Tony Cunningham, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Thank you, Tony Cunningham, Owen Drive. I was watching the crown last night and Prince Charles and Camilla were hiring a spin doctor to repair their image. It made me think of the campaign around this library bond vote filled with exaggeration and mistruths to exert pressure on councillors to approve the borrowing, the amount of spin going on is dizzying. What you have been given to secure an affirmative vote is the best case scenario for Plan A, the renovation expansion and the worst case scenario for Plan B. For Plan A, you have a fancy full cash flow that the trustees and some of you already know is not achievable. It shows the library giving the town two million dollars in less than two months time, then four million in early 25, five million in early 26 and a balance of 2.3 million in July 2026. Yet there's nothing that obligates the library to meet this schedule and no consequences when they inevitably can't. The cash flow is omitted from the latest memorandum of agreement. On the flip side, you've been provided a worst case scenario for Plan B, a false contention that the town would be responsible for everything and inflated repairs package with no electrification, no value engineering, no CPA or other funding. The goal here has clearly been to make the alternative look so bad that it would be crazy to choose it. To take your fiduciary duty seriously before voting, and I know some of you have tried, you would need to insist on, at the very least, cash flows for a worst case scenario for Plan A and a best case scenario for Plan B. The impact each would have on the ten year capital plan and on reserves and on the timeline for the fire station and DPW. As far as I can tell, the newly amended MOA presented to you tonight does nothing to reduce the risk to the town and in fact likely makes it worse. It puts in black and white that the library share is not due until June 20 27 in direct contradiction to the cash flow that shows the library paying the remainder a year earlier. The MOA limits the library share to a dollar amount rather than stating that it is the remainder after deducting the towns and state shares from the actual cost. We do not know that the actual cost will be forty six point one million. And it does not require the library to pay interest on the short term borrowing to wrap up committing that the library share will not increase. Thank you. Considering all of the critical information, we need you to finish. Thank you. Thank you. That is what I will do to anybody that goes over two minutes just to be clear. Janice, the fact is make sure the green light is on, please. There you go. Thank you. I would just like to tell the town council that my husband and I support this project. We supported it with our vote. We support it with our donation that we have made over a five year period. I don't know what other people plan to do or can't speak for anyone else. But if the council votes to authorize the town to borrow the full amount, we are willing to make our full donation at this time to help silence any possible concerns about fundraising. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bill, where where Lee? Again, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. And please correct my pronunciation of your name. Good evening. Thank you for your time. My name is Bill Whirly. Can you hear me? We can. And I didn't see the time are gone. And I'm here to support and live in South Amherst on Cair's Lane, I'm here to support the amending the borrowing cap. I appreciate all the comments that have already been made. This is a financially responsible decision. A vibrant, vibrant library is a beacon in a community such as ours and supports all of the community, all ages and interests. And it provides a place for community center and a place for people to gather that is not available in any other area in town. So thank you for your efforts and again, support amending the borrowing cap. Thank you for joining us back to the audience. Nancy Campbell, please come up. Nancy Campbell, 369 Middle Street. Delay, delay, delay. How often do we hear this repetition in the context is never good? How many millions has delay, delay, delay cost the town of Amherst in recent years? Elementary schools double the price. Delays in deciding to renovate, expand the Jones library. Already maybe ten million dollars in additional costs, maybe more. I earn urge the town council, please don't add another delay to our list of delays. This is a quote from 1890 that appeared in the Amherst record newspaper quote, we should bear in mind the fact that the architect of the Cathedral of Milan, backed by the wealth of the universe, could not have designed a village horse shed that would meet the universal wealth favor at the hands of the citizens of Amherst. This was written about the controversial decision to build this town hall where we sit tonight, 133 years ago. I think they made the right decision. Thank you. Thank you. Always helped to have a little levity. Gretchen Plotkin, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Can you hear me? We can. Thank you. I live at Eleven Baldwin Lane in South Amherst. I urge you to increase the borrowing cap needed so the renovation and expansion can be undertaken for the Jones library. As other people have stated ahead of me, we are well on our way to meeting community goals for fundraising, which is, in my mind, a very important indicator of community support, not increasing the cap will forfeit over twenty three million dollars and the project will not continue. I and the majority of Amherst residents support this project. We I ask you to vote to increase the borrowing cap. And I thank you for your work on this. Thank you. Dale Peterson is next. Dale Peterson, 234 Lincoln Avenue, presently District Three, soon to be District Four. I find myself optimistic in believing that the council will actually vote the amendment to lift the cap on the debt and will agree to fully fund the Jones library project to its completion. I do so because I find it impossible not to remember that the town council. Took form in large part in response to town meetings failure to exact execute the will of Amherst voters to construct and fund an elementary school. We know what the unfortunate consequences were of that delay. What I want to speak of tonight is not simply the cost of litigation and delay for the final project. I want to talk about the cost of delay for the excellent workforce and students. The teachers, the paraprofessionals and the students who had to endure for a number of years, facilities which were unhealthy and dysfunctional and the same situation exists with the Jones library. The sixty four percent of Amherst voters supported a project to renovate and expand the Jones library. I think that some members of the opposition, we need you to wrap up, focused upon the expansion, thinking that it was great. Please wrap up. Thank you. What I want to say about that is that I don't believe they've actually visited the library. I need you to say if they have, as I have, it is one of the most cramped spaces possible. And I need you to I have I have been in the Soviet Union and been in the provinces. Thank you. And gone to a special collections, which was better, better accommodated. Thank you. I think the point is made. Thank you. Thank you. I I really beg the rest of you to stick to your time frame. Thank you. Jenny Riley, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. All right. Good evening. I'm Jennifer Riley of 36 Pondview Drive, and this is my first town council meeting and is an Amherst taxpayer and the parent of a fifth grader in our public schools and is a person who's often enjoyed the Jones library in the seven plus years that we've lived here. I'm just submitting this comment tonight to urge the town council to take all necessary steps to continue the Jones library renovation and expansion project. I guess vote tonight to amend the borrowing cap. It feels important to demonstrate to government sources of funding, also to private donors, and perhaps most importantly to the people and families of Amherst that the town council is going to steward this project forward and get it across the finish line. So thank you for all you're doing to make that happen. And thank you for keeping us on the road to a Jones library that will truly meet the needs of our town. Thank you for joining us. Jeff Lee from I live on Southeast Street. Some history in 2014, 15, two fundraisers Kent Ferber and Matt Blumenfeld pitched to the trustees the idea of pursuing an NBLC library construction grant so far so good. The NBLC requires that the library's long range plan support any grant application. So the fundraisers and trustees came up with a five year plan claiming that a community the size of Amherst Amherst needs an 87,000 square foot building. This number would have Amherst with its 17,000 full time residents build the fifth largest library in Massachusetts after Boston, Worcester, Cambridge and Newton. This encouraged a large chunk of grant money, but also required a large commitment of taxpayer funds from the town and a large fundraising commitment in 2018 with funding approval coming up for library. Fundraisers help co-found the pack Amherst forward. Fundraisers come with a large with large contact lists and social media networks, as well as access to people who will donate money to the pack and lobby for the library project, whether it's cost justified or not. In subsequent town meeting elections or town council elections, Amherst forward has succeeded in helping many of you get elected. Last week, we learned that capital campaign fundraisers intend to pay one point zero five million in campaign expenses with personnel expenses representing 90 percent of campaign expenses. Amherst forward library professional fundraisers stand to earn more than 900,000 for their lobbying efforts. If this isn't a conflict of interest and a perversion of our local democracy, I don't know what is. Please do the right thing. Vote no and find a more affordable and democratic way to fix up the Jones library. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. We'll go to Maria Capecchi. Please, Capecchi, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Maria Capecchi, South Amherst. Back in April of this year when the town council voted to authorize borrowing for the elementary school project, there was much ringing of hands over committing five million dollars of capital reserves to lower the borrowing and therefore the tax impact on residents. Counselors reluctantly agreed only when promised that most of that money would be replenished through federal and utility rebates. An effort by Councillor Walker to dedicate another five million to decrease the burden on taxpayers further was not supported with counselors exclaiming that these funds were needed to pay for the fire station. Now, those same counselors are singing a very different tune. For the first time at a public meeting last week, council president Lynn Griezmer, Finance Committee chair, Andy Steinberg and town manager Paul Backelman all suggested spending those same capital reserves that just a few months ago were not to be touched to relieve pressure from the high cost of the library project. Gone is the promise to save those funds for the fire station. They have finally said out loud what we have long suspected. When the debt from the library project drains the capital budget, they are perfectly content to tap into the reserves to cover the shortfall and the fire station can just keep on waiting. Despite being asked multiple times, Backelman has still not produced details of the impact of taking on this debt on annual capital spending, on the immense backlog of road and sidewalk repairs or on the timeline for replacing the DPW and fire station. The fiscal model that was created to understand how the quote for capital projects affect each other and other capital needs remains withheld from the council and the public. It's been long clear that there is nothing that several members of this body could learn that would lead them to vote no on the library project. They don't want to hear about the downsides. Their lack of critical questioning makes it clear that it really doesn't matter to them how much it costs, how much risk it entails, or what impacts it would have on other town needs. They want this library project no matter what. I urge you to act in the best interest of the town as a whole and not push essential public safety to the back of the line. Thank you for joining us. Cammy McGovern, cover. Please correct my pronunciation of your name. Hi, my name is Cammy McGovern, and I'm on Memorial Drive in Amherst. And I am speaking to you as a children's book author who has traveled pretty extensively through the state of Massachusetts and has seen in schools in what libraries are capable of when they have well funded, adequate teen rooms and children's rooms. And what you see in, not surprisingly, Brookline, Cambridge, Wellesley and well funded towns like that are teen rooms that have incredible programming and statistics to bear out how they're programming for teenagers, impacts, anti-drug, mental health, graduation rates, the support for the teens that so often fall between the cracks. And what I would say is it's not just happening in those towns. If we go to, I would I would actually beg of the counselors to visit South Padley or Sunderland to see what a separate teen room provides for the teens that are there when you have a door you can shut, you have teens empowered to create their own programming that in which they can take care of themselves, talk to each other, form bonds. And I have participated in programing with both of those towns and it's extraordinary to see Jones could do all of that. They only need the space. They currently have two BB beanbag chairs for a teen space, which is not adequate. Thank you so much. Thank you for joining us. Todd Holland, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Todd Holland, I live on Elthill Road in South Amherst, District 5. Can you all hear me? We can. I participated with others on the sustainability committee for the Jones library, so I'm pretty familiar with the project. And I'd also like to say that I have about 40 years experience in commercial construction and right now I have never been more frustrated or anxious about the art and science of cost estimation for projects. I have two projects going to bid. One of them will be announced on Wednesday. And I have had to do a very similar effort of value engineering and scaling back of scope of that project to make it meet the estimated budget. And I was thrilled to hear someone else say that the effort to do that at the Jones library did not violate any sustainability principles or jeopardize the functioning and beauty and efficiency of the building. What I will say is you have to trust the process. You have a very good design team. You will not know how much this is going to cost until it goes to bid. You can't get around that. If you choose to not secure the funding and bid anyway, it will be met with uncertainty, maybe disinterest in the bidding process. And all that will translate to increased costs. I really think things are turning around. There are projects that have had competitive bids lately. And I will just urge you to approve this. It's a beautiful project and a beautiful library. And I think we owe it to the people of Amherst to approve and move forward with it. Thank you for joining us back to the room. Lou Conover, please come up. Lou Conover, 120 Pulp at Hill Road. I love the Jones library. I use the Jones library all the time. It's it's one of the things that makes Amherst a great place. And this project has been forward and supported by a political party in our town government. Now, I know that most of you were endorsed by that political party, but not all of you. I would be pleasantly surprised if anyone who was endorsed by Amherst forward would actually take an honest look at this project. I'm I tend to doubt it, but it would please me. So really, I'm talking to the five of you that were not endorsed, that are not a member of this political party. I see a great risk here. The fact is that the the funding, the discussion, the finances and all of this has been completely confused and obfuscated. I've listened in a few times and it's almost impossible for me to follow what's going on. At a minimum, it hasn't been put forward in the plain language that the citizens of the town can understand. And it especially has not been put forward in that plain language. How the what effect it's going to have on the less wealthy members of the town. So I would urge all of you and especially urge the five of you that are not members of this political party to put common sense. Before politics. And vote against the increased borrowing. