 Okay. And we are now recording for the July 5, 2023 ECAC meeting. And tonight we're going to start with our nomination and votes for a new ECAC chair. So I guess we will begin with first asking if anyone would like to nominate someone or themselves. If you want to raise your hand electronically or physically, you can raise your hand and let me know if you want to nominate yourself or someone else. Can I just ask a point of clarification? Yes. Is it my understanding that Laurie is currently our co-chair? Vice chair. Vice chair. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to nominate Laurie Goldner. I second that nomination. Okay. All right. I'm not opposed to it, but I'm also happy to have somebody else do it. So just for the heck of it, I'll nominate Dwayne. Dwayne, how do you feel about this nomination? I'm appreciative, Laurie. I think I will. If I'm able, Stephanie decline such a nomination given my responsibilities on the solar bylaw working group at the moment, which is about all I can handle in terms of meeting perhaps and so forth. That makes sense. Yeah. He might say no, but I would like to nominate Steve. I will second that before Steve has anything to say. Steve, are you open to that nomination? No, I don't think I would have the time to do the job properly. Anybody else wanting to sell nomination. I would I would then offer a nomination of Jesse. And see what he has to say. I could also feel like I couldn't do a good job. I've given my other and somewhat unpredictable time constraints that I'm going to that I see in the next couple of years. Okay. I would like to point out that we will also be meeting a vice chair because. Yeah, that'll come after we do with the chair that next. So we have to get through this one first. So. Okay, so let's see. So far, the only nomination we have right now that's on the table is for Lori. And Jesse has seconded that nomination. So as there are no other individuals interested or willing to serve in that role, then I would ask that if you could give me via voice vote. Your vote for. Goldner as the new chair of the rescue me please. So, in no particular order, Breger. Yes. Yeah. Am I saying yes or am I saying Lori. Well, this is I specifically identified Lori. Okay. So yes. Okay. Roof. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Goldner. I guess I will say yes since I'm willing. Okay. And Rose. Yes. Congratulations, Lori. You are now the new chair of the ECAC. So the next hard to come close to what Vasu put together, especially toward the end here. So I'm. Well, everybody does something a little different and brings their own styles. So you have plenty of things to bring. I'm sure. So, but we'll, we'll be happy to, to support whatever you bring to the table too. Thank you all. And I wanted to say to you that we're going to need someone to take the minutes. So that will be maybe your first point of order. And then you want to go into the vote for the vice chair. Okay. So who's. I've already started because I am definitely. Oh, great. Definitely overdue. So. Okay. Thanks, Laura. Okay. Thank you, Laura. Appreciate that. Okay. So we need nominations for a vice chair. I can say that as vice chair this year, I didn't do a whole lot. I mostly just sort of tried to keep track of what Jesse was up to and occasionally stepped in, but it wasn't a big lift. It would be nice to have somebody who might be interested in continuing as chair though next year. Not necessary, but nice. Succession is always important. I nominate Jesse. I would second that. If I'm allowed to his chair. I will accept that nomination. Based on your. Advertisement. Of it being. A limited lift. And we'll as vice chair, of course, always encourage you. Not to overlift as chair. Okay. And do we have another. Nomination. Of another individual or a self-nomination. Okay. So. With that, I'll ask for everyone to give me their vote via voice vote. For Jesse to serve as the vice chair of the ECAC. Rose. Yes. Roof. Yes. Drucker. Yes. Goldner. Yes. Breger. Yes. Selman. Yes. Congratulations. Okay. So with that. I think we need to review and vote on the minutes from the last. Meeting. Stephanie, if you want to throw them up. Shared screen that might be nice, but I did read through them and have no corrections, but I wasn't here. Yeah. I'll answer that. You have a comment. I think that's probably abstain from the vote. Are there any corrections or comments or. Andra. Notes. That boss who would be submitting the annual report. And I believe that. That. Was not quite. This. Intention. Since it wasn't done. Just clarify. I think at the time that was the case, because he was saying he would submit the annual report in July, but. It didn't. It wasn't ready. So I don't think it meant that he had to, I think that at the time that was what the plan was. So I don't think we'd want to change that because that was what we were going to do, but then. Well, by the end of the meeting, we knew that it wasn't done. Quite so. I think we did know that in. We probably should have said the chair will submit it. And probably not. Well, it's not clear to me from the discussion that went back and forth, whether the. We're talking about a July submission or a September submission at this point. Well, I think this, the September was the presentation, not the submission. Okay. So the chair is fine. You know, I. I will leave that for you guys to decide, but I think the chair covers Vasu or me or whoever needs to do it. So, so fair enough. And it chair or former chair. We can leave the notes as they are, but just as long as that's highlighted in our minds. Okay. So no change then. Okay. No, it looks like no change since that sounds like that was actually said during the meeting and it's a accurate recording. Other comments. If not, then I think we have to vote on accepting the minutes. I move to accept the minutes. I second. Okay, and then no, I'm going to stop sharing. This can be one second here. In no particular order. To approve the minutes. Okay. I will abstain since I wasn't here. Okay. Breger. Yes. Selman. Yes. Drucker. Up scene. Roof. Yes. Rose. Yes. Minutes are approved. Okay. It looks like we have five attendees. So the next order of business is public comments. If you are an attendee and would like to say something, raise your hand electronically. And Stephanie will let you into the meeting to speak. It doesn't look like there are any questions or comments at this time. Okay. So no questions or comments at this time. We'll come back to that again at the end. We're into item four, which is updates. So Don. Is not here. So I think we have to put that off another week. Is anyone else aware of any updates for pace? There was a fire and then it got put aside waiting for. Meetings. I think that's still sort of on hold. So what happened is that they're updating the program. And so we were waiting on information and we haven't gotten anything yet. So as far as we know, the updates haven't happened. So. It's not for a lack of Don doing anything. It's just that we don't have the information we need. It's a sort of in hold. So it's on hold. And updates on the solar projects, the solar bylaw working group. And it's project swing. Yep. We continue to meet obviously every other week we're meeting again on Friday. We did have the opportunity to. Have. The GIS. Coordinator. For the town. What's his, sorry, what's his position? He's the GIS specialist. For the town review with us. The work that he's done in coordination with the. Gza. Solar assessment mapping. And basically this is now available. Publicly. That basically provides the. Outcomes of the Gza. Feasibility, if you will. And. Ranking of sites across the town. On a 30 by 30 foot square basis. In terms of solar feasibility across various different. Attributes. And then the ability, importantly, the ability then to overlay. And this is what. It's the ability to render in the overlay of various other layers of interest. To allow for. The bylaw working group for ecac and for the public. To then look at. Solar siting in, in, in the town. With regard to general feasibility. And then overlaid with such things as. Land cover. Soil types. The parcels themselves. Whether it's forest or agriculture. Preserve land that's in in restriction in various different forms. Conservation land. Wetlands and so forth to get a sense of. Of where. Solar siting might be. Best targeted. Importantly, it's not. This whole process is not a process of solar. Of solar development. We don't have the tools. We don't have the information. We don't have the expertise and we don't have the, the need particularly to look at, at sites. And it's not meant to be a parcel by parcel analysis. It's not meant to be a parcel by parcel analysis. Most of this is obviously. Private property. But it gives a good sense of where. Opportunities around Amherst might. Be best both in terms of. Within the built environment and the unbuilt environment. So that's available. For. Us to look at. The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the GIS specialist for the town. To walk through that with us as, as a ECAC group. Because he's not really available this time of the day. So that's that. We are. Well, let me ask. Pause if there's any questions on that. And then there's a couple of other things. Yeah, Jesse. Is it possible to. You know, You know what I'm talking about? The one, the, the one through 10, I think it is. Ranking for the soldiers for the solar feasibility. Yeah, which, you know, so they've, you know, there's eight, nine, which is purple. There's this that. Is there any way to understand. Give. Yeah. It's a formula that's based on, I think, four attributes associated with the site. Including such things as distance from utility. Slope. And a few other things. And of course, this was all. Areas of town that weren't wiped out by. Other layers that made it. Yeah, I watched, I watched the video. Yeah. Okay. So that that given a test drive to the whole thing. And it's. Yeah. But I didn't. Maybe that's not, it's not in the map, but there is, there is a separate report that GZA. Provided correct Stephanie that's posted. Yeah. That was sent to everybody. I think it has been there, but I can resend it. To everybody. If you'd like. It has the criteria and the weighting of the criteria. That's super helpful because as you fly, there's, you know, knowing a lot of those locations. I was like, huh, why is that one better than that one? And I thought if I had the