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Nancy Ratner, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. My name is Nancy Ratner. I live on 99 Lincoln Avenue and I've long been a supporter of this project. I'm speaking just to urge you to approve the bond authorization, nothing in the project has changed. That should change that decision. I think that Jones is a jewel in this town. It's there. It's been special for people for a long time and it will continue to be if we have this project go forward. Thank you very much. Thank you. Cheryl's all please come up. My name is Cheryl's all I live on Cosby Avenue in Amherst. I want to thank the council for the care that you're taking with this process. I'm here to support amending, lifting the cap, and I'm speaking as someone who's done a capital campaign in Amherst. I was the director of the Amherst survival center in the early 2000s when we did a capital campaign and that was an organization with a very tiny budget and no history of fundraising serving incredible needs of the town and we managed to raise five times our annual budget because the people of Amherst actually really care. And when they saw what the need was and what we could do with a new building, they came forward and we were able to build the new building. I see the Jones Library as as essential to the Amherst community as the Amherst survival center. I spent a lot of time at the library myself and when I was there, I often referred to it as survival center self because I would see survival center participants there reading books, accessing the internet, looking for jobs, sometimes offering tutoring, sometimes getting, getting tutoring, getting resources for their kids. And so on all the things that happened in the library in a space that when I toured it, it reminded me so much of the old survival center in the basement. The people who are working there are heroic to be doing what they're doing under those conditions. So so and as somebody who has done a campaign and seen the way in which people in this community support this community, I have every confidence in the the campaign that's going on now for the library over 84 percent of the total has already been raised. And we didn't know what we were doing and we were able to do our capital campaign. And this committee really knows what it's doing. And I've been watching and participating where I can. So I just wanted to say from that perspective, if there is concern about the campaign, the experience that I have doing a campaign in this community gives me every confidence that will meet the goals. Thank you. I'm sorry, LaTisha LaFollette, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. I'm LaTisha LaFollette. I live at 18 Dana Street. You can hear me now. Yes, I can see it. Yes. You I'm in district three. And it is my pleasure to vote to urge you to vote in support of the Jones Library renovation and to increase the total amount borrowed to be borrowed. I'd like to stress again that the town's the town's share will not change. We've heard otherwise here. I see supporting the vision for the 21st century library as critical to the future of Amherst as an inclusive community. It will also serve as an important economic driver, as you have heard from the bid and small business owners in town. I have participated in the Community Capital Campaign fundraising. I have been extremely impressed by the work that they have done. I would like to echo what Cheryl's old just said about the fundraising. And I would be dismayed to see the millions of dollars that have been awarded to the project in grants like the NEH one, the largest one awarded a library in this country and gifts like that of Amherst College to be turned away if the town council could not muster a two thirds majority in favor of raising the borrowing limit. And I would like to also just be on the record saying that the plan B that several people, other speakers have referred to is not actually a plan. It was rejected by the library years ago and is a fiction. Thank you very much. Thank you. Susan Tracy, please come on up. Hello, my name is Susan Tracy from 15 Hopbrook Road and Amherst. I originally supported the library plan because as a historian, I saw that it would safeguard our town documents and papers. And then last spring there was a flood. So that faith was fully realized in this new plan. I also supported the original plan because it was accessible for differently able people and for the English as a second language teacher teaching program, which needs to be taken out of its closet. And I'm always in favor of people coming out of the closet. So and now and now the Civil War tablets commemorating the African-American members of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment from Amherst who fought here are going to be in our library. So I think that's really, really exciting. And it will be a way of bringing that history into the public sphere. So I'm totally in favor of amending the borrowing cap that the Massachusetts Board of Library Commission commissioners requires. One of the more exciting aspects of this project is the federal grant, which someone just mentioned was the largest federal grant offered for any library in any town in the country. And I think that's something to really, really be proud of. And it really excites me when I think that Jones Library had been recognized for its excellence and the commitment of the town. So thank you very much for your past support. And I hope you will support it again tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Rudy Perkins, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Hi, Rudy Perkins, 42 Cherry Lane and Amherst. Can you hear me all right? We can. Excellent. Thanks. I just wanted to I'm not going to comment which way you should vote. But if you do vote in favor of raising the cap, I think you still need to make some changes to the Second Amendment to the MOA in order to protect the town's financial interest going forward. The fact sheet that was put out December 2nd says that the trustees and the town manager have signed binding agreements that any cost beyond the mass Board of Library commissioners, NBLC and town commitments are the responsibilities of the trustees. Bravo. But that language is not in the MOA or the Second Amendment. So I think you need to get that language into the amendment so that it's very clear that if there are further cost increases, those are not going to be the responsibility of the town, they're going to be the responsibility of the library. And as I suggested and others did, we're actually fronting the money potentially while the library gets donations before they transfer the funds in. And the thought came up, I think at your last meeting, that you should charge the any ban interest that we have to pay to cover that should be covered by the library. That's only fair. This is they've made the commitment to contribute a certain amount into this project. And it has to be put in in a timely way. And if it isn't and we have to borrow to cover it, they should pick up the interest tab on that. I think you should attach the cash flow plan as a schedule to the MOA so that everybody knows the commitment and that will help define what interest payments are being made covering the tardy payments into the project. And finally, you should have a mortgage so that you have an enforcement mechanism for payments owed. So if you go ahead, please make those changes or some need to wrap up, please. Rebecca Nordstrom. Hi, my name is Rebecca Nordstrom and I live on 39 Dana Street, District 3, and I'm here to support wholeheartedly the library renovation and expansion project. I also want to express great appreciation to the library trustees, the staff, all the people who have been working on this project tirelessly for years now. And I think they've done a fantastic job of sharing their process with us along the way, and I've seen the plans and I've gone to meetings and I've heard about them and I'm just I'm just incredibly impressed with what what they have planned and I really hope that you will vote to amend the cap so that they'll be able to move ahead with this for all the reasons that all the other people before me have stated. Thank you. Next. OK, Janna Keller, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Peanut, you need to unmute. Thank you. Hi, thanks for the opportunity to speak. I'm asking you to vote no for raising the library project borrowing cap for the nine eight nine point eight million supplemental appropriation, bringing the total authorization to the project for two forty six million one. This project is not the highest priority in town. Please consider pressing on address needs like repairing pothole filled streets and unsafe sidewalks, completing new school, building a new fire station and the DPW building, investing in net zero upgrades in town buildings, including the library to reduce energy costs and avert damage from climate change impacts like the flooding we had this summer. Please say no. Thanks. Thank you. Deb Leonard, please come on up. Hi, my name is Deb Leonard. I live on Old Farm Road and I'm here to encourage you to vote yes to raise the borrowing borrowing cap. I would like to say that a no vote to be absolutely clear is not a pause. It's not a vote for the roads. It's not a vote for the DPW building. It's not a vote for the fire station. It's not a vote for lower taxes. It's not a vote for democracy. It's not a vote for fiscal responsibility, whereas a yes vote is a vote to support the wishes of the voters. It's support the compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It's to support a free place for teens to go in town without having to drop money on bubble tea. It's a it's a vote to support a building that better supports English language learners, those without high speed internet at home and our goals of environmental sustainability in some it's a vote to support the values of our community. It's been said that if you want to see where communities values lie, look at the money. So let's put our money where our mouths are. I would like to say on a personal note, I drive a 20 year old beat up minivan, so I'm not big on spending money. I like to stretch my dollars just like everyone else does. My minivan supports my needs. It does what I need it to do. People suggest perhaps that it's time to re-indust. And I would if that minivan better supported the needs of my family, myself, my safety, this this new library, this expanded library, this renovated library will will better support the needs of our community and reflect our values. Thank you. Thank you. The last person that is on Zoom in the last personal call on from Zoom is John. Please enter the room, state your name and where you live. We cannot hear you and you need to state your full name. Can you? Yes, now we can hear you. No, we can't. Now you mute it. Now you need to unmute and stay unmuted. I just want to mention that I made the last call for Zoom in the audience. Oh, can you hear me now? We can. OK, thank you. This is John from Cherry Lane. I have a concern for the rental property by law proposal. In that proposal, there is a magic number of 25. So the landlord with 25 or more properties or landlord with less than 25 properties, they have different treatment. So with for landlord with less than 25 properties, all his or her property will be inspected 100 percent within five year period. For a landlord with more than 25, let's say 100, potentially only 20 percent of the property will be inspected every five years. So this created two tiers of citizens in the town, two tiers of landlord and two tiers of tenants. So for the tenants who happen to run from mom and pop landlord, he will subject to inspections every five years. If a tenant happened to run from like a huge apartment complex, he or she, the tenant will only subject to such like 20 percent of a chance or maybe a definite chance, but only 20 years will have an inspection. So this is I feel like this has a like an unjust duty, I'm sorry, unjust burden on the mom and pop landlord. And then, you know, people in this town will be treated differently, you know, for the landlord, two tiers of landlord, for tenants, two tiers of tenants. So I feel this is a need to, you know, warrant some kind of consideration on the bylaw. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to only take comments from those people who are in the room from now on. Tom Crossman, I can't hear you. OK, Rob Cusner. I've been sitting so long, must I? Yes, I'd rather just stand for a minute. I'm sorry, we only have two minutes. And I just want to say the last speaker who was obviously not on the topic of the library, I hope you will think about that also. So now I'd like to talk about the library. I've been in town now for nearly 35 years. I think this is my 36th year in town with some absences. And I spent three of those years in this room quite a bit, serving like you, the public, I hope. And during that time, I served also in the Joint Capital Planning Committee when the library that I love quite a bit. In fact, I borrowed a book from a library, but this is from a little library rather than Jones, when I'm reading now, Empire Falls. Think about the title. The Jones Library is a library that I considered as a space and it's also as a historical structure, the space I can see from the testimony tonight needs to be improved. And I think we all agree with that. And then the story that you then have to face is is it going to be an improvement that's sensitive to the historical structure or to the current needs of the town? And that's where I think a lot of the tension is happening. There's also the financial tension, which I'm hearing from many of the folks here. And many of us can afford the small tax increase in your to our benefits, hopefully at some point in improving the space, but some of us won't. And none of us will ever be able to regain historical structure that exists there now. So I'm asking all of you, all 13 of you who have the opportunity to vote on this and the whatever number of you are supported by whichever party to think very carefully before you cast a vote either tonight or the next few meetings that you have about the kind of commitment you're making to both the historical space, which will not be preserved. In fact, it will be demolished. Let's use English, not new speak, be demolished and replaced by something moderate, maybe it will be something beautiful. I'm excited to think of the beauty that could replace the present beauty. But I'm not convinced that will happen. But tonight. You have a job to think carefully before acting. And I think you've heard advice from both sides about how to think more carefully about whether to go forward tonight. Take some time to think about it. Thank you. Vince O'Connor. Vince O'Connor, 175 Summer Street. First, there has been no public hearing on the the inspection issue. And I have made it clear to some of the landlords in town that I will become a plaintiff to soothe the town regarding any passage of this article. I think it is very premature and a very potentially destructive project to families. With regard to the library, it's a bad project will result in a sterile mausoleum replacing a historic structure. And it is not the project that the voters approved. As a 40 year, 40 plus year town meeting member. I believe that the vote that the town meeting took, which resulted in its departure from the political realm, was an entirely worthwhile vote because it saved the school children of this town. Another 50 years of a bad school. Similar to the Fort River School, which was protested by the Wildwood parents and built anyway over their objections. That was a bad project. It was a bad organizational structure for the schools. And it was worth sacrificing the town meeting to get rid of that project and replace it with something which I think we can believe in. Second, I am appalled by the fact of how much the fundraisers are going to profit from this activity. And every member of this council should be appalled. You need to wrap up, Vince. We're restricted to two minutes today. Finally, with regard to Amherst College and their thing. Vince, who pledged what to the Amherst College president in return for what? Oh, and to give a million dollars your two projects as an insult to the parent of every child in the public schools of this town. Thank you. James, Afria, my name is James Afria. This is my first town council meeting. I live in the Colonial Village Apartments in Amherst. I am not familiar with all of the things in the new proposed rental bylaw proposal, but I do believe that landlords should be held accountable for the conditions of their properties to the fullest extent and that all of the properties in Amherst should be more affordable for newer generations of tenants. And I'm going to be doing more research on this bylaw in my free time because I'm very curious about it. I am in support of increasing the borrowing cap for the Jones Library expansion and renovation. I'm a queer, disabled, poor, transgender UMass Amherst student. I am from a generation of students that is uniquely disillusioned by a national political landscape that refuses to invest in marginalized members of our society. I personally don't really care how much money the library gets, although the borrowing cap increase would be incredibly beneficial to everyone who lives here. I believe Amherst has the moral and ethical duty to invest in public infrastructure and in doing so invest in all its broke college students, all its unhoused and all its previously incarcerated residents. Everyone in this town deserves equitable access to learning and recreation in a safe community based setting. I find the idea that we cannot have a better library because of other infrastructure needs to be an unimaginative political stance. The free resources of the Jones Library are essential for my ability to access research texts post graduation and to participate in local community gatherings that do not revolve around loud nightlife. This library facilitates access to a love of learning that will follow me as long as I live. I deserve a beautiful, necessary, expansive library. I deserve a safe and clean library. We all do. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Monica Moran, please come up. Hi, Monica Moran, 37 carriage lane. I want to start by thanking all of you and everybody who's worked on this. And I'm here strongly in favor of lifting the borrowing cap. I think everyone's been really articulate. I don't have much to add in terms of facts. I will add that my youngest child of both my kids I raised here. My youngest is 21. They pretty much grew up as an elementary school kid in the library, not so much as a teen because there wasn't a space really that worked. But they never lost their love for the library. And they couldn't come today because they are working at the library in Tivoli, New York, where they go to college, so they want to become a librarian. And they are so excited about the library expansion. And the, you know, they've looked at the stuff and they're like, oh, my gosh, this is amazing and maybe I'll even come back to Amherst and work in this library. So I just partly just want to say thank you to the town for the great, you know, stuff that the great experiences she had in the library. But also, you know, to ask to have the vision for the young people. She thinks the designs are fabulous. She thinks it would be a much more welcoming space. So for, you know, to bring in people, young people like that, I think this is a great project and again, I'm just really grateful. So thank you. Thank you for joining us. Nina Menken, please come up. My name is Nina Menken and I have been a resident. My family has been a resident in Amherst for almost six decades. We've been paying taxes here for almost six decades. And I very much look forward to my teenager having a space in the center of town to be able to go to. Because I won't let him go to the basement of the library. Now, I want to say that as a child, I saw the vibrant community that we had downtown. I've witnessed that community and that space, that vibrancy diminished to almost nothing in my lifetime, and I've watched it grow and I applaud the efforts of the town and all of the people who are trying to bring back that kind of vibrancy. And I I've seen 21st century community libraries that are incredibly different than a 20th or a 19th or an 18th century library. And I've seen what they've done for communities in other Western countries, governments pay to build and update public libraries in our country. If we're lucky, we get a government incentive for our community to buck up and raise those funds. I am incredibly grateful for the volunteers and professionals that Jones Library has brought together to realize what I believe is a truly American dream. And they are doing an amazing job. In my mind, this is a cause for unity and celebration and most certainly for municipal support and gratitude for the tens of millions of dollars in investment that this group is bringing to us. I was in town meeting in 27. I was a member of town meeting in 2017 when we voted to move forward with this state grant. That is a vote about fulfilling a dedication to a project that we now have the opportunity to realize our electorate has voted in favor of fulfilling that promise, and I ask you to honor that. Thank you. Thank you. That's everyone on my list. OK, thank you. That concludes public comment. Sure. I just want to apologize to my colleagues and the public for showing my support to one person who is speaking about coming out of the closet. OK, thank you. All right. We're going to rapidly move through the consent agenda and let me just mention that the town manager and I are supposed to give our state of the town addresses tonight. We are not going to do that until we finish the solar bylaw because of the all of the people who are here for other reasons. The following item was selected and I'm going to just tell you up front that the only item on the consent agenda is referral of the Charter Review Committee appointment recommendation process to G.O.L. Governance Organization Legislation Committee. The other item that was on the consent agenda was the 2024 Town Council meeting calendar, and I've removed that because it was apparent that there was some need for discussion. So the motion is to move the following item and the printed motions they're under and approve those item, that item as a single unit referral of Charter Review Committee appointment recommendation process to G.O.L. Committee, is there a second? Second. OK, are there any other questions or comments? Then we'll move to Pat DeAngelis. I Anna Devlin, Gauthier. I Lynn Griesmars and I'm Andy Johanicki. I Annika Lopes. I Michelle Miller. I Dorothy Pam. Yes, Pam Rooney. Yes, Kathy Shane. Yes, Andy Steinberg. Yes, Jennifer Taub. Yes, Alicia Walker. Yes, Shalini Balmille. Yes, she nanoms. Thank you. So we're going to skip over item seven for the moment and move right on to action item eight, which is the supplemental appropriation for the expansion and renovation of the Jones Library said some to supplement the amount appropriated under the Town Council, April 5th, 2021 order approving and authorizing borrowing funds for the expansion and renovation of the Jones Library. Given the length of the motion, I'm going to ask that the town clerk, I mean, a clerk to the Town Council, please put it on the screen. Begin in accordance with Charter section five point six, having been published on the Town Bulletin Board for a minimum of 10 days on November 9th, 2023, a public forum held on November 20th, 2023, and having been received by the Finance Committee, reviewed by the Finance Committee report of December 4th, 2023, to appropriate the sum of nine, nine million eight hundred sixty thousand one hundred dollars for the expansion and renovation of the Jones Library location at 43 Amity Street, Amherst, Massachusetts said some to supplement the amount appropriated under the Town Council's April 5th, 2021 order approving and authorizing borrowing of funds for the expansion and renovation of the Jones Library for a total appropriation of forty six million one hundred and thirty six one hundred and thirty nine thousand eight hundred eight hundred dollars and to meet the supplemental appropriation here under to authorize the treasure with the approval of the Town Manager to borrow said amount under and pursuant to mass general law chapter 44 section seven or eight or pursuant to any other enabling authority and to issue bonds or notes of the town thereof. Therefore, is there a second? Second, Hanukkah. Thank you. Now, with that, the floor is open for discussion. Andy, no, I'm sorry, it's not open for discussion. We are going to go to the Finance Committee report. Actually, I needed to make a disclosure. OK, please do. Yes, I need to make a disclosure of an appearance of conflict of interest as required by mass general law chapter twenty six to sixty eight a. Jeff, section twenty three B three. My wife is a part time employee of the library working a half day per week at branch libraries. I have consulted with the Ethics Commission. Public employees are not allowed to participate if in a public excuse me, public employees may not participate in their public position in matters in which there's any immediate family member who has a financial interest. I have consulted with the Ethics Commission and determined that neither I nor a member of my family will have any financial benefit or loss as a result of the council decision on this matter. Thank you. Are there any other disclosures that need to happen at this time? None. Then Andy, Finance Committee report. The Finance Committee report has been provided with writing to the council and just a place for the package. Point of order, Andy. We can't hear you on Zoom. Speak closer to the mic. OK, I'll try again. Does that work, Michelle? Michelle, yes. Yeah, OK, yes. OK. So I said the Finance Committee report is been has been provided to the town council as a written report and is available and has been available for the past several days in the packet so it's available to the public. Therefore, I'm not going to repeat the entire report, but just to indicate that the committee voted and made two separate actions. The first one was to ask the town manager to approach the Jones Library about an amendment to the memorandum of agreement. And he has reported back to us about the results of that discussion. And I think that it addresses the issues that we wanted to make sure that were clarified. The second one was the motion to recommend that we as a committee recommend to the council that you approve the motion that is on the floor. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Right. Thank you. I'm going to ask the town manager to update us regarding the memorandum of agreement discussions with the Jones Library trustees. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you, Lynn. So after the finance committee meeting, the finance committee voted to ask for a second memorandum amendment to the memorandum agreement with the library trustees. We've drafted something up. The library trustees have, I believe, is in the packet tonight. And basically it was to clarify how the funds were going to flow, because the two other agreements were were not as explicit. We tried to make the I try to make this as explicit as possible. That information has been delivered to the town council. The library trustees vote met on Friday afternoon and they voted to support this in principle. There's not a signed agreement, but this is sort of what you have in front of you is the framework for what would be agreed to. OK. I might also mention at that meeting, which I observed, but was not part of the library trustees also voted that upon approval by the town council of the Jones Library renovation and expansion project, the library shall begin to transfer the assets derived from the following funds, Stone, Potash, B, E and R, Van Steinberg and Runberg to the town for the use on the project. The estimation at this time is that that amount is a little over two hundred ninety thousand dollars. So with that, we the floor is now open for council questions and discussion. Pam Rooney. Thank you. And I appreciate all the comments that were made tonight. It gives a very good sense of the opinions of the folks who showed up tonight. I appreciate also that the town manager is beginning to work again with the Jones trustees and would greatly appreciate a memorandum of agreement that, in fact, cements the the commitment by the library, by the Jones trustees to cover the difference in the cost to the project. So I would I would love to see a finalized or close to finalized MOA that can be shared with the council before I'm ready to vote on how that. Before I'm ready to vote on it. Are there specific things you have a copy of the MOA? Are there specific things that you were looking for? Is this the place to discuss our our desires? And yes, OK. Am I the right person to be speaking? You're the one that has the floor. Yes, I would like very much to I would like to look at the item number five. Which is the fact that the library has agreed to provide funds of X amount, which is the 13 eight for the balance of the new total project share. I would like to have included in that in that statement or as needed to complete the project, something of that nature. It's very important that if there is yet another difference in the amount that the the library is not capped at contributing simply. And it's a very large amount of 13 eight to two five one eight. So if it came in significantly over that, I would want to make sure that it is also clear that. They will provide those funds. OK. Mr. Bachman, you have your hand up. Yes, thank you. So I want to be clear what the council is voting on tonight. So the request is to vote on an appropriation amount of forty six point one million dollars. That's the number if the number if the bid comes in higher than that. And there isn't a way to value engineer it down. We cannot sign a contract higher than that amount without an additional action by the town council to provide the the funding for the difference. So so I just want to be clear what, you know, if people say oh cost escalations, the number you are asking to be asked to to approve tonight is forty six point one million as stated in the actual motion. And then the idea of the memorandum of agreement is to outline exactly where that forty six point one million dollars will come from. Some of it will come from the from the town through a borrowing of the town. The council has to authorize or has already authorized some of it will come from the MVLC. And the rest of it will come from the Jones Library, their fund, various fundraising efforts and securing other grants. So I hope that it helps clarify that it can't go above forty six point one million unless the council appropriates additional funds. Pam, please. So I think that that we're all in agreement that we could easily say to the to the trustees, then number five and or even number six could have that kind of writing in it or is needed to complete the project just to remind us all that that is where the difference or the remainder of any project comes in. If they come in lower than that amount, great. But if it comes in over the thirteen eight, I just want it in writing. I'm not comfortable voting on a new authorization without having that in writing. Jennifer, you have your hand up. I'm sorry. Oh, it's taken down. I'm sorry, of course, Dorothy. This question is probably to Paul. What I think so many people are afraid of is that we're going to be in a position where the town has spent tremendous money and the library, too. And we're going to find out that we have to spend more and more and more. And people say, well, you just have to do it. And that will be just forced to do it at a cost of public safety, which is a concern that people keep bringing to me again and again and again. People want the library to be clean and safe and up to date, but not at the cost of public health and public safety. So how far down the road can the town be can someone come to the town and say, listen, I know you said did this and you gave that. But here we are and we just can't do it and they've raised the price. I wonder how far down that can be or whether this would happen earlier in the process. Mr. Bachman, well, the council is its own body. Anybody can make a motion when they see fit. So that's totally in the hands of the town council. You know, I think once when we get to a bid document and I think someone spoke eloquently about why you need the appropriation before you go out to bid, companies will spend tens of thousand dollars preparing a bid for this project. If they and if there's if the funding isn't secured, they may decide not to support put in a bid for the project. They need, you know, they're not going to expand a lot of money to prepare a bid document. This is a pretty extensive bid document that we ask for because it's a significant major public building and a lot of things that they have to comply with. So once the bid is secured and we have a contract, that's when we will know what the what the cost is. But the problem with that and it's like we've done this with the library with the school as well, we've appropriated a sum of money. It's up to the building committee now to we've done to bid out a project that we think will fit within the cap that potentially that you if you vote the forty six point one million to vote a project that will come in under that borrowing that appropriation. And I think, you know, the way you do that is you do some value engineering. You have add-ons. If we have money, we will do these things. But that's that's going to be the building committee's responsibility to do that. Thank you. Anna. So I was thinking about what Pam was suggesting. And I think my concern at first I was like, sure, right. Like we should we should absolutely put some sort of caveat in there. But then I think where my concern goes is that we kind of actually make the MOU weaker in doing that because we're not setting a specified amount. And I believe that if I mean, this is the this is the limit, right? That that borrowing is the limit. And so by setting a set standard on what the town is responsible for and what the trustees are are responsible for, we're setting the expectation that this is the final vote that we're going to take on this and that any extra costs would start this whole process of revoting a borrowing authorization over again, which no one wants to do. So I think for me, the specificity is important because I think it shows that this is it that math adds up and that is the cap. Like that is the limit on the on the borrowing. I think that's how I'm working it through in my in my head. Yeah. Thank you, Kathy. I have a longish statement. I won't go super long, Lynn, but I just want to make two comments about the agreement we're looking at. One is it's an amendment to an existing agreement that it still refers to. And some of this confusion is coming from that we didn't have time to rewrite the whole original, the two thousand and twenty one. So in the original, those terms still are there that every time the library gets money, they're going to transfer to us and some of these commitments and authorization. So I think the effort to strengthen this wording, even if it's repetitive, is worth doing because it's hard to read two documents. The other quick comment, Lynn, is I'm a little surprised on the actual order that it doesn't have the additional table. When we voted in twenty twenty one, we said anticipated funding sources and we had a very clear document and that's been helpful to me and I have a copy of it because the Finance Committee got it. It was just reminding ourselves of what the library's obligation was, what the MBLLC and I'd like that added. Paul has it. I would just like it added to the order. It that's the document that we were provided back. I believe it was the thirteenth of November. Yeah, and it just when we did the order in twenty twenty one, it was anticipated funding sources, which was a way we did it attached to the order. So it just made it very clear of there were some big numbers coming in. But I just want to make so I just want to suggest that if we attached to the order, it would be helpful. It is the intent. So I want to say that I really applaud the trustees and our state and congressional legislative reps for what they've been able to do. They've secured more than four and a half million dollars in four large grants. I voted against continuing a year ago because I didn't believe anything like this was possible. They have certainly exceeded my expectations. And there is a lot of money at risk. I am still concerned about the financial risk to the town that although the intentions are to limit it to fifteen point eight and one million in CPAC that these could be higher because there's still a gap. So the reason I'd like to see a tighter ban, both on the assurance that any higher any shortfall will be the trustees obligation and a commitment in its item nine right now that trustees would be willing to pay a share of the short term ban costs. And just for all the audience out there with the best guess on funding flow right now, that's it comes to about seven hundred and fifty thousand over a two year period. And that money's for three years. It's got to come out of our cash flow. So if they can't accelerate money enough to bring it down, I'd like to mend the clause in the ban and say there would be a willingness to share that cost with that kind of change. I am cautiously willing to say yes on this project, because I think we do have we don't have a plan B. It really has died against the wall and the library needs urgent action. I also have heard more and more and we heard tonight on the positive side of an expanded space. If I think of this as public space, of our space, of our community space, we need space for music events, festive gatherings, celebrations and more families with young children coming and meeting together, not just to get books. And so if we really think that we're going to have a new public space and there's going to be programming that others of us can work on, not just library functions, but also this this is an exciting opportunity. So if we can tighten the MOA, I can be convinced to be a cautious yes. And I want to remind people I voted way back when I am staying because I was worried about the risk. Then I voted no because I thought the risk was extreme last year. I think it's still high, but we can't get rid of it all together. So the council owes it to the taxpayers to get as tight a ban agreement as we can and to keep the incentive on the trustees to get us money quickly because they're on the hook for some of that short term interest. So keeping that incentive, I know they want to. So I'll end there with my comments. The other thing we have been told publicly, I would like a commitment that no one's coming back to us for furniture, for audio visual, because I know the budget's very tight, that they'll raise monies for that because we don't we're not going to have the capital funds over the next few years. We want the library to be really functional and there is a commitment to secure a bank loan if they need to, because the funding doesn't come up to what they need. I think that's a great idea and I think it's feasible. So I would like it to not just be a verbal commitment, but to have it somewhere in writing that the trustees are really working on behalf of the whole town, not just the library. Thank you. Anna, you have your hand up again. I remember the second part of my comment. The other thing I was curious about is to the earlier point regarding the specificity of the amount the library is responsible for raising, does that mean that if they somehow miraculously raise more than that, that they can't give that to the project as well? I think my question is if for some reason they go over, are we then limiting that contribution and possibly eliminating a possibility to reduce the burden on the town? I'm just it's a very optimistic take, but I just wanted to say it. Great take. Having been part of a capital campaign that raised more than we needed, I'll tell you what we did. We put it in a fund and said it could only be used for purposes of that project. And guess what? Furniture, et cetera, is purposes of that project. So in my mind, they can spend it on the project. I know it. Paul, you had your hand up. I was going to say the same thing that it's they don't have it would be for this project, but they would be funds. Their only commitment is to the funds that we put down on the piece of paper. So there's two questions that have been raised about the MOU. One is a question about what happens if the project cost is greater and can we add to the MOU something that suggests that the library would be responsible for any increase? And the other is that the library would participate in sharing the cost of interest on the short term bands. I would like agreement if you don't mind to have the cash flow shown for a moment and specifically the second table. There was a revised cash flow developed on and shared with the finance committee on November 28th. That is the cash flow that you're now looking at. And the reason I want to show this is because the reason that we. No, that's that is page that is attachment A. This is this we received from the library. It was based on receiving this from the library that the numbers were plugged in for the library contributions. I want to now point out that when you get to. January 31st, 2025, you see that the first bands is borrowed. That's 14 million. At that point, the library has shown has actually paid in a fair amount, but they still have about two million more to go. In addition to that, we haven't received all of the MBLC payments. In fact, the MBLC payments, there's still, I believe, if you'll scroll down to the next page, two more to go, three more to go. So the cost of the bands interesting, the short term borrow interesting, is actually more because of or it's about equal because of the payment due from MBLC, as well as the payments still do from the library. So in keeping that in mind, now I want to talk about what we've heard from various people in public meetings. None of this is me personally. OK, we've heard in public