criteria. Well, exactly. And there is this tendency to look at where you live or your, your friends live or whatever to see, you know, importantly, I would say that. Yeah. And things can change like from, from one, one 30 by 30 square to another can change. And there's a reason for that, but it could be because of. Of a change in the slope that we're not aware of there. If you see some kind of a border. Of a lot of changing that tends to be maybe because you certain, there's a certain threshold of distance from the utility line. Or distribution line. Yeah. I mean, I understand it's, it's very, it's very fun. Interesting to look at. I understand that it's, it's conceptual. It's like. Enough to get you out there and start talking and thinking about projects. It's not. They're not solar panels, but. Yeah. But you're okay. Yeah. I'll dig into the GCA report to get those. Yeah. Yeah. Ranking. So I think it'll be helpful to sort of. Clarify. Thank you. Yeah. And if anyone hasn't looked at this, I just shared it. It's really quite detailed and you can zoom in and see the individual buildings and where the things are, how different areas are ranked. And it would be nice to, I agree it would be nice to have the. Scores. Defined. Yeah. I'll stop sharing. I see where everyone's looked at this unless. What. We don't have access to, is to, to, you know, go to any one of those 30 by 30 squares and get. The exact. Scoring for each of the attributes for that's where it's just the, it's just the cumulative. Result of, of all the attributes in that, in that particular 30 by 30 square. Right. In addition to that, go ahead, Steve. Well, I was going to ask if we could have a discussion about this map as something separate from your SB. WG update. Yeah. I think that was the intent that you can't would be interested in this. Again, we don't. We, we, we, we, we don't like the working group. We don't, we just don't have access to the GIS specialist. To walk us through it. That being said, I think I could do a decent justice and with Stephanie. If we wanted to dedicate some time to it. On, on, on an upcoming agenda. Yeah, I'd like that. I have some questions that I can raise. A little bit later in the meeting and. Some concerns as well about some things, but it's separate from your update. So I'll hold off on that. So this is for a future meeting then to put on. Well, I think I'd like to raise them a little bit later. I can do that during my update later in the meeting. But I think, yes, if we could schedule a time at one of our future meetings to discuss the map, the methods, any questions that members might have. That would be, that would be very nice for us to do. Yeah. So I'm putting that for future agenda. Yeah. Stephanie. Yeah, I was just going to say it's in the minutes already for a future agenda item because Steve made this request at the last meeting. For agenda items for future meetings. So it's in the minute. So I'm just saying it's already captured, but this is just to back up that request. Okay. Dwayne, can you give that presentation? Or do we need to bring someone else in to give the presentation? Sounded like you could do it. I probably can't do it with the justice that. The GIS specialist would, but we don't have access to him. So I think. Well, could we bring him in or no. He's not available at the time of our meetings. So the solar bylaw working group meeting is earlier in the day. We could, if you really wanted. We could consider. Having a special meeting. Earlier in the day that would be an additional meeting. I would recommend watching the movie that. Definitely sent out giving it a test drive. And I would be surprised if you, if folks still had kind of technical questions about how to navigate. It's pretty user friendly. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know that we need to take his time or change our time. I think that's my initial read on the situation. Steve, can I assume that you've already watched that movie? And if these questions are outside of that. That's correct. Yeah. They're less to do about the interface and more about the. A bit about the methodology that GZA used. And then something more about discussion. How are we going to use these results to come to some useful conclusions. Yeah. So in that case, it sounds like it might be worth having a special earlier meeting with the GIS specialist. No, I don't. I don't. Yeah. I think the questions we're going to have are not about, not questions that he will be able to answer. Okay. Gotcha. If we have questions about how to navigate or what the layers mean, then I suppose we could send them a question and he could reply through Stephanie. I don't think we need him in person to help us navigate the website. Okay. The one thing I would. Suggest. And I haven't looked at what additional layers he's added recent more recently, but one of the issues that came up was, you know, there's a lot of, you know, quite feasible looking solar. In terms of the color coding. That happens to be in the more built environment. And, and, and that's useful information. But it's not to suggest the, you know, but those, those, those particular sites when you start getting down into small parcel sizes. Which are generally residential. Then, you know, the capacity. So, you know, in terms of, you know, in terms of, you know, per solar on those parcels are relatively, maybe relatively small. In terms of the rooftop that happens to be there. Though in some cases people might put this in their front or backyards, but, but generally it's the rooftop. So it's not. It's not, you can't necessarily look at the map and say, oh, there's this swath of. You can just, you know, lay it out there because that may happen to be the downtown core of our residential. And residential areas. So it's, you need to sort of look at it with that lens as well. Right. Steve, I guess that gets to the heart of one of my questions and that's in the GZA report. They noted that they did in their decision to use a 30 foot square grid. They noted that that provided three times as much solar capacity than if they had done the analysis on a parcel, by parcel basis, which seems to me to be a very big spread of results based on a somewhat arbitrary decision, the 30 by 30 grid. So I don't know if this is a question to Wayne that you can answer. If they change the grid size, how much does this total acreage of each feasibility score change? Now, if you want the 50 by 50 foot grid rather than 30 by 30, how does that change the final results? I can jump in with the, unless you want to answer that. Well, I was going to answer that it's kind of a hypothetical question. I know, but maybe that's what Stephanie was going to say. No, I was going to say that when we were deciding on the, you know, how to actually develop the grid. Cause we, when we were going to look at a parcel by parcel, the problem is that depending on if you had some kind of priority habitat or estimated habitat, it might identify the whole parcel as being off limits, which wouldn't necessarily be the case because you can have a parcel and have a structure that could support solar on it. So we were trying, that's why we started to sort of look at different sizes. The 30 by 30 was the size, the smallest size that we could come up with that would give us the most detailed information. So that was sort of like a, it's an economy of scale kind of thing. Like what, how small can you go and how big can you go? So that seems to be the most feasible size for the analysis and which is why they came up with that. So, you know, and going from parcel to grid, there was sort of the sort of big discussion about, do we want to go by parcels? And the reason I gave you was why we decided not to, in terms of the size of the grid that we came up with, 30 by 30 was the most detailed that they could come to. That was reasonable for them to actually compute the data and to come up with some kind of calculations and analysis. Okay, so I, yeah, I can, I can understand that rationale. I think what it does is it gives sort of a very maximal value for the amount of land available for solar in those different feasibility categories. And that's something that has to be kept in mind and probably needs to be highlighted. That if that it's a maximum value based on a very small grid that actually builds a solar panel, well, not least a larger one 30 by 30. And I'd say most of the regulations dealing with solar are on a parcel basis. So it tends to overestimate the amount of land available for solar so that that's one of my concerns. And Dwayne raised that a bit at the solar bylaw working group meeting asking if the town, if Mike could aggregate some of those and sort of create a map with a larger footprint. And I think he said that, yeah, he could do that. That would be easy to do. And I forget, what did you say Dwayne like a two acre size? Well, I asked him to basically, yeah, exactly. Might have even been an acre was to be able to sort of parse out what, what was the, what was the fees. And this was particularly for the bylaw working group. And maybe it was two acres because the bylaw working group is particularly focused on. Round larger scale ground mounted solar. In terms of that, well, I think thresholds 200 or 250 kilowatts scale. So that's probably a couple of acres. And so with some buffer and so forth. So I think, yeah, maybe it was two acres. So it's really to look at, okay, and given that that has to be on a specific parcel. And then we did, I did ask him to see if he could do it, an additional layer to sort of parse out. Where is that fee? Where is the, where does that feasible solar get laid out? If it, if it's constrained by being on a parcel that's more than two acres. And again, that was really specific to ground mounted solar. Right. The idea was that we were capturing rooftop solar potential as well. Which is partly why we were going so small. Because we needed to look at rooftop as well. Yeah. So if you're looking at the rooftop or small, smaller units and residential parcels, then this approach, the 30 square foot approach can work. But that, that's different. Doesn't quite work as well. If you're looking at the larger ground mount that the solar bylaw working group is charged to look at. Let me ask this other question that I have. And that has to do with the parcel basis. And you might know this one, Dwayne. As far as I understand, under the smart program, if any parcel is more than 50%. Core habitat or priority