meetings that one, we are have already there's already been discussions opened with Amherst College as to whether they would increase the rapidity or the speed with which they would provide their money. That's number one. The second is, is there a way in which the National Endowment for the Humanities and the other federal grant based on match would be able to pay earlier? And that still needs to be explored. The third issue that's been brought up in that is been confirmed, in fact, by our financial advisor for the town. And that is when MBLC at the end of the year has money left, they don't want to give it back because they don't want to lose it. And so what they do is they give it to their existing projects. And so although they have actually promised a sixth payment of one point six million thanks to Senator Comerford and Representative Dom for working so hard for that. That payment will actually probably be received over the five year period of the other payments because they give money when they have it, because they don't want to give it back to the Commonwealth. And that was, as I mentioned, confirmed by David Eisenthal, our own financial advisor, because he has seen that happen in other towns. So the possibility of having more money come in earlier is already being looked at. That's my purpose of pointing all of that out. And the reason I wanted to show that is because when we look at the MOU, we have already stated the following, the library and the town will do everything possible to expedite providing funds to the town to avoid or minimize the amount and timing of the short term loans slash bans during construction. This will not increase the new library share of the project. So in other words, paying early doesn't mean you pay more. It just means you pay early, thus reducing the need to borrow. So with that, I'm going to go back to other people that might like to speak. Jennifer. But I guess it's picking up on Kathy's suggestion. I mean, could we still amend that number nine or to to add language to the effect of, you know, as needed, the library will participate in paying down the interest on the short term bans? So I want to go back to the issue of the MOU. We don't sign the MOU. The town manager signs the MOU. OK, if the if what we're asking is the town manager to go back and negotiate with the board of trustees to make amendments to the MOU, then we can like the finance committee did make a motion that suggests that you would like to see have the town manager look into this as a possibility. That's all we otherwise we don't just like we don't sign contracts. We also don't sign MOUs, MOAs. So I did have a question. So the the MOA still needs to be agreed upon by the trustees. Yes, it does. It needs to be signed by the trustees. They have agreed in principle. And can that happen before we vote? It would have to happen when the trustees have an actual meeting. So it delays our vote. Andy, Joe, a couple of things. The trustees have agreed in principle to sign in that MOU. I don't see why we cannot trust our fellow elected officials that they will uphold their word on that agreement and I'm looking at the. Cash flow, revised cash flow from twenty twenty one April of twenty twenty one that was provided to us when we first voted this. And if I read that, it's hard to read. But what I read from that one is that we were going to take out 15 million on that revised cash flow that was given to us in twenty twenty one when we originally voted this project in March of twenty twenty three and starting current bans and go bonds in March of twenty twenty three for this project before the six million from the trustees would have been raised. And then another two point seven million in March of twenty twenty four and another two point two five million in March of twenty twenty four so that all bans would have been issued I believe two years before the project was finished, including the bans needed to do short term borrowing from the six million from the library trustees. The new cash flow from what I can potentially understand is that we are trying to minimize that. But what I guess I've not seen is much of a difference in how much that cash flow borrowing is in bans between what we were suspecting would be required by the town when we voted in twenty twenty one to authorize this project because of the library financing and when the money would come in then and the expected borrowing for now. The interest rates are different from twenty twenty one because well, the interest rates were different then, but we've authorized that borrowing and the interest rates would be whatever they were when we borrowed, which if we borrowed the money in twenty twenty three, I can tell you the rate that was predicted in twenty twenty one of two twenty twenty eight, oh, percent would never have happened. We know that because six months ago it would not have happened. We would have been at the four or five that's being predicted now. So I guess I don't understand. Where the concern is about the interest rate now, because it looks to me like the money we authorized and knew might need to be paid by bands, including bands for the money we were expecting the town, the trustees to raise back when we authorized this project in twenty twenty one has not really changed. And so if in twenty twenty one, we were not forcing or expecting or asking for an MOU that the library incur the interest payments on those bands for their portion. I'd like to know why we are expecting it now and that that indication has changed. Lynn, can I respond? Pam's actually got her hand up, but if Pam wants to yield to you, that's fine. Go ahead, Mandy. I am looking at exactly the same sheet as you are. And one thing you didn't mention is that we were told that the total interest on the five million for the short term bands in twenty twenty one, the total would be forty eight thousand. That was the sum and it was so small compared to everything else we were doing. It just didn't draw any attention. And it's because we were borrowing only five point five million for six months to six months bands. Now we're talking about borrowing twenty two point seven million dollars in one year each bands for an optimistic seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. So it's that difference that will put pressure on our capital budgets. At forty eight thousand, it was just a small amount of money. And we we have a five year and a ten year plan that it would be quickly absorbed. We have a very tough picture when I look at twenty twenty five and twenty twenty six if we have to bear all that cost. And yes, if the trustees expedite and bring more in, remember, we are already looking at their best guess. But if they could bring in several million more, we wouldn't have to borrow as much. It's it's because of that additional cost of the library and that there's a gap that we're having to borrow more. And Lin is absolutely right. Some of that interest cost is because NBLC is paying us slower. So it's not all because of the library's piece. So what I wanted to do is as needed a share of and I have specific wording. So it is to lower the pressure on our capital budgets. Absorbing five hundred thousand in the first year. Another we have the specific numbers is really difficult, given what we had already put on the books for those years. So, yes, there were bands before. Yes, there are bands now. But it's a quantitative huge difference in terms of the impact. It pales, pales when you compare it to forty six million, but it's still real money. OK, Mandy, you wanted to. I'm going to let this conversation fit go back and forth until we settle with. So the page I'm looking at has bands of two point three million, two point two six million and eight and a half million, not just two million, Kathy. And they were all for a full year. They were all at different interest rates. Those interest rates were speculative because, well, we don't know the actual interest rates and those interest rates would not have held number one, number two, the twenty two million you just cited for this project is not the trustee's share that you're citing interest on. That's also our share on bands. That's also the MBLC one, all of which are sharing the MBLC shares. We would be paying anyway. Are you two looking at the same document with where I'm looking at the one that was in I'm looking at the one that was in the financial packet and there were only two two bands and it was dated at the same time we were starting to vote on this. So if there's a more updated one, my point was it was just much smaller. And the gap, the gap in what the trustee's funding was was only five point five. It was just a lower amount. So for the public, excuse me, but for the purpose of the public record, Cathy, I need you to advance to the town clerk of the town council, the document you're looking at. Mandy, Joe, what document are you my document was in the April 5th, twenty twenty one packet the day we voted that bond titled eight B. Jones Library trustee's financial information regarding expansion project, presentation and video, then Mandy should advance hers because it's more recent than mine. Absolutely. I would like you to advance yours to Athena. So that will be right out from the packet from April 5th, twenty twenty one. Thank you. We do that because when a document is referred to in a public meeting, we then need to make sure it is available to the full public. Did you want me to bring up a specific page, Mandy? The pages I was on, let me go find them again. Were I had pagedown? So now I have to page back up to find what ones I was looking at. Hold on. So pages nineteen. It was an eighty one page document. It's pages nineteen of eighty one and twenty of eighty one. And please make that larger. Thank you. This is very similar to the previous document that you got that the public and the finance committee received for the meeting on the twenty eighth of November. So it's the bands, if you will, the go bonds and bands. We have a fifteen million dollar one, two, two million, seven hundred and fifty thousand and another two million, two hundred and fifty thousand. They use interest rates over here. By the way, those interest rates are like fantasy. They're not like fantasy. They are fantasy. And then as you can see, when you go down to the bottom of this chart, the short term bands, the total on the short term bands is forty eight. And does this show the interest on those short term bands? It was that was the list right there. It does. Right there. Now, this is the repair option, Mandy. The first one is exactly the same number I read. It's forty eight thousand with two with two. So go up. It's exactly what I read out. So I think the number didn't change. It's got two short term bands. If you go up to the top each at about a six month period, March through July, then another one coming in. And that's why the end it's a combination of borrowing less at a lower rate for a shorter amount of time. So I'm not my main point is it's a lot bigger now and that none of us paid attention to that short term interest column because it was so small. I apologize for not seeing that the next page was repair option. Thank you. Both documents have been added to the other thing. I'm going to go back to Pam. Thank you. One of the other I too do appreciate the the trustees and the work. But as we go back and discuss the MOA again, item number nine says there and there's a term that's called the new library share. The new library share is essentially what the the trustees have agreed to. And number nine in the MOA says the library in the town will do everything possible to expedite providing funds to the town, as we discussed, to or minimize to avoid or minimize the amount and timing of the short term loans, bans during construction period. This will not increase the new library share for the project. And I think that to me speaks loudly that the trustees do not expect that they would pay any more than the 138 225 that was stated previously in item number five. So to say this will not increase the new library share of the project, it may those bids may come in above the amount that were that we're expecting. And to make a statement that it won't increase is something that probably should be struck from this agreement. So the intent on nine was not to increase, but by expediting, you would not take out as high a band. So by expediting the payment, it would not be additional money. It would be getting money earlier. Can we say then this expediting will not increase the library share? Sure. Yeah. Otherwise, it reads like we don't care what happens. It ain't going to increase the price. Right. So in other words, expediting payment will not increase the new library share of the project. That does not change the meaning. OK. Are there any other questions or comments? I'm going to ask that you take the image down for the moment. And I'm going to call on Councillor Walker. Alicia. Thank you, Lynn. I just have a couple of concerns, most have been brought up. But I want to know while there are there's some important information that we haven't been able to consider, that would help me to feel like I'm making an informed decision here, like the five year capital budget and ten year debt projections, financial modeling that shows the impact on our reserves and the timeline for the DPW and fire station. And I know I asked for a lot of this information, but what I asked for was a lot of information. So with the short time frame, it's not that I expected to have all of these things available, but I do feel like I'm being rushed to make this decision and that I would absolutely benefit from having more time to consider and to be able to review these types of documents with this kind of information. My other concern is also about the language in the MOA. Again, a lot of my concerns have been brought up. The wording for number nine to be amended. I agree that I would feel more comfortable with more specificity and would like to see some language about what would happen if something doesn't go as planned. I know we've had discussions about alone or the possible use of endowments. And I would like to see language added on those things. And I would also like to see the cash flow added as a schedule of the MOA. And I think some of these things would provide a lot more security for the town. And so my question is what would it look like in terms of process for us to ask the town manager to make amendments to the MOA to to make those agreements with the trustees and then to come back and have the vote at another time? What would that look like? And is that possible in terms of process at this time? It is possible that the town manager could meet again with the trustees between now and our next meeting on the 18th. At that point, they could have another discussion about this MOA and then the trustees would have to go back and agree to it in principle. So do the trustees have another meeting? Sorry, I'm not sure if I missed that before. They can schedule another meeting with all the requirements met for for posting a public meeting. Is that something that's possible for us to know if that's like is that a realistic possibility that we can determine by ourselves right now? Or would we need to hear back from the trustees to know whether or not that that's possible? I certainly don't speak for the trustees, but I'll use this last week as an example within the matter of using the 48 hour rule. They posted a meeting for Friday of this past week. They held that meeting. They actually had a meeting posted for today, but they canceled that meeting. So it seems to me that by example, they have been able to demonstrate their ability to schedule meetings. OK, and sorry, just another question in terms of process, because is that something that's possible for us to decide at this point with a motion already on the floor for some for a different action? The motion on the floor is for a certain action. If we want additional information from the trustees, we could table the motion on the floor. I'm looking to you, Athena. If you were to lay the motion on the table to pause discussion, that would be in order to act on a different motion that needed to be addressed first. Thank you. So if there were a different motion that you wanted to take up before that, then you could lay it on the table or else you could postpone the motion on the floor at a certain time. OK, thank you. Michelle Miller, you have your hand up. That's what I was going to ask if we can postpone to a date certain based on this discussion and based on the current motion that's on the table. We certainly can postpone to a date certain. I also want to just mention that while we can take this discussion, the town manager certainly heard it. I know that there's a number of trustees in the audience, both on Zoom and in person, and they've heard it. That does not guarantee that they will agree to that. What they've agreed to in principle is the MOU before you. Paul, you have your hand up. Yeah, so I would just want to make sure if this is a direction the council decides to go in that we have the entire universe of concerns that the council has that would enable you to vote whenever you choose to take it up next. What would be very I would not want to be engaged in is for this back and forth, multiple times type of thing, you know, and we don't know if the trustees are open to these ideas or not. Well, our mission was to get clarity from the finance committee, was to get clarity on the terms of the payments, which we did in the memorandum of agreement, and also on top of that, I attempted to get the willingness of the trustees to minimize the amount that we are paying on the bans, which are bond anticipation, as this is money we borrow in a short term until the money comes in usually for six months a year, something like that. If we get the money and more money sooner, then we don't have to borrow as much and for as long a time. So that lowers that cost of the bond anticipation. So that was the goal and they had expressed willingness. I think you heard tonight, they have funds set aside that they're going to transfer the town earlier, like immediately, that they're willing to show their good faith effort to do that. You know, I think this this is the memorandum of agreement is pretty clear and it represents in the fact that the trustees have already expressed their openness to it. My concern on the bans language is that we the change is the economic understanding of the proposal between the two bodies. And right now, the bans were always anticipated and is always on every spreadsheet, which is budgeted in our capital improvement program, in fact, to be covered by the town. That's the same. That's the way we always handle our short term borrowing. It sounds if the counselors are saying that those funds should be actually adjusted by the trustees, then that that's that we will go with that request, but I just want to know that the way to know that we did take the effort and achieved the ability to their commitment to lower the length of time, minimize the length of time that we would borrow money and to lower the amount that we would have to borrow. So that was that was the mission I was I thought I had after the finance committee meeting last Tuesday. Shelling. I think I'm hesitant to change the language around anything that suggests that the amount could increase in the memorandum of understanding, even if we're saying that that's going to be on the trustees, because my understanding is that the amount that we're setting here is is what is signaling to the bidders that this is the highest amount within which you're expected to bid and leaving that open is leaving us vulnerable to higher bids. So I think that's another reason we want to just leave it as tight as