habitat or critical natural landscape, then the whole parcel is not eligible. For smart incentives. Is that's, that's what I've read in the, in the laws and the rate or summaries of the laws at least that an entire parcel is ineligible for the smart program at 50% or more of the area is core habitat, priority habitat and critical natural landscapes. But that's not represented here in a GZ a map since it's not aware of parcels. So it seems like there's an awful lot more space that's protected, not available for solar. If that law is or that regulation is really. I don't know if my understanding of that regulation is correct. So is that regulation correct? Is that a hard fast regulation or their. Ways developers can get around it. I'd have to verify that myself. Okay. That being said. If it is a fat, hard and fast rule, at least what we. Tried. I think for, for a GZ a was to wipe that those parcels off the map to begin with. In terms of those, those, those parcels. Correct me if I'm wrong, Stephanie. All the estimated habitat was removed. Right. It doesn't mean the entire parcel was blocked off. It just means the estimated habitat was removed. Okay. But they were well aware of the guidelines in the smart program when they were developing the layers. Well, I remember, and I did ask that. And their answer was, well, the smart regulations might change. And so that was their justification. For not eliminating a parcel if it was more than 50%, one of the protected categories. And I would argue that that's not. Not a good approach. Because just like the smart regulations could change, so could APR regulations or so could other things. So I think without that. Recognize it without it recognizing those. Restrictions on the smart program. We're, we're mapping up the map shows a lot of areas that are probably not eligible. Due to that. That particular restriction. I think I just want to jump in with clarification too, that this map was never, ever intended to be like this is where solar can go. All of this is doing is identifying the feasibility. With certain guidelines for the potential for solar development. And what we've been saying all along is that any project that goes that gets proposed, it's kind of a place to start, but every project needs to go through its own permitting process review. It has to, you know, have site review before it could move forward. So, I mean, again, it's just really a tool. To identify feasibility, but it's not absolute feasibility. It's never been ever. Been identified as like this is hard and fast where solar, exactly where solar can go. Yeah, that that's, that that's true. Every, every project would have a site review, but my concern is that this overestimates for those two reasons that I've raised overestimates the total amount of area in town that's available for solar. And so when solar by law working group looks at it, they'll say, Oh, there's plenty of space for solar in town. And that's not correct for two reasons. One, because they don't pay attention to this smart regulation that eliminates parcels that are 50% protected habitat. And because of the small grid size, sort of maximizing it. So it will lead to misinterpretation and it might lead to solar by law working groups saying, Oh, we can restrict a lot of forest because we have a lot of solar potential in town, which I don't think is accurate. So those are the two concerns that I have that might lead this map to be, to be misleading. I think it's funny. I just, it's funny because I've heard from some others that. The perspective is that it's not a lot of, and I'm not saying everybody in the working group, but some people have said, Oh, it's not a lot. It's not as much as we thought because if you look at the most likely feasible, it's really tiny. Like the most highly feasible is very, very small. So I think, you know, it's a matter of, you know, perspective and I think they're going to have to work that through anyway. Those are. I'd really like to get clarification on the smart regulation. And if indeed a parcel, an entire parcel is ineligible for smart incentives. If it's 50% or more protected habitat, then I think that needs to be reflected on this map. But I'll pause there. I think, I think Laura and then Jesse have their hands up. Laura, go ahead. Yeah, I was just going to. Maybe reiterate. Steve's concerns. As being maybe not things that need me, we need to update the report or update the map, but things that need to make sure we need to know. When there's discussions happening at the solar working group level that may be making assumptions about the map that we know are not correct, which I know Stephanie and Dwayne, you're on both of those calls so you can help make sure that that's being translated there. But yeah, that was just the point I wanted to make. Yep. No, appreciate that. And I think we. And changes to the mapping. I think when it comes to what layers and how to. How to visualize the layers. Those things. I think may be able to be accommodated in terms of changes there, because that's more of a internal GIS specialist. Ask, if you will. There's not really an opportunity to go back to GZA. To redo the fees, the feasibility, the 30 by 30 analysis. But, you know, if there, if we can get confirmation on the 50%. Partial issue. And then work with the GIS. Specialists to identify. Those parcels. That have more than 50%. If that's something he can readily do. Then we can. Verify or not. The extent to which the map. Either over predicts or, or. Or, or, or, or, or needs needs needs interpretation. Okay. And I just want to. Well, okay. Just go to Jesse now. Go ahead, Jesse. I have a comment I might make. Yeah. As you're taking it so well, Dwayne, I'm going to pile it on a little more. I, I looked at hundreds of parcels. And, and found that particularly in the purple zone, I did have a concern. There's a, I saw a lot of this, which is. Heavily tree sites that are showing. Seven, six, seven, eight and nine. And I'm seeing one, two, three, you know, maybe four or five roofs. And I think there's, I think there is a potential for misconception about where we could put solar. I know it's been said already, but I just wanted to bring up this visual. There's a lot that look like this. And if we can't. Change the color. Of the squares anymore. Just, I, I would bring that. If you haven't already had that conversation, I would bring it back and think about what that means. Okay. And I just want to bring that back to you. But I think that's, that's kind of what was the, that was the perception because I think the general perception is, Well, there's a lot of purple there. Good, bad, whatever that's good or bad. And I. I don't think it's true. Yeah. If that, if that was sort of the residential areas. Then, then. You know, we're not. concept or this idea of where, if we want to accommodate so much solar in the town, then how much of it can go in the built environment? How much of it really can't go in the built environment or needs to find other places? That analysis of in the residential areas, I would agree it's a little bit, that has to be taken into what needs to be taken into account is of residential rooftops, what's a reasonable approximation of the percentage of those rooftops that are really likely to be able to move forward with solar? Is the idea that like if a building is in the purple zone, then you'd go and ground truth and see. And there was such a... It's not saying it's not... It used to be ground truth. I mean, it's like I looked at my house. My house looks great, but I'm in a forest, you know? And that's like the whole Echo Hill neighborhood. There's some solar, but... If there is sun and room in this area, then it's a good area. And it's not awkwardly sloped and stuff like that. Yeah. So, you know, I'm not... At least for the working group, we're more looking at the non-residential, non-building environment. Again, with needing to keep in mind of the total solar that we might want to accommodate in Amherst, that assuming that all this residential areas that are in seem very feasible, only a percentage of that and it'll be probably a fairly low percent is likely infeasible to go forward just looking at even national trends or even state trends in terms of percentage of residential routes that are actually feasible. Right. And I think if I can pipe in, I think another important thing to remember is just that... I forget what the numbers are, but when we first looked at this, we did estimate, so, well, what percentage of the land would you need to use to meet the state goals and the local goals? And I think it was just a couple of percent anyway, right? So, it's not a lot of this map that we're, you know, using this as a tool to find a few places where we can meet those goals seems reasonable and using it as a... Certainly not designed to be a... We're not solar developers and I would caution. I mean, like as a working group, you can't help yourself but going around town and looking at your... And it's like... Our job as a working group, in my mind at least, is not to identify, you know, Joe Smith's farm and say, here's where the town thinks older should go. Because that's just like not what town, government, or us as representatives of the town should be doing. But in public meetings, the messaging that goes out, I think it's really... I'm glad to hear all this because this resonates with what I'm seeing. Hopefully, you know, there's mutually cancelling errors and it's an approximation and it's a good idea. But I think I would encourage you, knowing that people are watching your meetings, to repeat that messaging over and over so people don't get the wrong idea from the map. Yeah, yeah. The other thing is just regarding the comment about land being excluded for having a habitat in it that's excluded wetlands and stuff like that. I can see a bunch of parcels on here, including in the Echo Hill neighborhood that are excluded. And I think it's because they're half wetland. So I suspect that's already been done. I see, you know, lots of farms and things like that that are in the same category. There's a lot of wetlands. So they're not, they're not, they don't show on the map at all. Yeah. Well, if it's wetlands or if it's in a restricted conservation restriction, town owned land that's restricted for recreation, conservation, so forth. Right. And you could turn on the layers on the lower right to find out. There's there. Yeah, so go. That's the big, that's