possible. And the other thing about as everyone else, a few other people have pointed out on Paul just pointed out with respect to interest, we did account for that in April of 2021 when we voted and in given everything that has happened, some things were outside all of our control. There was a request for the vote going to the residents. We did that in 2021, November 2022, because of covid, because of the delays, there has been a tremendous amount of increase, which the trustees have graciously taken on all on themselves. They're not asking to split with the town or they're taking all of that. And they have proven themselves as Kathy stated, they have shown that they are, you know, they've almost raised the amount that this is the cost increase of nine million dollars, they've already raised that we have town, they've raised nine million or advocated through the advocacy, they've been able to raise nine million dollars, which more than covers for the increase, almost covers the increase. All this to say that, you know, we have an amazing group of people here who are raising funds who are residents, the trustees, professional people. And as some of the people have suggested today, it is something that we should be celebrating that we have so many residents. We have the state at the state level, at the local level, we have the historic commissions, all of these agencies supporting the Jones Library. And I think right now we're just one last thing I do want to address is that there is a concern that was raised, even though 75 percent of the emails we've received have been in support of the project, but I do want to acknowledge the 25 percent people who have talked about concerns about increases in taxes. I don't I just wanted to acknowledge that that this is not going to increase your taxes. Yes, it is becoming more expensive to live in Amherst and there are many reasons and we should talk about that at CRC. You're welcome to come to that meeting, a committee. But the library has whatever we had committed to, that's what we're doing right now. And the rest is being taken on by the trustees. So there is not going to be any increase in taxes on the residents because of the library. And everyone is working super hard to make sure that's going to happen. So I just want to also put that out there. Anika. Thank you. I appreciate what you just said, Shalini. And so I'm also just thinking about what we're talking about here is just really being part of a technical process of really any project of the scale and something that's really needed to build confidence in terms of for healthy bidding and funding for future programming, some of which would be very unique for this region. But in terms of those that are considering postponing or wanting more information, I have questions just in regards to what specifically is being looked for like within this time, like into when. So is this by the next meeting? So what are what are we or those who have asked what are you what? Specifically, again, are you looking for or specific changes and and then just last have any of these already been in discussion and have been already round circled with the trustees? Thank you, Anika. Andy. Appreciate the desire of the council to make sure that you have a full understanding of the agreement that we have. But I think that we also have to be realistic about what is at stake here, because if we, you know, if the concern is the implication and the pressure that this might place on our capital plan, I think you also have to look at the ultimately, not necessarily tonight, it's fun when we vote. But when we vote yet, we have to consider the impact of saying no to the proposal. That what it will have is an impact on our capital plan over the next years, because we know that we're then in a position where the town is going to be looked to, to do repairs that we would have done years ago, but did not the library do unnecessary things or absolutely because it was why it's idea to try and and you can't be heard. If we don't address it at this point, then the next thing that's going to happen is that we're going to have the town capital plan looking at the repairs that are going to cost, which were originally estimated in the memo in the fall of 19 to 21 million. And now they're increased significantly because of things that were not anticipated in a special removal code. So what the impact is, it's going to be much greater. OK, Michelle. I'd like to give Alicia if Alicia wants to speak before me. I can wait, Alicia. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you, Lynn. Yeah, so I just wanted to sort of just respond to a few of the previous counselors in saying that I did send a list of information that I would like to see to the town manager prior to last week's council meeting and not to anyone's fault, because I know it was a long list of information and such a short period of time to gather such information, but I'm still interested on receiving that information and do still believe that it will help me feel like I'm making informed decision and it's a list of documents that I'd be happy to share if anyone wants to hear the full list of those things tonight, but I've already sent them to the town manager over a week ago. And so again, those are some of the things that I would like to be able to review. And I would like to just see the updated language in the MOA. So I would be interested at having more time to review those documents. And I think we did hear that it's possible to do that in a way that doesn't necessarily delay being able to take next steps. And so I think that that's the direction that I'm leaning in tonight, because I would like to know I would like to have that security for the town and I would like to know that I'm making an informed decision. And I think as, you know, to go off of what Andy said, it would be helpful to also see that in a five year capital plan. What would it look like if we said no, what would it look like if we're moving forward with this, like that that is the exact information that I would like to be able to look at before making this decision? I just want to point out, we'll make sure that it's in the packet. But many of those, all of those questions were recorded and to the extent that we were able to answer them at the time, they were answered in the Q&A that was provided to the finance committee, including the whole issue of indebtedness was in another chart. The issue of where do we stand with the capital plan? I know that the town manager has consulted, I believe, with our former finance director who has looked at the thing and does not see a significant difference so that those questions, in fact, Alicia, were recorded. They are on the Q&A and there are answers to the best of our ability to provide them, Alicia, I mean, Michelle, I'm going to come back to you. OK, so if I understand we have a revised MOU that has been agreed to by a handshake for now by the trustees, but that will be put into some formality shortly. We also have additional requests for the MOU that have been raised by enough counselors tonight that I think that postponing until a date certain, which I think would be the December 18th meeting in order to give the town manager the opportunity to negotiate those additional requests with the trustees, is a way to get us, I think, as a body more solid in advancing this. So can I make a motion now to OK. So is the motion to amend the current motion to or to postpone the current motion to December 18th so that the town manager has the opportunity to negotiate the additional requests as well as to formalize the requests that have already been incorporated in the MOU? It would be a motion to postpone the motion on the floor to December 18th. Motion is on the floor. Is there a second second, Rooney? OK, are there any other questions or comments? Dorothy, I just want to say that the postponing, at least to my understanding, is not part of any plan of constantly working against this proposal. But it's part of a plan of finding a way to yes. So I strongly recommend that we do postpone it because I think that we can come together with just a little bit more clarification. Mandy, Joe. I would like clarification, I guess, from the counselors before I make a decision on this motion to postpone and then I might have a question after that. What exactly? I know there's been a lot of discussion about what might change, but what exactly would we be asking the town manager to renegotiate? And are we expecting a signed MOU before we vote? Because if we are, I'd like to have that discussion. And so I'd like from the counselors that are seeking changes to the MOU indication, whether they are also expecting the trustees to sign an MOU before we've even agreed to borrow more money. I also want to stress that all the town manager can do is carry a message. It's up to the trustees as to whether they will negotiate terms. So with that, Jennifer, you're one of the people that would like changes. And Pam and Kathy, Jennifer. OK, well, I do want to ask the clarification. Sure, it may be pretty obvious. But I so the trustees wouldn't sign an MOU because they don't know if we're going to. I mean, that that can't happen. So I guess what I'm asking Paul is when you say they've agreed to this in principle, have the trustees met and seen this MOU? Yes, they met on Friday afternoon. I wasn't at the meeting. I think Lynn was in attendance and she talked about that. And what they what was reported back to me is that they voted in principle to support support it. I think they were hesitant to vote for it, not knowing if the council was going to vote for this or not. So it's kind of the car before the horse. I mean, what yeah, well, we. Will it always be? So could they vote on it before? Not that they would sign it, but. If I have clarity in exactly what the council's expectations are and it's a negotiation, it's not like put this in and it happens. And we are confident that there isn't anything else coming up, which is what my fear is, is that you're I become an errand boy and it's going to go back and forth. It's not going to be it's not going to be productive. It's not fair to the your your fellow elected officials either. So I think if I have clarity about what it is, the pieces that you want to put into it that you're asking for, I'm happy to have that conversation with it. But I again, I want to point out that's subject to the trustees agreeing. We can ask for whatever we want, but they have to agree. So I have another question if I could really, because I was in the brought it up about the trustees possibly being asked to participate in paying down the interest on the bands and you're saying. We don't want to do that. There's I just want to be clear on that. I'm not a financial person. Well, we will take any money that anyone wants to give us because that reduces the the amount that we're coming out of our capital for other things. So what what we accomplished, I think, was a good thing in that they agreed to push money to us as soon as they get it in a faster way. And also that will help us reduce the amount that we have to borrow and reduce the time we have to borrow it, which does reduce the interest cost. So you don't feel we need to add that because of. We have to add it. You know, it's yeah, I mean. The more we. I feel like we've been we've been very straightforward with the trustees. I think they're they're they're they're elected officials like you are. I think we have to treat them with respect and they have they represent the library. You represent the town is we're all on the same team. And I think the idea is to get to an agreement that everybody feels that they are responsibly can sustain. We're not and I think that they will they have already shown that they will make a good faith effort to expedite funding to us. So I think to then sort of go the next step, you know, I certainly push for it, if that's what the council feels is important for in order for you to say yes to this project. Yeah, I would trust your judgment. OK, so the question is still on the floor. Kathy, Pam, which one of you wants to go next, Pam? I would I really would like clarification on. I would expect that. The town manager would work with the trustees would come up with an with an MOA that they will will offer up. I suspect once it's offered up, it's not likely to change. We can we can bless it. It can get signed. I was sort of thinking that the process would be that they would sign an agreement and bring it back to us just to show us that it's reflecting everything that we've talked about. What is the process? So do they sign before or after we vote in the past? The MOU has not been signed until after the vote. We have we have always authorized the town manager to negotiate the MOU based on the conversations we've had. So I think that all we can expect from the trustees is what we've done in the past. And what they did this time was to look at the MOU, agree in principle, and then we came back to the council meeting. If there are additional things that you would like the town manager to take to the trustees for them to consider, then this is the time to state that. Well, then I'll repeat what I understand. I heard what was said about reflecting that there might be greater latitude in the dollar amount of the project. But however we can word it, it makes it crystal, crystal super clear that the town does not bear that any any differences in the amounts that were that we've been presented would be borne by the trustees and not by the town because we're already absorbing more. We're absorbing more in our in our interest rate period on the 15th. Are you OK, Paul, did you have anything you want to comment on that? Yes, I just want clarity. So right now the number is forty six point one million. If it goes a dollar above that, it has to come back to the council. We can't I can't sign a contract if it's above the amount that you appropriate tonight or whenever you decide to appropriate funds, hoping you do appropriate funds. So that's when you would have your that I would think that would be your your next conversation like whose side of the ledger is this additional cost that extra dollar, who's who's going to pay that extra dollar? Now what you're I think if I want to I want to make sure I understand what you're asking, you're saying I want to say now that that extra dollar is going to be paid by the trustees. That's what you want to say now. Is that OK? I understood. OK, Kathy. First, I want to assure you that I won't do if if you get some changes to strengthen this, there's not another list that you'll that you'll hear from me. This is it. So my concern, I mean, as Pam talked about items five and six, if there's any way of wording that to make it totally clear that the library is responsible for their complete share and in the absence of the original grid, which had 46 million and all the different pieces, didn't make that thirteen eight as clear. So if there's a way to do that and I think the two closes five and six together, Ark, the concern is that we hit five, six and seven. When we hit the two, three years down the road, if the trustees have not been able to successfully fundraise, we've heard verbally and I've and and the treasurer has shown us real agreements that there's a potential of taking out a loan against the endowment to cover the gap. And that's I think is covered that they will agree to find the money somewhere. So I'm not asking assurance of the well, but I just want that as tight as written Paul as possible. And then item nine, those are five and six, no changes in seven or eight. And item nine, if we could add a sentence that says something like as needed, comma, the library will participate in paying a share of the interest on the short term bands, the point has been made here is the short term interest rates aren't really all the result of the library not able to give us their if they could give us their whole 13 eight point eight tomorrow, we would still have to have short term bands because the others are slower. So the purpose of this would be to be fair, you know, but but say something about that. And conceptually, what I thought about is in this next three year period, there is an endowment that could send us some extra money if funds aren't coming in as as fast as they expect knowing they could be replenished by fundraising. So I'm not trying to put the endowment at long term risk, but trying to take some of the short term costs. So nine has been a concern for me. And, you know, early on I raised this. I'm not sure I realized that you'll go out and you'll ask for it. And people will say you're crazy. And have you ever done this before in any band interest? And we'll probably say never have we had to share it. So I understand this is different, but it is also different that we're in actually a public-private partnership here. It is the whole thing is different. It's you know, so that so the the clarity on five and six. So if everyone, if every lawyer in the room thinks that's clear with or without the definitely the full amount and then nine, I think that's it. And then I do know, as I mentioned earlier, that all the other we had this other original MOA that's still standing. This is an amendment to that one, which still has wording. As soon as the library gets the money, they're going to send it to us. It has we didn't lose any event. So I just want people to understand that this isn't the only piece of paper. It's difficult to read to, but to know that the two are working together is important because that had some strong language in it that I don't want to lose. OK. Are there any other comments regarding what is people are looking for in the MOA? Alicia, you have your hand up. Yes, thank you. And so Kathy covered just about everything that I was going to say, but I just wanted to add I would like to see an indication of who is responsible for the campaign expenses, and I would like to see the cash flow added as a schedule to the MOA in addition to essentially everything Kathy said. OK, thank you. Mandy, Joe. I'm still confused about Pam Rooney's request about or more, because if we authorize borrowing of 46 point such million, we can't sign a contract above that, so that 138822518 is as far as it can go under the borrowing we've authorized because the contract can't be above those numbers. And so I worry that any change to or any indication that says or additional provides any potential bidders with some thought that there may be additional borrowing capacity that we haven't told them about. And that concerns me because there isn't. And so I think what you're asking for actually puts the town also in a much odder situation than just listing this 13822518 number and saying, that's your share. If we if the bids don't come in there, we're back here discussing what we do about that, and that discussion might be changing 13822518 to a different number. But we're back here discussing it. And so I don't understand why the language in five and six is not sufficient because there's no higher number than 13822518. May I respond, please? Thank you, Mandy. Joe, the town manager and I had that discourse and he did explain to me so I better understand why we would cap it at 13855518 or whatever the number is, right? And so I understand what he said. I nodded and I said, yes, but the key is that the extra will be paid by the trustees and that was my that's my message. However, he wants to incorporate that that aspect to it, let him do it. I'm comfortable. I don't need to change the wording in number five and six anymore. OK, unless it can be strengthened in some way. So I don't need that the extra that is confusing me because I don't understand what you're meaning by the extra. Pam, when we come back, when, when, if something comes back at a higher