the big tool. And that's the big way to understand. Yeah, all of the information is you turn those layers on and off and you can figure out why things are not in it. It's really a great. Tool. The GIS team put together and. It's Mike. Yeah. Should we move on? Well, let me just, let me just finish up in the solar. Reporting. Finish up first with the working group. One is that. You know, we are due to have a draft. Bylaw to the town. By the end of the summer, September 1st, I believe is the date. And so we are now. We're going to be more going to be focused for the rest of summer. On the bylaw language. Getting that drafted. Reviewed, scrutinized. Public comment, at least within our meetings and so forth. We've, we've, you know, done a fair amount of. And spent a lot of time. For good reason. Collecting information, doing the mapping and so forth. We're a little bit pressured for time. But we're going to be able to do that. And we're going to be able to get this all put together. So Christine. Has been. Deligently, diligently working on that. We've sort of been trying to compile the, what we've drafted so far together. But clearly some of the more interesting. Parts of the bylaw. With regard to how. The discussion will play out. And drafting on. Particularly. In the, in the land that's a forested or farming. Is sort of in front of us as, as kind of the. Two of the key areas that we need to address over the next few working group meetings. Well, you see AC have an opportunity to look at the language and comment on it. I think the idea was to. To at least share a draft with you all. To provide some feedback at some point towards the end, I think. I think we would really appreciate that. I think there's. Yeah. And then maybe might less. Comment, but maybe after Steve. Has a comment. Yeah. I had a question about the process that you'll be following. Right now. Christine has been doing a great job of. Finding all the regulations across Massachusetts. The different communities have used bringing them up for some discussion at your meetings. And then kind of based on a. A different section based model. They might get included into the draft or maybe get excluded. But there hasn't been any sort of formal voting on different. Parts of different. Potential restrictions. So once you get everything assembled, are you going to go through then and sort of vote section by section or on each particular restriction? Or is it going to be just kind of a big omnibus. That people will vote up or down. I think that the goal is to reach the consensus on the issues as we go through them. So far we've been able to do that when it comes to such things as. Buffer. Spacing between, you know, the road in the fencing and. The fencing setbacks and so forth. Christine tends to come out with her. But I think that's a lot of. Recommendations based on experience and so forth. And then we sort of discuss and. Have reached pretty much consensus on those issues. I think when we start getting into some of these. More interesting topics, there may be. Some additional discussion and maybe a need to vote in some form. The, the, the, the, um, well, we, what we, I think we'll tend to do is, is try to push forward. Maintain some highlighting of areas that still need to be discussed as we wrap around and sort of an iterative. Process. I think importantly. Also is that we are not. Committing the town to this bylaw. We are writing a bylaw with. A recommendation to the town to then go through their formal proceedings. I think at the end of the day, if I don't know how Stephanie views this, but if there is an area that we are just not able to reach consensus on, there could be. Um, a, um, a doc, a doc. The document could reflect that. If I may just offer an opinion from what I've seen. I think the consensus. Model works in many cases, but not all. And I think. There are some members of the committee that are very quiet. And don't speak up. And occasionally I hear something which I interpreted as maybe a disagreement with what becomes sort of a consensus. So I would encourage, particularly for those more contentious issues. Um, to have votes. As you, as on each of those particular pieces going forward. To allow those who are less likely to. Speak up in a conversation. To be able to register their. Their opinions. Absolutely. And I think, I think when it's been coming to some of these more. Contentious or debate, debate, debate issues that people have been speaking up a bit more. Uh, but, um, but yes, uh, I would agree that we're, um, uh, you know, I'm not sure if we formally taken any votes, maybe in a, in a, on a few occasions, but, um, We're going to need to work, work that out. I think Stephanie had a comment there. Yeah. Yeah. I was going to say that it's very likely that if it gets to a point where there's a lot of, um, disagreement that staff will recommend that. The committee come to a vote. That'll be a staff recommendation. I'm pretty sure. That's good. That's really good to hear. Um, I just wanted to conclude if the, um, The solar update, which is more than the bylaw, but primarily the bylaw in terms of what I think. Having to think about is that, um, I did want to just, um, keep in mind. What Laura basically brought up last time, or maybe it was the time before, um, while the working group, um, Not as the bylaw working group, but as ecac, um, if there is a programmatic or, or informational or, or other things that we. Want to do is as ecac to, um, support, promote, um, educate, um, folks, um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, educate, um, folks on solar in the built environment. Residential town buildings, um, Carports, um, Uh, and so forth. Then, um, I don't, I don't have an update on that. I just was, uh, um, peaked. Uh, my interest was peaked certainly from Laura's suggestion. Um, and, um, maybe that's an area that we can, um, Um, I don't know, I don't know, Um, I don't want to go into the work on as, as ecac that's kind of distinct from, from, uh, the working group. Yeah. I can just jump in quickly between thanks for that flag. Um, And sorry I was unable to make the last meeting last minute and things have been quite busy for me, but I do still want to pursue that. There's been a lot of, um, So I apologize, but there's a lot of guidance coming out on particularly this new tax. It's not a tax credit because it's for people that don't pay taxes, but, and there's a lot of concern that I'm hearing that people don't know about this municipalities and faith-based organizations and other NGOs or non-tax paying entities maybe aren't aware that there's this really substantial new incentive for them. So I've collected some information like the White House has a fact sheet and there's a few other things coming on. So maybe on the next agenda next meeting, I can plan to present this back. And I think I had agreed to like draft a letter of some sort and I still have that on my to-do list but I have not had a chance to do it. Cooper. Thanks, Laura. Okay, shall we move on to the annual report review? Just had one last question. That the Massachusetts statewide is undertaking a technical potential of solar study which was supposed to be finished this summer. Actually, earlier, I think that's been a little bit slow. Do Dwayne happen to have any inside information about when that report might be completed? Yeah, I did hear straight from DOER actually that they were anticipating that that should be done in about a month and this was probably a couple of a week or so ago. So maybe July, we'll see it. So it is getting closer. When I was at DOER we always said soon. I think it's getting sooner. Yeah, so I think it's not a long wait anymore but it could be a couple of weeks. It could be a month, I would say. Okay, good. I think that might be an interesting result to look at and compare that to the GCA mapping. I think it has somewhat different methodology. So it'd be interesting to see how much they overlap. Yeah, and do no mass autobahn is doing another mapping. I've talked to them. They're probably not gonna have anything available until September timeframe, I think is what they were thinking about. So a bit or maybe even later in sometime in the fall is what they were saying. So that'll be a bit after the state assessment. Oh, that'll be another good resource. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so move on to the annual report. Or wait a minute, one more. Just before we move on I wanna apologize I'm having some internet issues. And so I'm gonna keep my visual off to be able to stay on the call. That's fine. All right, so I will share what I have as the last report. I hope this is the right one. I can find it, you can't annual report share. Now, I wasn't here at the last meeting. So you guys are gonna have to fill me in a little bit on I know there's a couple of things that are missing. And I think I can just deal with if Astu's not going to but where did the discussion leave off? What are the most important things to get at? I think this all looked pretty good to me until the sector on states. The way it was left, Lori would I believe was that Don was gonna provide the text for that. Right. Since we're sort of on hold there I can probably talk to Don and fill this in if he's having trouble finding time to just write a few paragraphs, sentences, even. Yeah, I don't think it needs to be much. Right, because it's sort of on hold. And was there anything else? I think there were the town manager goal recommendations but did these go in here or did they come out? I'm a little confused about this section. I mean, I agree with everything on here but does it belong in the report or is the report used to establish these or I'm fine with it in there but I think the order of things was that the report goes in in July the town manager's goals are discussed later toward the end of the calendar year. So I might suggest that we I think we should maximize any opportunity we have to get something in front of the council but I also don't want to have this be it, right? So what maybe I would suggest is to say that like based on this report here are some initial recommendations for town manager goals and we look forward to being consulted on additional goals. So like just to leave the door open for our consultation because there's a couple of things here that I mean, first, I think we need to see how we've worked towards how the town managers reporting towards his current goals. There's also some higher level of things like these are all very specific and I don't know if they will like come across in goal form. So we might want to work with the town with someone, I don't know who to make them more goal oriented. To polish to, what's a good word? Finalize these to polish them to make them more. Yeah, and I mean, I would say like I might say upfront here like climate action needs to be a lens applied to every single town manager to all the goals where relevant. So here are some specific things that we know need to be implemented and like we look forward to working with or we hope that the council can consider these as part of the town manager goals and we would be happy to provide additional guidance or feedback or something, some language like that. Like that. But here we present some specific suggestions. Yeah, I see Stephanie's hand up, she might have. Go ahead, Stephanie. Let's hope that you would clarify this process a bit. Well, I mean, it's kind of your process, I think it's fine. I think to Laura's point, good to just get something, but it doesn't preclude that you can't have additional goals or input at the point where the town managers creating those and reviewing them with the council. So I think Laura's suggestion was spot on, just sort of say these are your additional, I'm sorry, your initial goals and then you'll probably provide more feedback later. What I was gonna respond to was Laura's call for climate action being included in all the goals. I think this has come up before and I don't think that the town is in any way adverse to that, it's just that it's not clear what the application of that looks like. There has been a request, there's been offers for meeting with department heads to sort of talk about that. And then that sort of initially happened, but then there was nothing really sort of concrete offered in terms of language or what that looks like. So I think if your suggestion for that could be a little more specific, not you Laura specifically, just you as a committee. If you could come up with some more concrete examples of maybe other communities or if you're thinking about something specific, then can you identify that? Because I think there's a little confusion on the town side for that. And I think we've tried to do it to an extent that we can where it seems more logical, but these are the things that we're not sure, like I can't think, I'm just trying to think of like another department off the top of my head, but like for the WEC program, maybe it's like vehicles are all EVs that transport people within the town, just sort of very specific concrete things, actions that might be relevant. Okay, do we want to brainstorm a few of those or do we want to look at what other towns are doing or go ahead Steve. I think that's good to give it some specificity as Stephanie suggested. On the other hand, I'd sort of defer to the experts, the leads of those departments to think about the problem and come up with the solutions based on their existing experience and expertise. So I don't want to give them too many specific suggestions. Maybe some as examples to get them thinking would be appropriate, but the idea is that for each of those leaders within each of the departments to really think about, okay, here's the problem that we're facing, how can my group come up with solutions? I think that's kind of the hope when we say decisions are made with a climate lens as part of the decision-making process. I like that idea of putting something in there simply asking each department head or leader of each group or whatever the right terminology is to think a little about how they could make an impact on greening their department and what that looks like, maybe make a few suggestions and get some feedback back to, I don't know, to us for ideas, things we, if they need our help with something then maybe we can turn around and do something too, right? So does that make sense, Stephanie? I see your hands up again. Yeah, my only, I mean, and I like Steve's suggestion, I think my only point was that you all have offered to meet with people and to give them some guidance because some of them are having a hard time wrapping around their heads of what that means, like it's not as easy for the assessor to maybe just say off the top of their head, how does that, how does greening my department work? So, I mean, there are certain things that could sort of apply to all departments in town in terms of like, you know, how it relates to sort of staff travel and that kind of thing. But when you're talking about greening the department, they're not always clear. So again, if you have at least even some, I think Steve, your point is well taken, but I think to give them at least some ideas of, you know, examples for them to start, to help them in that process of thinking, I think that's where they're stuck. Stephanie, how about just brief one-on-one meetings? I mean, if you can provide us with a list of the, I mean, I don't know my way around the time of administration that well, who are the key players that we would want to meet with? And do we have maybe a volunteer just to meet with them for 20 minutes, one day to brainstorm a little bit and to talk about what it means? Because I think anyone on this committee could probably have some, have an interesting discussion on that point, right? You might not know much about what that particular person does, but we could ask them, you know, what do you do and how do you do it and what are some things and just brainstorm with them a little bit. Does that make sense? It does, the committee did that way in the beginning. So I think it's fine to do that again. I think you should coordinate through me. I can, you know, if people, I mean, it's, there's I think 12 or 13, I think 13 department heads. So, you know, you could sort of revisit how we did it in the beginning in terms of who met with whom, you know, some of those department heads have changed now. So it's actually maybe good timing. So then maybe we'll make it as one of our goals in this report to meet with department heads in the next year to talk about this. Will that solve the problem? I'll figure out a way to wordsmith this to say something like that. I'm not sure it fits in this section anymore, but to fit it in somewhere. Okay, that's good. So Stephanie, can I ask a question on the process here? So the town, there's the town manager goals that are ultimately approved by the town council, correct? Correct. Okay. And are you saying that the department heads submit ideas for what will be in those goals or are you talking about a different process like the work planning of each of the departments? I think it's a little bit different process. I mean, there were, and things are obviously related, but they're a little bit different. Like I think we're talking about what came up was climate should be in all departments and all decision-making, right? So that involves the department heads. So, and ultimately you might want the town manager to have that goal of ensuring that all the department heads implement that strategy, right? So that's kind of what the big picture goal is. But in terms of my, the offer has come up before and there were discussions before on how to get department heads sort of more informed or knowledgeable about what types of things they might be looking to do has come up before. And I'd say like in order for the town manager to implement that strategy, you're gonna need to work with department heads a little bit, because it's fine to have it. It's just like to blanketly state it without some support is I'm saying they just need some support in making that happen. So that's helpful. So I think what then I would suggest is that we add a town manager goal related to what Stephanie just said around. And then we include here that like our contribution to that is that we are willing and able to meet. And so like that's a kind of, and maybe we can approach this section like that. Anyway, I think that would be an example in my mind of like a good town manager goal that then we can also support on. The one thing that has happened, I would say since you all sort of came up with this a few years back was that in all of our capital requests, there are specific questions that sort of ask, do the requests benefit climate and adhere to the carp goals in some way? If so, how? So there's more like, there's more meat to it. It's not just a yes or no, it's like you have to explain how and why. So, I mean, in terms of at least procurement, which I think is important, there's at least some movement in that direction that didn't used to exist. Those all capital, all capital has to include that. So that's already happening so we don't need to include that as a... Correct. That's already happening. But that's capital, that's like a very specific piece of it. It's not, you're talking broadly, so there's way more. You know, and I think this sort of thing is really important. I know that Vasu is very big on making exponential changes and figuring out how to make exponential change. But I think talking to people is one of the best things that you can do. You put ideas in people's heads and it propagates, right? They talk to other people. So I think this sort of thing is important. All right, so I can wordsmith that a little bit and send it around. Hello, yeah. Can I just have one more point? This is not specific to a town manager goal, but I think in this document somewhere, and maybe I haven't reviewed it since the last time, since before the last meeting. So, I mean, we are a committee of the town manager and this is a report, but this report is going to the town council. And so I think something we need to reiterate to the town council is that they also have some responsibility here. I was extremely disappointed in a lot of things, but a lot of things related to the planning board nomination for whatever. But like one thing that was very clear is that none of the interview questions for planning board candidates had anything around climate in them. And that's honestly unacceptable at this point in time. So like I think we need to, just as we're asking the town manager to, and the town departments to integrate climate, the town council needs to be doing the same. Like we should not be asking questions of potential planning board or zoning board or maybe other committees that don't at least acknowledge the fact that we have these climate goals that we're trying to