number, I don't want to have another conversation about who's going to. Is it going to be the town's share or is it going to be the library share? If the if the if another authorization is ever passed, which hopefully it will never be passed, right? And maybe be needed. If it comes back in the future at a higher authorization request. I just want to say now it just wants to be crystal clear that it's the trustees that are paying for it and not the town. Dorothy, I'm sorry. OK, Dorothy. One of the things is there's rituals when you talk about money, which I find difficult. And one of them is that we don't talk about interest. OK, so to me, the more does not mean raising the official cap. The official cap is there, but interest is not spoken of and it changes. And that's a concern that a lot of people have and that has been expressed tonight, so I had assumed that that was the interest. I understand Manny Joe's point. You really don't want you want bidders to understand this is what we are cap and we really can't go beyond it without having to go through a whole bunch of things again. So the concern that many people have expressed to me is to do with the increased interest, which is not talked about because it doesn't exist officially, but it does. That's it. OK, are there any other questions or comments with regard to wishes for the town manager to discuss about the MOU with the library trustees? Understanding that based on past practice, the trustees will not sign the final MOU till after the council votes. Mandy, Joe. Just two things. So given the conversations that happened, I think. Are are we down to the only additional change? Paul will be asking of the trustees and the MOU is to item nine per Kathy's request about that additional sentence regarding bans and share of bans. Number one and number two. The motions on the floor is to postpone to December 18th. So I'd like to ask Paul if he believes that he can have an answer by December 18th. Paul. Yes, I believe I can have an answer by December 18th. I also have the request for a chart that reiterates the numbers and also a clarification on who pays for the fundraising. Whether that's part of an MOU or not. So there's a question, but I was the one made sure I captured everything. Counselors had identified and. Pam. Yeah, and the next item was that in number nine, it would also say expediting will not increase the library share. Right. Thank you. So the way that so are we saying therefore that the way that we're asking. The trustees to participate is in fact the way that we've already stated. And that is they would expedite their payments. I just want to. If what we're saying is the trustees by expediting their payments will not pay anymore, but will reduce what we have to borrow and therefore the amount and the length of the interest we have to pay. Is that what we're saying? That's I believe that's what nine already says. Huh? That's what nine says. It basically says the trustees don't have to pay anymore, but we asked them to try to expedite their payments. So that and by the way, we will, in fact, working with our legislators, go to M.B.L.C. and say by any chance, could you give us a little more money sooner? And in the process, that reduces what we have to borrow, thus reducing the interest. Is that what our goal is? Because I'm trying to say if that's the goal, I believe that's what this M.O.U. already says. But what if people are looking for the trustees to actually pay more toward the interest on the bands? Then that's a different question. I see a bunch of hands up. Pam, Alisha. I wasn't going to answer the question you just posed, so I was just waiting to see if someone else wanted to respond directly to you. OK, Jennifer. Yeah, I think I just want to I hope I'm right. Clarify maybe what Pam was saying and just that if the bid were to come back, let's say at forty seven, you would have to come back to the council. And I think there's some concern that, well, it's just a million more. So we're not going to or go to the project for that. So just some clarity that what if if the bids come in higher and it comes here and the council were to approve it, it's on the understanding that that share would be. You know, the life be added on to the library's responsibility to to. I think that's just if I'm interpreting it right, that that's you know, there's a concern that it keeps creeping up by a million dollars here and there that that that may happen, hopefully not. I mean, but that it would just we wouldn't have to then have another conversation about whether the town should take that on since, you know, we all made a commitment, most of us that we wouldn't commit the town. But I think we have been very clear about is that if this bid and the one that we are ready to sign because the library has absolutely hit rock bottom and been able to make no other cuts, if it's one dollar more, it has to come back to the council to increase. OK. I'm now ready to make another statement, but I'm going to go to Kathy next. Kathy. OK, to the extent I can, I think the concern, Lynn, I think it's totally clear that have to come back. We I've been very grateful that the library says your share is still 15.8, which is when they came and said, oh, my goodness, the costs are 10 million higher and they went out and said we can raise the money. It's a long term commitment to do the same. But I'm hoping this does it that this 46 million. I did look at the numbers in terms of the most recent estimates. And there's still a healthy contingency fee in there. There's a buffer to if the basic estimates are somewhat off. There's there's some movement under the 46. So I think we're on. Pretty good financial ground, which is not what I thought in 2021. I thought the total cost was underestimated by a lot. So my my point on the interest and I understand what you're looking at, there's another clause in nine that says this will not increase the library share of the project. I do think if the library had to come in to help us to lower that, that interest cost might increase their payments for the project. And we've got this funny distinction between share and total payments. You know, the library, you know, so if the library had to take out a loan to close the gap, they would be paying interest on the loan also. You know, so yes, they just owe us five million, but they're now all going to know the bank some. So it's trying to say if they can't expedite and this is clearly Paul. I know this is kind of messy wording, but, you know, as needed, you know, if they can really expedite the funds and lower that cost substantially, then there's no need to share the interest costs. Suppose the best estimates that they gave us this two million and then another four million turns out to be two million and another two million. So we've got to go out for higher bands. I mean, everyone's doing their best to say that we think these are good numbers. So I just want to shift a little bit more risk over to the library. And I don't care about the specific words that would be the intent. So I think if we're postponing it just for nine, I will commit to I don't have another request. I'll be ready to vote without a discussion on the next time we meet for a vote. I won't need to give an impassioned speech one way or the other. Anna. So my concern with what Jennifer and him were sharing was that I worry that it almost sounds as if we're trying to bind the hands of a future council. And I think that that's where if that discussion, no matter what, it has to come back to the council that it has to come back to. And likely that won't happen in this term. So I worry that setting that putting that sort of language in there with the understanding that what we mean is that anything else the trustees have to raise is limiting the right of that council to decide that. And while I agree with you that that's what should happen, that the trustees should be responsible. Ultimately, I don't think that we can make that decision on an unknown like that. So I think that's my that's my issue with putting it in there is saying is that I think it binds it binds the hand of saying if if this decision comes back, if we have to create a new MOU, this is what we insist that it be. I worry about that. Not giving the right to that council that they have in making that decision. But I also don't believe that it would happen that it's going to come back. Alicia, do you want to go now? Yes. Thank you, Lynn. I just wanted to say and I think Mr. Bachman did catch this, but in response to Mandy summary that I did also want to see an indication of who's responsible for capital for the campaign expenses. And I would like the cash flow to be added as a schedule to the MOU in addition. Pam. Yeah, in response to Anna's comment, I I I would be one of the people signing for an authorization. So I need to have the assurance for myself, not for the future council, but for myself that I'm comfortable with any of those conditions. And I, you know, that's that's sort of that's the bottom line. OK, Shalini. So again, I totally hear what you're saying, Pam, that and Jennifer, so that you absolutely do not want to ever confront that situation where we have to or you all will have to increase the amount. But there is a natural mechanism right now that you haven't be of all understood that is not going to impose in higher amount on the council on the town. And the. And the addition of that language is only going to make our situation weaker. So the event because of the bidding, because it increases the amount that the bidders can bid, yes, that we've been told that in terms. Yeah, because that is the reason why I mean, not 100 percent, but it is increasing the probability of giving a message to bidders that there is flexibility. And that's why we want an exact amount. If it goes above, there is a natural mechanism that will bring it back to town and you can absolutely say no at that point. But putting it now, the the flexibility of a higher amount is is making a situation worse. So I don't see the pros and cons of it doesn't make sense to me to add that. Pam, I'm going to go back to you, but then I'm going on to Dorothy. I mean, we've already talked. I responded the same thing to Mandy, who brought up the same point. I'm comfortable that the town manager is going to, in some shape or form, identify that that any extra anything, anything will be paid by the trustees if it comes up in the future. And I will trust him to please talk into the mic. Sorry, that's OK. Yeah, I just knew your voice. I lifted my finger too soon. OK. So I don't think we need to discuss that point anymore. I've I've. OK. I had one other question for Alicia when you asked, you would like to see who's responsible for the campaign fundraising? Did you mean a list of the people who are involved in the campaign? I mean, I'm not sure what you asked. I assume she meant which party, the library, trustees or the town? And by the way, it is already on the spreadsheet. It is a it is the trustees. I'm just asking if I respond. Yes, please. Yeah, I just want to see in the MOA an indication of who is responsible for the campaign expenses. And you don't mean the individuals. You mean the the body, the actual. Yeah, yeah. And I would just like that explicitly stated. OK, thank you. Dorothy. Well, you know, when we sign a contract, it's a future statement. So what were those comments, questions from Anna to say that the town council cannot sign any contracts? Because when we when we said we make these plans that go on for years, their future payments. And, you know, so I guess I'm going to ask a question, which is, is it then true that any contract that the town of Amherstown Council signs and agrees on votes on is, in fact, something that can be changed at any time the council wants to meet and vote differently? And I respond since the question. No, Dorothy, of course not. We sign contracts over time. What my concern was was when Pam indicated her initial comment, the way it was phrased, the way I understood it, is that she said, if this comes back, at which point an entirely new MOU would be brought forward, she wanted that MOU to specify something. And that was the only way she was comfortable agreeing to this MOU. I believe that that is change. That's not saying this contract would be shifted because it it's basically writing a contract that doesn't exist yet. That was my issue with it. Well, you can you could write this contract with words that just say the library shall bear the cost that could be stated in this is what it. Dorothy, that is what it says. It just specifies the amount. I'm not comfortable saying if the costs go over, in which case an entirely new MOU has to be drafted and has to be voted on by the council. I'm not comfortable specifying what should be in a non-existent future MOU. That's what I'm saying. Yeah, I got I got your point. Thank you. OK, Pat, you've had your hand up for a while, please. I. I've heard quotes up we are on good financial ground. We've been looking at this for the last five years. We had an incredible financial director lead in. We had an incredible finance director who really showed us what we would be able to do. I'm very confused by the fear that I'm hearing that and I'm because I really don't understand it, particularly when there are materials in the packet and in finance committee meetings that address the issues that are are supposedly not being addressed. We need to make a decision one way or the other about funding our share of the library. And that involves us in this changing authorization. It becomes, you know, I have such great respect for Cathy's financial understanding and ideas and she just got comfortable. So, you know, I want us to move forward because I have a feeling that come December 18, a very similar kind of thing is going to happen where we're going to nibble away and nibble away and nibble away. I think we need to make a decision. And I really I encourage you to let go of fear or confusion. And not in a hippie-dippy way, but to really look at what's been done and look at where we are and look at the flexibility that the trustees have shown and the responsibility that they have taken and how they're paying their own campaign costs. So if they want to spend a whole bunch of money to earn, you know, to generate more money, who's to blame them? It's their money. It's not costing the town anything. So how can we move forward really and truly? I know the decision I want it to be. But at this point, any decision would be better than none. And the nibble and the nibble and the nibble. Elite, Michelle, you haven't spoken in a while. But I just would like to respectfully disagree. I don't think we'll come back on the 18th and nibble and nibble more. I think people have been very explicit that if certain things are taken into consideration and negotiated by the town manager that we'll be able to move forward on the 18th. I do understand Pat where you're coming from, of course, and seen that we can certainly do that as a council. But I have confidence that we would be prepared to advance this on the 18th positively based on what I have observed if the town manager is able to negotiate these additional requests. And can we call the question on on a on a. If you call the question, the question has been called. Have you called? I do still see Shalini's hand up. So I don't want to I'm just wondering if we're ready to move forward with the vote here on postponing. Wait, the question's been called. I need a second. Second Ernie. OK. The question on the table at this point is to postpone to is am I correct? Motion to the motion, did you make a motion for the previous question? Yes, I don't see any more hands up. So we don't have to waste our time on that necessarily. But so there was not a motion. The motion on the floor is to postpone the vote to December 18, 2023. That's correct. And that's the motion we're voting on, although the first thing we have to do is call the question. No, you don't have to show. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. All right. We're going to move then to the question that's on the floor. The question on the floor is whether or not to postpone the vote on the motion to authorize the borrowing to December 18. OK, that is the question on the floor. Okay, Anna, you have a question could Paul, please articulate to us very clearly what he intends to bring as changes to the MOU to the library trustees, because we've had a lot of discussion. Thank you for that question. So the things I have, and again, they only approve this in principle. So they may have wording changes that they would like to see. So, I want to be clear that this is not in principle. They understood that this is what we put in front of them. They have not come back to me with changes that they would like to see. And I know they will have changes. Just they have, they're a separately elected body has authority to represent the trustee, the trust, the library. So the things I have are to put in who put in possibly a put in a chart that shows. The borrowing thing in a chart format, in addition to the words that are there. Add the cash flow that we had that we've been talking about it. We all know that cash flow is a planning document. It doesn't commit anybody to anything has interest rates change things change, but it lays out what we have been talking about. It's in the in the council packet anyway. Clarification in this about what side of the ledger the fundraising expenses are on is it on the library side or on the town side on item 9, that stating in the last sentence that expediting payments does not increase the new library share of the project in that additional bans. They will the library will try attempt. I don't have the exact language off to get it from Kathy. If they're able to, they will do more. I think those are the things. Is there anybody that sees additional changes? Jennifer. No, I had a comment that'll make it after this is not an answer to your question. Okay. Are there any other any other. Suggestions for additions to this MOU? All right. So the question on the floor is whether we're postponing until the 18th, Jennifer. I guess I just wanted to kind of echo what Michelle, I think Alicia and Kathy said is we are trying to get to a point of we're not just trying to be. Difficult, we just want to get to a point that we're all this is really important. It's a lot of money. And I think we're just trying to get to the point that we can move forward in a positive way. Okay. Any other questions or comments? So we're going to move to roll call vote on whether we're postponing to the. 18th. And with that, I'm going to start with Anna. No. Hold on just one second. Anna is a no. Greece Merziet and I man Hanneke. I an equal oops. No. Michelle Miller. Hi. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer. Yes. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmoum. Yes. Patty Angelis. No. Anna. And we already did that. Okay. So it's 10 in favor and three opposed. So the motion passes. We will be taking this up again on the 18th. We may have a break. Yes, we will return at 9.40. Because. Yes. So. Hey, is that? Wait, yes. Yes. I'm going to go to meeting my lively. So there Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to reconvene all people of the council. Please take the sign down so I can see as people come back. Thank you. Say to you is. Council. Let's go gang. Stephanie. Dwayne. And Chris. You're up next. I promise you. Hey, Chris, I only underestimated by an hour and 45 minutes, right? As soon as you return, please turn your camera on so I know that you're back. Okay. Okay, Pat. You're here. Anna, you're here. Anika, you're here. Shalini, are you back? Michelle, you're here. Alicia, are you back? Yes, I am. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you so much for answering Alicia. Dorothy, you are back. Okay. We're going to get going. The next item on our agenda is the solar bylaw. And I just want to just begin by saying we are not. Passing a solar bylaw tonight. All we are doing tonight is referring it for further development. We're not even referring it for hearing. We're just referring it for further development. To CRC. And then it will go on their carryover memo. Okay. So we, in a moment, we're going to recognize. Dr. Chris Brestrup, director of sustainability, Stephanie Chickarella and Dwayne Brieger, who is the chair of the solar bylaw working group. But before I do that, I will also want to recognize. And thank the solar bylaw working group. Members Janet McGowan. Laura. Peg Lerola. Peg Lerulo. Jim Jack gem sick. Robert Brooks, Daniel. Corcoran and Martha Hanner, who is vice chair. Some of them are in the audience listening. And at this point, I'm going to turn it over to Chris and the rest of your group. Good evening. My name is Chris Brestrup and I'm the planning director. And I think Stephanie was going to give an introduction to our session here. And then Dwayne is going to speak and I'll be the last one to speak. So if you'll recognize Stephanie, that would be great. Go right ahead, Stephanie. Thank you so much, Lynn. And thank you all. We will be, I believe, decidedly brief this evening. So I just wanted to point out for members of the council, as well as members of the public who may be viewing that in your packet, we had a memo to the town manager that was from Dwayne Breger, Chris Brestrup and myself that was an overview of the process and the three deliverables of the solar bylaw working group. And in that memo, we identified the three deliverables, one of which was a map based solar assessment. And the second, a community preference assessment were two items that were developed in conjunction with GZA geo environmental. The town engaged the consultant services to develop these two pieces of information. And the third item, which is the project manager, Adrian Duncan of GZA geo environmental served as the project manager, along with myself for the town. Those two were actually delivered to the council previously, but they are included in this memo to be identified as pieces that were part of the charge. They're highlighted in the memo for easy identification and access. The links are in the memo. So I do encourage you, if you haven't previously looked at them to please. The third is the draft of the solar bylaw itself. Chris Brestrup will be referencing this particular item in her comments and attached to that is a classification standards chart, which is part of the draft solar bylaw. So I just want to make sure that you identify those two pieces go together. And with that, I will say that the solar bylaw working group convened on June 22nd of 2022. The last meeting was November 9th of 2023. We did have an extension that was granted actually several extensions that were granted by the town manager in order to cover some of the more difficult and challenging aspects of the bylaws development. So with that, I will turn things over to Dwayne Breger, who served as the chair of the solar bylaw working group. Great. Hello. Thank you. Lynn. Okay. Yes, please go ahead. And thank you, Stephanie, for that introduction and town council for the opportunity to deliver and present the solar bylaw draft to you for referral. I did want to personally also acknowledge and thank the members of the solar bylaw working group. And Lynn, I repeat some of those names as well, just to clarify a little bit as well that we did have seven voting members, including a particular committees. So Janet McGowan was representing the planning board, myself representing the energy and climate action committee, Laura Paglid, Paglid, Rulo representing the conservation commission and Jack Gemsick representing the water supply protection committee. The other three members, Martha Hanner, Robert Brooks and Daniel Corcoran were appointed unaffiliated residents as appointed by the town manager. In addition, I'll just add that we work very hard. We did meet essentially bi-weekly every other week for the duration throughout the time period. Part of the reasons for the extension was to schedule time with the town council, legal council, as well as experts from various different areas involved with solar, with the solar bylaw and solar siting that brought a lot of color to our conversations and details of our conversations. And with that, let me turn it, and let me also thank the committee, but also dearly thank the work and support from the town planner, Christine Brestrup and director of sustainability, Stephanie, for their hard work and work with the working bylaw, solar bylaw working group throughout the duration. And with that, let me turn over to Christine, and she can give us some overview of the bylaw itself. Good evening. I'm Chris Brestrup, planning director. And after meeting for about a year and a half and reviewing and discussing drafts of the solar bylaw, the solar bylaw working group voted on November 9th, 2023 to recommend the draft solar bylaw as presented to you this evening. This draft represents a lot of work by the working group and town staff researching how other towns in Massachusetts regulate large solar installations. We also consulted model solar bylaws prepared by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, the Cape Cod Commission, and the Mass DOER or Department of Energy Resources. And we were mindful of the Massachusetts general law, chapter 40a, section three, part of which states that no zoning ordinance or bylaw shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. So the working group tackled a lot of topics, but among those topics, they spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing two relatively controversial topics. One of them was how to regulate large-scale solar installations proposed on farmland, and the other one was how to regulate proposed installations in forested areas. For farmland, the working group decided to require that agrivoltaics be used for installations in farmland that are over five acres in size. Agrivoltaics is a form of dual use where a portion of the property is used for farming and a portion of the property is used for solar arrays. This usually occurs in alternating rows of agriculture and solar panels. The technology is not yet mature and is currently being studied and developed. Therefore, the working group did not want to impose such a requirement without providing an alternative. So the working group decided to provide a mechanism by which an applicant could prove to the permit granting authority in a special case that agrivoltaics was not technically or financially feasible for a certain installation. This would require hiring an expert consultant to make this argument to the permit granting authority. For forests, after much discussion and vote, the working group decided not to limit the amount of forest land that could be cut for solar installation. They did not require mitigation for forest land that was cut for solar installation. They were dissuaded from imposing such a limitation because these limitations are not imposed on other types of development such as housing and commercial development. And such a limitation on solar may discourage the installation of solar and encourage the construction of other types of development. And they didn't think that was fair. However, the solar bylaw working group did decide to encourage town council to consider adopting a limitation on forest cutting in the future that could be applied to all types of development. So the draft that we're presenting tonight is the work of the solar bylaw working group. However, it has not been reviewed by it has not been thoroughly reviewed by the building commissioner, the wetlands administrator, the fire department, the sustainability director, or the town attorney KP law. KP law has provided advice and answers to specific questions as the draft was being developed, but it hasn't had an opportunity to review and make recommendations on the bylaw as a whole. And generally speaking, when the planning department is developing a bylaw, we do engage with KP law all along the way to try to make sure that what we come up with in the end is a good document. So therefore, we and the town manager are recommending that town council refer this draft solar bylaw to the community resources committee for further development. And the planning department staff would be pleased to support the CRC in this endeavor and bring back a thoroughly vetted, reviewed and developed solar bylaw for your consideration in the spring. Please let us know if you have any questions on the materials that we have submitted. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to place the motion on the floor. And the motion is to refer the draft solar bylaw. To the community resources committee for further development with a report and recommendation to the town council by June 30th, 2024. Is there a second standard seconds. So I want to just make two notes about the motion. First of all, it's a referral, but not for hearing. It's not ready for prime time. The second is that the June 30th deadline is basically to say, make sure you come back and let us know. At that point, CRC may be able to actually say, we think this is ready for review for hearing, but it has to come back to the council for that hearing. So with that, are there any comments or questions? Anna. I have one question, one comment. So my question first is in reading through this, it's very thorough in terms of the, the regulations that it's placing on the large scale ground mount installations. I'm curious, one of the things that I'm really hoping for is how we can. At the same time as we regulate also encourage. Responsible development where we should be putting responsible development. And I think that that's something that I'm not necessarily seeing and I recognize that that is a harder and more abstract thing to get at in a bylaw. But I'm curious in your conversations, how you plan to incorporate that. I don't know if incentivization is the right word, but how you plan to incorporate that encouragement for, for other sighting on non forested or non farmland. And then my comment, so that's point one. My comment is in the motion to refer, can we include the review from the relevant town departments that were mentioned, or can we get a. Some other sort of guarantee that CRC will be in consultation with, I believe it was planning conservation fire department and a legal review. I guess that was a question after all. Yes. Chris. I think at this point I just want to make sure that people understand what we're talking about now is what is it we are saying as we refer this to CRC. We're not expecting the committee to come back with all of these answers, but Chris, please go ahead. So generally speaking, a zoning bylaw is a regulatory mechanism. It isn't a mechanism to encourage things to happen. I think there are very, you know, strong and good bodies and individuals in town who can help to encourage solar development. So what we tried to do was create a solar bylaw that didn't discourage solar development because we think it's very important and we do refer to several documents and declarations that the town has already put together or made to encourage solar development in order to reduce greenhouse gases. So I guess that's, that's what I would, that's how I would answer Anna. Yeah. I think that was a separate, separate part. And that was Chris listed a number of departments and our law firm that have not done reviews. And you're asking whether those could root reviews could be done before CRC takes this up. Is that, is that am I hearing you? No, I wanted as part of the, I want to know that by the time it comes back to the consultation process at some point, I would like them to be part of that consultation process at some point. Okay. Do you feel like you need to amend the motion or do you think that CRC as a body would receive that information? If the chair of CRC could confirm that it will be in the carryover memo as part of the, as part of this, that would be the, that would be the, that would be the consultation process at some point. Okay. I think we could confirm that it will be in the carryover memo as part of the, as part of this, that would be fine. I'd be fine with not amending the motion. I can add it to the carryover memo. Thank you. Taking care of, okay. Dwayne, you had your hand up. Yeah, just to add to Anna's comment. Do keep in mind the, the solar bylaw draft is purposefully limited and the charge was to limit it to large scale solar development. We define that as 25, 250 kilowatts. And above about an acre or more. So this doesn't. Refer to or, or, or deal with more solar on the built environment. If you will. Certainly there is interest within the working group, but also I would refer to the. Energy climate and action commit committee. And I think it's a good idea to work in that group to work on more proactive opportunities and sent non-centers, but programs to try to encourage solar development on the built environment in the town. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Pat. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. In some of the material, it said the town of Amherst has established requirements regarding the instant light installation of large scale ground mounted, but they'll take both take installations and I want to know where those are because I tried to find them. So, and I also noticed that there were a great many links, which were very helpful in terms of farmland and soil and stormwater management. And I guess I was wondering why there aren't some active links to forests and the role they play in sequestration and possibly managing them. So I'm kind of interested in being able to pick your brain about where some of these things are. I also want to thank the group for working on this. And it'll be, it'll be a challenge to take up. So thank you. But I would like an answer about where the established requirements are. Okay. Chris will just ask if you could send something to reply to that. I will be happy to do that. Yes. Okay. Mandy Joe. A couple of questions to think about before this necessarily comes to CRC for further discussion. It was an interesting read to me. One of the things, and I'll just go through some very general stuff right now. This bylaw indicated that it is not regulating solar canopies, canopies on parking lots. What does regulate solar canopies and why is this choosing not to, I guess is one question and doesn't need answered now, but, but to think about. And one of the other. You know, and then another one was, I saw a lot of questions. And I think that the requirements in here that didn't necessarily deal with site design, typical things that I think of as zoning. Things like dimensional setbacks, things like that. For example. The removal of a development, annual reports of income or the activities on the property. And it wasn't necessarily income, but it was also the annual reports of income. Which was going to be a consideration of that. In light of that. So I think it's very important to the permit granting authority certifying compliance on an annual basis with the special permit. Reports. Ongoing reports that sounded like or inspections after storms. There is one in here about. Certifying that you're going to do ways to improve crop yields to the permit granting authority and mandating that things like that that struck me as different from typical zoning regulations. And so I'm curious, and one of the questions, if I'm on CRC in the next term, I would have is, how much of these sort of types of requirements are found in other, in the zoning bylaw for other types of developments when we're developing a retail space or an office park space or a research and development space, do we require the R&D space to report out its compliance every year with the special permit and things like that, or when we permit farmland, if we do, or buildings on farmland, do we require reporting out of that, because it seems like there was a lot of that in here that I haven't seen in other zoning bylaws. So those are some things to think about as we move forward. Thank you. OK, are there any other comments? I, for some reason, don't seem to be able to raise my hand without going to my phone. OK, there I did it. OK, thanks. I don't know why all of a sudden that happened. I have a couple of things that have been mentioned. I just want to emphasize that I would like to make sure that CRC pays close attention to. You've already mentioned protection of farmlands and forests. I want to add to that water, water source protection, because while many people in town are on sewers, five percent of the town is actually on wells, and many of those are near forested areas, which is often where we want to place these as well. And the other one for me is the growing alarm I have over battery storage and the safety of battery storage. It's seeing more and more fires and the extent to which we would be putting our entire town at risk because a fire starts near a forest because of a battery. So those issues are paramount in my mind, frankly, as we look at some other solar installations in town. Thank you, Andy, Joe. You reminded me of my other question that I had related to this, which was in the battery storage section. There was a sentence that said the town of Amherst is working on a bylaw to regulate battery, battery energy storage systems. And I guess my question is we are. And and are we and who is and and where is that getting discussed? OK, so. Chris, did you want to jump into that? Or, yeah. So it was not clear to us from the beginning, whether we were supposed to come up with a battery storage bylaw. And so I think for various reasons, we didn't come up with the battery storage bylaw until quite close to the end. And by the time we drafted it, there wasn't enough time for the working group to review it carefully. So it does exist. And if the CRC would like to take that up along with the solar bylaw, I would think that would be a really great idea. So I would be happy to work with CRC on that. If that would be something you'd like to work on. Thank you. So seeing no other no other hands. Again, this is to refer to CRC for further development. And it will go on the carryover memo. OK, I'm going to start with the vote. I guess it's me. I mean, Joe Haneke. Do I want to amend to include to add the battery storage bylaw to the referral? Yeah, sure. So to refer the draft solar bylaw, the only problem is we don't have it in our packet. We've never seen it. So I would suggest it could go in the 18th and we could refer it then. OK, thank you. Good point, though. We're going to move on to the vote. So Greece, Merzin, I, Mandy, Joe. I, Anika Lopes. I, Michelle Miller. Hi, Dorothy Pam. Yes, Pam Rooney. Yes, Kathy, Shane. Yes, Andy Steinberg. Yes, Jennifer Taub. Yes, Alicia Walker. Yes, Shawnee Balmille. Yes, Pat DeAngelis. Hi, Anna Devlin. Hi. OK, thank you. And again, I just want to thank the solar working, the solar bylaw working group for all of the work you have done and recognize the complicated nature of this. I believe that during this discussion, at least two other potential bylaws have been brought up. So thank you. The next is about a quick point of order, Lynn. Yes, you had mentioned that we would put a draft bylaw on the next agenda for batteries. Yes, draft bylaw for batteries to be a bylaw in the form necessary for adoption for an introduction. It would be for further development. I would not going to do it for hearing. The planning director just indicated it exists. So it exists. OK, so she may be able to supply you with appropriate. I think I think what we want to do is probably