meet. And so I don't know where we could add that into this report, but I think it would be a missed opportunity not to flag that for the council. That they were the ones that approved the targets and they are also being held responsible for us meeting them. Okay, go ahead, Stephanie. I was just gonna say in terms of the promise, sorry, the process of appointing committee members, it really starts through the town manager's office. So the council basically would approve the appointments, but they're not the ones doing the interviews. So I wouldn't need to stop the interview questions then. Well, I think sometimes it's either department heads or department heads working with the town manager. So I'm personally I'm surprised because I wasn't aware of that. So I think that's, it may not be the town council that has to think about that, but that I think that's something that maybe should be included in the town manager's goals is that interviews for committee appointments need to address climate change or include questions on climate change. Like I would put that with a town manager goal. Okay, we can definitely stick that as a goal, right? It's just interview questions for new, is it committee appointments? Yes. Really any appointment, any town appointment, I would think. Yeah, we wrote a letter to that effect at one point as well to the town manager. I don't know if anyone remembers that. We put together, we sort of, I think they were putting together a building committee and we put together sort of a general recommendation. Some very good positive language about this is, this is the, Yeah. You remember that? Wasn't that for the school? Maybe it was for the school. Probably for the building committee, for the school. The building committee, but I think we asked that it sort of expand to all appointed positions. I'm not mistaken. I'd like to say that I thought and Laurie, you received a letter from the Amherst Climate Justice Alliance. Yeah. It's relevant to this. And along the lines of what you said about talking to people goes a long way. I think a part of the point of that letter was to bring the town manager directly into conversation with us. And we haven't had that for a long time. There are new members of the committee who have never been a part of a conversation with the town manager. And I think it would be very useful for us to have that an open-ended conversation about how he's doing and reaching his goals. I know that Stephanie is the person he turns to for that, but it's different to talk to him directly. Right. So how would we do that if we could, right? What has to be done there? Can we have a conversation directly with the town manager at some point? I mean, he did appoint us, right? So. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. And the relevance to the report may be that the report itself is the vehicle for him joining us and having that open-ended conversation. Can we request that, Stephanie? Can we request that he show up at one of our meetings or- You can request it. I'll just leave it at that. You probably should then, but what's the best timing for that after the report is put together for sure? I think probably after we've thought in more depth about goals that we would want to recommend for the town council to have and discuss them with the town manager. So that sort of segues us. We sort of already been talking about it. Maybe we should just keep talking about these goals a little bit more then. And then we really should move on. We should probably put this on the agenda again for next time, continuing to talk about these goals and what we want to discuss with the town manager if we were to invite him. So what else goes on this list or? I just want to, because I probably won't be here by the time this conversation happens. We need a historical perspective on the goals that we recommended the previous year as well as what we are now going to recommend and to hear from him what obstacles he has come up against or just it didn't get to the top of the list or where is it at? We're halfway through the year now, how for his goals, not for the fiscal year and that's a good time to take stock. So it could go both to the past and to the future. Maybe I'll try to put together a sort of list of not just, well, questions, some sort of a summary of what was suggested and questions to ask him exactly along these lines, how is this going and what are the challenges and what's one of the sticking points that we might be able to help with, something like that. I will think about this. I think that's a good suggestion. I mean, we have the information that we shared with. So we got offered to supply recommendations or ideas to the council, some of them got accepted and some of them didn't. So I think we need to go back to both the goals that were set and the goals we recommended to Andres Point and have us sit down with him and say, like, how are you working on the goals that made it? Here are some goals we wanted that didn't get made, like what are your thoughts on these? I don't think we have to spell that out in this report. I think we can just say that we're gonna do that. I think this is separate. I think the request for meeting with him and all of this stuff around it is separate from the report that we're preparing. Yeah, but what I would say again, and I'm gonna get on my soapbox again about this, there is absolutely no requirement of the council to even ask us for our input on these. And I think that's all, in my mind, this is all of these problems stem from that. So I think we just need to clarify in here that we do wanna be involved in giving feedback on the town manager goals because this is gonna be read by the town council supposedly, right? Okay. I think part of the feedback we got last year was we were too late and that's why we are starting much earlier. Yeah, but I call bullshit on that because there's no, I mean, I'm sure that's true, but we should not be an advisory committee if we're supposed to do these things, someone needs to, we need to be built into the process. We're not built into the process. Luckily, we were even considered as an afterthought, right? But there's no requirement for them to even consider us in that process. So I think putting it in here now is getting ahead of the game and being more proactive to say we wanna be involved in this, but again, there's no requirement for the council to even do that. Okay, I'd sort of like to move on at this point, but I think I know I have some action items that I will do and send out just a, I'll send out another version of the annual report and I will put something else, it might not be immediately, but I'll try to put something together to talk about in the way of how do we have a discussion with the town manager and what are the talking points and what is the historical perspective that we need? And Stephanie, I might be in contact with you for some information around that. Of course. Okay, Steve, go ahead, but quickly. One option, Laurie, might be for you to request a meeting with a town manager, just you and he as the new chair of ECAC, just to get to know you kind of meeting and that might be a good strategy to take. If he doesn't wanna meet with all of us, I think that would be the obvious thing to try next. Yeah, what you might do in addition to. You and the new vice chair. Right, yeah. Solomon. Right, and then in some of the correspondence that Stephanie sent us, the town council had replied to Vasu about when ECAC may present this report to town council. Yeah. Those are dates in September. Are we gonna talk about those two? Do we need to pick a date now? It's probably not too early. I think it was there, the town council preference that we scheduled a date early. Okay, so why don't we pick a date in September? It's gonna be a little bit difficult. What date is, when and where does town council meet again? Someone remind me. There were two dates. Was it, where was it? Was it in that? It was in Vasu's email message, his final message to us. I think it's one of the open-ended things. Yes, yes, yes. I'm coming on with it. Annual report, there's the headline. September 11th or 18th. You got it, yep. 11th or 18th, and what time is the council meeting at? They start at 6.30, but that doesn't mean that's when you would be presented. They start at 6.30 p.m. and go to about 6.30 a.m., it seems. That was the 11th or the 18th? Correct. Yeah. I can do either of those, so. I would suggest the 11th because sometimes things get bumped. Oh, good point. And that would mean maybe there's a place to get bumped too. And they get bumped for a good reason. So we would present the report, hopefully they'll have the report before then, but we'll present it then and talk about 10 sound manager goals at that point. Is that correct? And if you noted, there was a time constraint of like five minutes per topic. I just want to point that out. Five minutes for the whole presentation or five minutes for each, the presentation and the top and the suggested goals. Five minutes for each of those. Yeah. Okay, 10 minutes. I got it. I will need a reminder of that, but I can do that. All right. So no long PowerPoints, just maybe a one pager. Okay, moving on then. I think we are at special, we sort of done the town manager goals and the annual report review. So we're on to specialized stretch code. For the minutes, can I just have a point of clarification? Do we, so Lori, will you respond to Lynn or Stephanie, will you respond to Lynn regarding the date? Whoever, I mean, I'm happy to, but Lori, you might want to as the new chair to introduce yourself as well. Okay. Let me make myself a note. Lori, just please copy me on that. Okay. I'm wondering about dates for the report. Copy Stephanie, okay, got it. And also, especially for you, Jesse and you, Lori, that just a reminder that your correspondence with the town manager or the president of the council, you should copy me just a reminder that all correspondence is public record. So just being, just note that. I was a federal employee for 17 years. Know how that works, I'm a state employee now. All right, so specialized stretch code. Where are we with that? Who's Andred? Or is that me? Or is that Jesse? Okay, go ahead, Jeff. Oh, that was the, you were actually at a meeting last week. Yeah. So just quickly show of hands. I know I think Steve was who, did anyone see that besides Steve? Okay, great. You should watch the recording. No, please. I want to start by just contextualizing that I think the town council is under, it's a difficult job and there's a lot of pressure and there's a lot going on. I watched the meeting at home until about 830 and then I drove into town and presented in person and watched for another hour and presented in person. And I think we should not take lightly the burden that is their job. And I want to say that very clearly and we feel very strongly about what we're doing and the climate and I believe in it. But I think, and I tried as best I could, although I did get frustrated at one point to offer us really to try to set a precedent where we're helping them make good decisions and taking, not adding to their burden. So that's the context. Anna presented with, along with me, we went very quickly, they were, it was late. They had been through a lot already and ultimately there was a vote taken to decide if they were gonna even keep talking about it, which means sending it to CRC, which passed. Two people who expressed concern, two or three, I think two people who had expressed concern about taking that time, basically saying like, we have no extra time between now and the end of the year to even talk about this. They did not vote no, they abstained. So I also think there is some strong political will to, on the part of the council to come down on the side of being, fighting climate change. No one's willing to say no, I think, but they legitimately said like, is this a good idea? And I wanna just, and so it passed and it is going to committee and I have offered and we'll take that on as part of this group to support that process for them, try to get them answers to whatever questions they have. And right now, I think what was interesting as I prepared for this and looked at the updated dates on what's happening right now in July 1st. So right now, this town is completely up to date with this year's residential and commercial stretch code updates. We automatically update on the stretch code. What we're proposing, the specialized code could come into play would be July 1st of next year. At that time, we automatically bump up to the next level of the stretch code on July 1st of next year. So it's a kind of a double-edged sword. It's like, is this the hill we die on when a large portion of this, a lot of the meat of the energy efficiency is going to happen no matter what. And then, but I think there's a lot of value and I tried to make this clear at the meeting. I think there's a lot of value and I think it was Lori, you were the one, maybe it was Vasu who put this in our PowerPoint. It was like, we're sending a message that towns want to push the state. We want to adopt it. We want to make the goals and the sort of nuts and bolts of what's happening. Maybe isn't as important. I really believe that all of the difficult stuff of the energy code is happening no matter what and that the specialized add-on doesn't, I think it brings a lot of value without bringing a lot more difficulty. The only other thing I will say to report back is that I found, I thought that Paul, we did the due diligence to meet with the town staff who conceded that this really doesn't affect them. And then Paul's comment was, this is really complicated. It's gonna be a burden on our staff. And I think I just, if anyone does end up watching it, I don't know what to make of that if it was a political, I think he wants to support his staff. He should be supporting his staff. So if that's what it was, that's a good thing. But it was, it gave me pause. And then the only other thing that gave me pause was one of the members of the council referred to this as willy nilly, which I took exception to. So I say all of this to say like, these guys are under a ton of pressure of stuff that is, I would say more immediate and more intense and more personal and more charged than what we're doing. And so we, I wanna be very respectful of their time and they have some legitimate concerns about us taking up their time. So they had some smart pushback that wanna make sure we're not wasting their time. So again, I'd like to do this in a way to really take the opportunity to show them that we're not wasting their time. We're not just rattling their cage. But we're actually, as best as we can, we're a committee that is supporting them to make this decision so that we will continue to have their ear moving forward. Yeah, the poll pushing back after, so who, you talk to the staff or who talk to staff? Stephanie and I both met with them twice and I got no sense from them. And it was a pointed question that, and I don't want this to be a record of putting Paul on the spot, but it just alerted me to the, that this is not about counting carbon, this is about politics. And I thought it was a very important lesson for me. Like to be perfectly honest, I was ruffled by the whole thing. I found it to be, I found the whole politics of it to be a little, like I was a little deregulated even and got a little frustrated during the meeting that Steve might not have noticed in watching it. You covered pretty well there, Jesse. So it's not taking your composure. Yeah, I'm guessing you probably didn't speak up. And did you say that you actually spoke with staff and they seemed okay with it or? That was a big part of our presentation. Okay. Was making that abundantly clear. So again, I think what I'm learning is like, there's some politics in here and there's, and people are saying things that don't necessarily, that are like, and that might not be a bad thing. I just think it's something we want to be aware of and just really mindful and respectful moving ahead, like as best we can. Okay. Makes me want to talk to Paul all the more. Good luck. Steve, go ahead. I think what I also heard, I believe, was an underlying concern about the specialized code, its impact on housing prices and housing costs. And as you said, Jesse, there's a legitimate concern there. I think there's legitimate responses to those concerns, but that was I think some of the concern from the counselors as well. So the task going forward will be to explain the benefits of the specialized code. And if there are higher upfront costs, how those are offset by operating costs. And I have all the materials for you because there was just in the last week, a big back and forth on the BEA about some other town had this objection that it was going to raise the cost of housing. And by so much not taking into account any of the incentives that are out there or, you know, so it's not right. Yeah, there's a lot of creative. Yeah. I just want to say there's an article in the Boston Globe yesterday. Right, that's it. That was the response. Okay, people were very upset about it. Yeah, go ahead. And I'm trying to keep up with this stuff, but I would say if I'm going to be, I'm thinking of, I think a way to do this would be to try to proactively put together sort of an FAQ that's custom to the concerns. And I'm going to reach out to Anna and sort of maybe we can get a list of questions and come more prepared to answer. So if people are welcome to just forward me articles and I'll keep a tally of that. I mean, even an article entitled the new net zero code might make it cost prohibitive to build houses, you read the article and what it says is it could raise the price by, you know, 2%. And as someone that and they're, so someone that knows a little bit about this, you can reduce the price of a home by 2% pretty easily too. There's other, there's so much other. The article didn't support the headline at all. The data didn't support the headline. So I think there's some really strong compelling information out there. I don't think we have to bend facts or like over promise anything. I think it's a, I think it's a, I've just got to, I want to do the work and try to show them what people are saying. Other, Stephanie, go ahead. I just wanted to say as a department head who was not aware and I'm sorry, I could not watch the meeting that night. I had another obligation. I was not aware of this comment and that I will be trying to sort of find out things on my end as well. Thank you very much. And I think I saw Andra and Duane. I'm not sure who was first. Andra, go ahead. As we go through our machinations, machinations, whatever that is, I want to raise people's awareness that next week there's hearings on a number of very important bills about buildings, including one that's quite simply with very, very few carve outs says all buildings, all new buildings should be all electric, period. And save the municipalities from this ridiculous and time-consuming, energy-consuming work. So that the bill is sponsored by Rep Khan in the house. She was the one to put it forward last session as well. And that's where we need to go. Specialized stretch code is minute in its effect on Amherst. And I think what we need to remember is that there is a tendency among some of our politicians to have a reaction about getting too far out front. And so the solve for that is we're not, we're behind. Here's all the towns that are ahead. Yeah. And just to be clear, the town council was incredibly gracious and by majority in favor of this. So I want to be clear, I was just wanted to, I was just particularly taken aback by some of the pushback that I wasn't prepared for. I think they are excited about this and wanting to support this moving forward in general. Okay, any more comments on this or shall we move on? It is getting late. I was just going to add, Jesse, I think that's absolutely right. There was a victory at the meeting and we don't want to criticize things and grab the feet from the victory. I would just add just as much as there's great climate sensitivity, there's also a lot of sensitivity on affordability of housing and for better or for worse, that is normally thought of as upfront costs of the house and I can see the politics or at least the concerns that our leaders at the council would be concerned about with regard to adopting a policy without some real deliberation that could have the impact of even increasing by one or 2% the cost of housing, not for UNI, but for the lowest income sector of Amherst and so forth. That being said, I think, and I didn't see the presentation, let me say that really appreciate the work that went into this and it does sound like you talked about the incentives a bit. I think it's really important to talk about, okay, what are some of the complimentary policies that the state's moving forward