refer to CRC for review possible further development before referred back to the council. That's fine. We just need something. Yeah, that's why we conduct on it tonight. OK, the next is regarding the rental registration bylaw and Michelle, you have your hand up. Yeah, not not for that per se, but I just looked at the agenda and it looks like it's maybe two more hours. It could be I'm just wondering if there's some some some items that might be able to get moved to next week or if you've had thought about that at all in because it's already I have. But let me do this one and then look at what else. OK, that sounds great. Yeah, thank you. Kathy, you have your hand up. Yes, we're on the rental permit bylaw, correct? Yes, we are. Yeah, I'm sorry, I couldn't get my hand up. Um, I'd like to do a motion to postpone until the January and it specifically the wording were pursuant to council rule procedure seven point one. I moved to postpone the discussion of the proposed rental permit bylaw and regulations on until January 8th. So it's to a date certain. And the reason I'm doing that is because I can I can I seek a second first and then come back. OK, second, second, Rune. OK, now OK. And so the the reason for this is what Michelle just mentioned. Looking at the agenda yesterday, I said, we're just not going to have time for a full discussion of this. And I had a few amendments that were both languages and fees. And there's some other concerns. So I think because of the significance of this change, we need to make sure we have enough time on an agenda. And I'm looking to Lynn, who said there should be ample time on the January 8th agenda to not short circuit the time for discussion for this. So this isn't to delay it as much as to make sure we have time. And and just so those who aren't on finance know, during the finance discussion, I was working with potential fee changes. And I also wanted to talk about frequency of inspection changes. But there we were restricted to only looking at the financial aspects and fees. So I had other comments. So this would also allow a fuller discussion and potentially changes because I can send some of those to CRC that would address it. And everyone seeing the ads in the newspaper recently, I think to the extent we can on the 8th, we should also have an executive session and bring in legal counsel so we can have a full discussion of privacy concerns that address to extent their potential risks of litigation. So this would also allow time to arrange for that. And that's the reason I'm from my motion to postpone. OK, the motion has been made in second to postpone. We really should stick to the discussion of the motion. Shall any. I was going to say that, you know, in CRC, we did try to have a process where we were inviting comments and we were inviting different stakeholders to speak. However, I don't think the CRC had a chance to debrief the the large number of emails we've received. And so I'm in support of Kathy's motion, but also I was wondering if. If if there was a way for CRC to also put it on the agenda to see how to move forward and to create a space to hear the different stakeholders that we're hearing from now. And then the other thing I was thinking was that I feel like the finance committee has been working and I know Mandy Joe has been attending those meetings, but. Right. But I do feel that there were so many reasons why different things were put in place. And also maybe I don't know if that's an option for the finance committee to work with CRC and have a joint discussion around that. But before that, also, I really do feel that this is such a complex issue and it affects the livelihood of many people and it might have impact on tenants and increasing costs, especially to single family homes. And so it has just has so many implications that we're hearing about now that it would make sense to give CRC a chance to sort of decide what they want to do with all this information that we've received. The motion on the table is to refer to a council meeting on January 8th. And we just want to clarify that I have no idea what the what the meeting looks like for January 8th. That's not my responsibility at this point. And but I do I did confer with Kathy and already determined that trying to do this on the 18th was out of the question. So. Eighth is the motion that's on the table. So let me suggest the following process in response to Shalini's. Question and that is it could be determined on January 8th that based on discussion among the council and with legal counsel that we would then refer it back to CRC. And at that point they would do that. But given the timing of the end of this council's term and the limited time council committees have to meet, I don't see how we would expect that to happen between now and January 2nd. So the motion is to refer is to postpone until January 8th. That motion has been made in seconded. Are there any other comments? OK, seeing. Yes, Mandy, Joe. Those extra button clicks take more time to raise your hand. Don't thank you. I guess as chair of CRC, I'm looking for clarification because both Shalini and Kathy indicated there may be desire for CRC Kathy in her explanation of her motion flat out, I think stated that she was going to send stuff and hope CRC would talk about it before January 8th. So I'm looking for clarification of as chair. Is this something I need to be putting on an agenda for potential discussion at CRC? Is Kathy is Shalini are people expecting potential amendments again to this document prior to January 8th? Kathy. I don't I didn't anticipate that Mandy be given that we're on December 4th. I would be happy and I've written them out a bit more fully now that I free from looking just at fees, but I've gone through the fee schedule again in trying to limit the cost impact and timing impact on. We we had such a one person who sent us a comment and I would like to avoid that, that we wouldn't want to send a fire engine out to everyone's house on the anticipation. It might be on a fire. We would really like to focus it. So it was a quip, but it was let's try to think of. Can we focus and target it a bit better? So I have some ideas for that. And I didn't think we had time tonight, but it'd be happy to write them up. But I wouldn't expect CRC to have to address them. I think this is the time for 13 of us to try to say how much we love what we don't and then to do revisions. But I think not all of us have had a chance to do that. And I didn't come to all of your meetings early on. I was sending periodic comments as this was evolving. So I didn't think between now and the eighth, CRC would meet to address a series of changes. I think that's asking too much because a lot of people may have things that they want to address. So I hope that answers it. I'm happy to compile them. Mandy, Joe, does that answer your question? Andy. Yeah, I may not need to say much now. I was going to make a statement in support of the motion. Because I too had thought on a different topic of an amendment that could be offered and considered since it was now in second reading and it belonged to the council and not the committee anymore. It was up to the council one to decide whether to refer back to the committee. But I think that I was recognizing that given the length of this meeting, that having a lengthy discussion about several amendments that were proposed was going to make this far to owners for tonight and that's why I was supporting. So the motion is to refer it back to I'm sorry. The motion is to to to take it up on a date certain January 8th at that time upon taking it up. There may be a motion to refer it back to CRC. Mandy, Joe, I want to make sure I I want to respect both the chair and the rest of the members of CRC and hear from you about this at this point. I guess what I'm hearing is people are going to just refer this back to CRC. And if that's going to be the case on January 8th, why are we not just doing that now? OK. So the motions on the floor, unless somebody wants to withdraw the motion, we'll vote on the motion and then somebody can do a different motion. Michelle. Yeah, I'm I'm with Mandy on this. I feel like there's that we've received a lot of information through public comment and otherwise. And it seems like it would be appropriate for it to go back to CRC to have further discussion of how CRC would recommend addressing those concerns. OK. I want to make sure that we're if we're ready to vote this up or down and go on to another bit. Or what are we going to do, huh? I'm sorry, what? I was saying Pat was adding a comment and I was asking her to use her microphone because no one at home can. OK, I'm sorry. The motion could be withdrawn. Shalloni. Yeah, I'm in support. I mean, I'm in support of it going back to CRC so that as part of the process that, you know, we have been making space to hear different people, but now that we've finally kept the whole thing and people are getting a chance to look at it. And we've heard from one group of stakeholders for sure. And I think bringing in incorporating that and. And bringing everyone to the table is an important part of a process because this is the huge, huge changes we're making. So we just want to make sure that we do here. And then we haven't actively heard from other stakeholders, maybe like tenants or neighbors. So like, I mean, there has to be a. I mean, what I mean, we're all sort of this is still very near. We still the second term of council. So I think even as we think of the process moving forward, I think it's important that we hear from people at different times in the process, not just in the beginning, but also once the bylaw is more evolved to again get feedback from people. And so that I mean, so I think it all I'm saying is that I agree that it should go back to CRC. Thank you, Jennifer. Yes, I agree with what Johnny also just said that there's we recently heard from one group of stakeholders and part of the bylaw is that we took into we incorporated in the summer of 2022 when we heard from all the stakeholders, including the tenants that renters and that is also part of what yes, we need to hear from those stakeholders again as well. OK, Michelle, I'm going to skip to Andy for a moment. Since you've spoken, Andy, and I was just going to raise the question for maybe from Andy as chair of the committee, as to whether the committee is going to have the opportunity to work on a given the fact that we're going into a holiday period fairly soon. The thing that I'm also conscious of is the building commissioner, Mr. Mora has advised that it's important to bring closure to this as quickly as possible if we can so that it can be in place for the next registration year when the registrations are renewed. So when the original motion was made by Kathy, there was a date certain. And I thought, well, we're just going to consider some amendments on the floor that we would then have the possibility still of doing it. And getting a final vote and plenty of time for implementation, as Mr. Mora had suggested for the next year. So I don't know if you have any comments as chair of the committee. CRC has one more meeting scheduled for this term before the end of the year. I think it's up to this council to decide if it would be ready to vote on January 8th with or without CRC discussing this bylaw at that meeting or whether a discussion in January 8th would likely result in a referral because if it would likely result in a referral waiting two and three weeks to make that referral doesn't necessarily make sense because CRC could begin taking up that referral in a week with this council sending all of its questions, concerns and potential amendments to the body, mentioning them now or just sending them to me as chair so that I can compile them and stick them into a draft for discussion on the 18th at this point in time CRC likely has time to discuss it on the 18th. Whether it can finish its work, I don't know on the 18th, but it can at least begin that discussion if it's referred back, if it's not referred back and just postponed to the 8th, it does not start that discussion until committees are formed sometime in late January. Right. Correct. Pam. I would support referring it back to CRC as well so that it can go on to the carryover memo and there can be some of this detail included in that. And so whatever CRC that is formed in January has at least some record of what the intention is. OK, Dorothy, I'm going to skip over Andy and go to you. Just to the point I think it was Jennifer made it that in previous time, you'd heard from renters would certainly include students. So we should not have we should make sure there's an opportunity for students to participate if they choose in some kind of speaking. So that means not during the Christmas break. OK, Jennifer, I'm sorry, I'm going to back to Andy now. Yeah, I was just going to say a seconder of the motion. It's up to the maker of the motion to make final decision on this. But I would be quite willing to drop this motion if the maker of the motion wishes to and do the referral to CRC, because CRC can always make a recommendation to or make a decision once more time to bring it back to the council. The council has the opportunity in January, if it feels that it's still not had sufficient discussion, opportunity within the council to delay gives more control to CRC on how to deal with it. Kathy, I'm going to skip. I'm going to skip over Jennifer and go to Kathy since you made the motion. Well, I'm a little surprised because I was trying to be somewhat protective, I'll be honest of myself, because if CRC is going to take this up again, rather than me do wording changes, I just need to come to the CRC meeting to talk through some of this. So it puts another meeting on my agenda, which we have two finance committee meetings next week. We have two the week after that. I have a school building committee, so it's a lot of work. So what I had hoped would happen is that we'd have a fuller discussion of everybody's concerns before it went back so that you were dealing with it. But if people would prefer to have CRC work on this on the 18th, I'll just join CRC. The intention was to allow time to get everybody's input. I'm sitting on the finance committee. I was told, don't deal with the regulations. You know, you're just supposed to focus on fees. So I did, but I can focus on the Gestalt at this point. And I've started reading some other cities and towns just to look at variations. So I realize you've done a lot of work. So it was to avoid the group that's been focused on this. Sometimes you get locked into a certain way of thinking to hear from everyone. But if no one else is going to spend a lot of time on thinking through this, I'm happy to just try to come to the CRC meeting yet to attend it and and to. Pardon. So I can send it, but I would like to speak to it because it's not a simple of change this word, get rid of this clause. It's it's try to do the following things. So I can read, I can, I guess, rescind my motion to postpone and turn it into a refer to CRC that we're not doing it tonight. I thought it would be quicker just to postpone the discussion. OK, so let me just clarify at this point, the person who has made the motion has rescinded it and the seconder has agreed to that. So is there a new motion? I move to refer the Red Rental Registration bylaw and regulations back to the CRC. Second, the Angeles. OK, and you'll keep us surprised as to when you want to bring it forward. Let me point out that the next CRC meeting is December 14th at 4.30. Correct, Mandy, Joe. December 18th at 4.30. I think the no, the 14th. Sorry, the 14th is Thursday. The 18th is the council meeting. The 14th at 4.30. And you'll be telling us on the 18th how you're going to put on the carry on. Remember, now we'll at that time. And man, did you when would you like anybody who wants to give you any feedback to get it to you? By Friday, December 8th, that's this Friday, December 8th, close a business. Noon so that Athena can post my post of this. Thank you. OK, so you're all asked to provide feedback to the chair of CRC Mandy Joe Hanneke by noon on this Friday, December 8th, if we pass this motion. So now the motion is and I need a second. There was a second. It was. Did I get a second? Yeah, I did. Pat, thank you. Are there any other comments or questions, Andy? OK, Jennifer, I just didn't want to lose Kathy's suggestion that we the council might want to have executive session with legal counsel. Now does that I think we'll leave that to the issue of when after CRC looks at it, because they may actually want to do that. And we have to determine whether or not they can have an executive session because of the restrictions of what executive sessions can be used for. If I may, Paul has indicated to me that. Anticipation of litigation is not an eligible matter for executive session, but Paul can probably better answer that. So I would look at the material we have and send it to our town attorney and get official ruling on it. OK. Yeah. So so the motion on the floor now is to refer back to CRC and they will come back to the council with suggestions, recommendations, and so forth. OK. Is there any question on the motion? I would just ask Athena, she can get me the direct language so that I can get it into transfer memos and everything for posting when sometime tomorrow, the direct language of the motion. Sometime tomorrow, just and all. It's just to refer the rental registration by law and regulations back to the Community Resources Committee. But the unofficial record will be posted tomorrow. OK, thank you. OK. All right. We have to move to a vote. Manager Hanneke. Point of order. Did you want to include fees or no? Oh, include fees in the motion. Andy, include fees. Andy, your motion was to refer the bylaw and regulations. Did you want to include the fee schedule? I think at this point that I was not going to do so. I had been prepared to make a. That's three sentences report on the action of the Finance Committee so that it would just be clear to everybody. I'll leave it to the president. It's toward that. I should go ahead and do that. I. Are you asking me or I my personal opinion is it should include the fees? Yes, just send the fee schedule to have it be OK. Then I'll add the repeat schedule to the referral. OK, and Pat. You made the you second. OK. All right. So it's all the pieces, the bylaw, the regulations and the fees. OK. Everybody ready to vote? Mandy, Joe, here's your chance to say no. I'm sorry, Mandy. Anika. I, Michelle Miller. Hi, Dorothy Pam. Yes, Pam Rooney. Yes, Kathy Shane. Yes, Andy Steinberg. Yes, Jennifer Taub. Yes, Alicia Walker. Yes, Shalini Balmille. Yes, Patty Angelis. Anna Devlin, got here. Hi, Lynn Griezmer with unbelievable regret that we've had to do this to you. It's unanimous. OK. Now, let's talk about the agenda. OK. We still have on the agenda the town manager evaluation with an executive session to follow. We still have on the agenda the town manager goals with a discussion by GOL. We still have on the agenda the draft financial guidelines, which is a discussion only and the committee carry over discussion and referral of we know we voted on that and then the calendar and then the executive session. I'm open to suggestions as to what we think makes sense to delay to the 18th. Not all can be delayed. OK. Michelle, I think we have to have the executive session, right? For sure. Yes. I'm wondering like I mean, it's 1035. I think it's unreasonable to consider this meeting going on for much longer than this, maybe beyond 11. So that's my personal opinion. Maybe other people have different ideas about that. But I do want to ensure that we have the executive session as a priority if that's if that's needed tonight. Mandy, Joe, given that the council does not have any information.