in terms of helping to reduce this upfront cost and particularly as it may align with lower income support. And then I would also, while it's still probably a year away or more, there is the climate bank that is being put together in Massachusetts that I think a main target of that is gonna be building electrificate funds to support or financing to support building electrification. And maybe that will work out so that there's a, if the mortgage rate or something can be attached to the in some way the operating cost of the facility, that would really help out. And some of this climate bank may have that kind of effect but we'll have to wait and see on that. Yeah, no, that's super helpful to remember. That's all those conversations that you're gonna be upcoming, the affordable housing. And I do think it is a perception problem, not a factual problem. Okay, Jesse, thanks again for taking that on. I see, oh, Laura, you had your hand up. Go ahead. I just wanted to say the same thing that it's a perception problem. And also I would just flag while doing, I think everything you said is correct. I think when we're talking about the renters, we need to be careful not to be, because if someone building a new facility on gas or without the energy efficiency that it needs to have, is putting that burden on their renters. Absolutely. So the question is, who is it gonna be more costly for? Even if it's a tiny bit more costly right now, although I don't even agree that's the case, then it's gonna be harder to operate in the future and it's gonna create a burden on our town. So I just think at any turn, we need to push back on that because I think it's a false narrative that is hurting our ability to push forward on some of these. Yeah, particularly in a town that doesn't have access to natural gas. So we're talking about, yeah. Okay. All right, so let's move on. Next on the topic on the agenda is staff updates. Stephanie? Sure, I don't wanna take a whole lot of time, but one of the things I wanted to mention is that for the August 2nd meeting, the fellows will be presenting their projects to you. I'd like to give them a half hour each, if that's possible, so that it gives them time to present and you time to ask some questions. So just wondering if that's possible to give them that kind of time. That should be fine. And also to note that I think one of them is on right now is being put to sleep by this meeting as we speak. Hi, Caitlin. I know, Caitlin, can I bring you in for real quick, Caitlin? I'm sorry to put you on the spot, but I'm just gonna bring you in just to say hello. Okay, you can unmute yourself and just say hi and you can put on your camera too. Hello, let me see if I can get my camera. I don't know if I have that option right now, actually. That's okay. But it's nice to be listening in getting some context, not falling asleep at all. I love these kinds of meetings. So it's nice to be meeting you all here and looking forward to presenting in early August. Nice to meet you, Caitlin. Thanks, Caitlin. Thank you. Forward to hearing from you. So, yeah, they've been doing an incredible job. Miguel, you will meet. He's actually on vacation this week, so you will meet him on the second as well. So thank you for giving them that time. And then just in general, I think I updated you last time that we are proposing to locate the fast charging station in the CVS lot. So I have submitted the application to Eversource. So we should be hearing back from them about that. I do need to find out, I'm looking to potentially try to find an additional five dual head, level two chargers locations. I don't know if I have to ensure that we get the fast charging unit in, because it's the same program. So I'm not sure if that has to happen and be completed before I can apply for those other stations, but that's kind of on my radar to sort of see if we can maximize getting those additional stations sooner than later. So that's on the radar. And then I think we're talking about funding projects for through green communities for the fall. One of the potential projects that we could investigate the possibility for is for one building electrification project. So getting it off fossil fuels, there's a half a million dollar grant funding for that through green communities. We potentially are already moving that direction for town hall now. So the only thing is that if we do get that funding, it ties us up for two years, but quite honestly, I don't know how much we'd have available moving forward anyway in the green communities program. So I don't think, I think that would be a really good focus for us to sort of consider either that $500,000 grant funding for two years or do we go with, I think of the maximum we can request this year is $200,000. We could also request that for the same project. It just means we would like add that to a funding that we have already for this project. So we might be able to do a bit more. So anyway, it's just that's one of the things we're considering another request was to look at potentially doing this for a cracker farm. So again, we have to sort of decide what's the most feasible application for moving one of these two buildings to be fossil fuel free. So we have to start somewhere. So it's exciting for me, it's exciting to like actually be having these conversations with people that are receptive. It's like, great. So that's really nice. So that's moving forward. I do want to say, and I don't know why I've been so reluctant to say this, but we've actually met our 20% municipal reduction goal for green communities below our baseline year. We met it 2022. And I think I've been reluctant to share it because in my mind, I can't help but being stuck on the fact that it's very much because we're not doing our meetings in person. So for me, I'm just feeling like, oh, that's kind of false because if we were doing business as usual we probably wouldn't be meeting that goal. But we did meet it. So I'm going to say it out loud because we did and currently as we are operating we have met that goal of 20% production from our baseline energy use, which was 2011, I believe. And this is for the green communities reporting. This isn't our bigger carp that's separate. This is just specifically for municipal building and municipal energy use. Okay, Jesse, you have a question about that? I just think it's so important to praise business as usual. There's no way we're meeting any goals doing business as usual. And I think it's really exciting no matter how it happened even if it was a disruptive illness to say it's possible, different things are possible and that it will not include business as usual. So I think it's a strong and wonderful thing that you should be shouting out because it's got a great message. It is. And I've asked Caitlin to include some of that in her reporting so that it's actually captured in the update. So, and I will be, I will actually, as we apply for this next round, I think what I'm gonna do is kind of try to build that in to some kind of a press release. We should find a way also to perpetuate the virtual meetings then, right? I mean, how do we? I've been saying all along that it's, I mean, for one thing, we get way more participation by meeting virtually but also I've been saying as well that it does reduce the energy intensity, the use of any of the buildings as well as the transportation for people to get here. So it's a state policy though that has to be live meetings or is it a local policy? No, right now it's a state open meeting law requires meetings to be in person. Right now that's been suspended because of COVID and it was extended until I think March 15th of 2024, 25. It was extended another two years. So we should probably approach our local, this is something for all of us to take note of, to approach our local representatives and Senator, State Senator and ask them to change the open meeting law so that we can keep doing this. But let's not discuss that now. I think there's some, I think there's some movement in that direction. And the Lord- Can I actually disagree? What, you disagree? I think there's a lot to discuss about this. Okay, so maybe- I think moving a lot of our public discourse online has done a lot to create this political atmosphere that Jesse was describing. And so I think we have to balance those two things. Maybe it's public, I think there's ways to work around it. Like if you wanna make a public comment, you should come in person. I don't know, or maybe not, but like I just feel like our online discourse has really just made everything a little bit less collaborative and constructive. I have some comments about that, but I'm gonna save them for another time or maybe even just offline between you and me, Laura. There's a bunch of questions I'd like to ask, but I think we don't have time to have that discussion now. So let's maybe thinking about it another time. It might be worthy of discussing open meetings and another as an agenda item sometime and what we can do about that. All right, so other quickly, Stephanie, is the heat pump RFP still in legal? Yes, so it is going under legal review. There has been some response. I think the question is not about having, like the RFP has written, we actually got a lot of kudos for that. The sticking point is about the actual incentive because it's ARPA funding. Somehow it has to be tied somehow to either the pandemic or like whether or not, I think the recommendation was like, is the town's fossil fuel use greater than the average state fossil fuel use? So I actually have, Caitlin actually sort of looking at that on our behalf. So there has to be some way to tie it in to get the actual incentive for the pumps themselves. We can do all the education, we can do all the outreach. It's the actual purchase of the pumps and or providing incentive towards the purchase of the pumps. So anyway, that's kind of the last sticking point. So it's kind of holding things up a little bit further, but for the most part it looks good, which is that was great feedback at least. So a little more to go. Okay. And with that, I'm going to move quickly on to ECAC member updates. Any updates other than what we've talked about? Only that yesterday was the hottest day ever. Ever, on the history of the planet. That's right. Well, no, no, no, no, it recorded history. Recorded history, right? Sorry, not the history of the planet. Well, I think there were some other hot days at the beginning. At the beginning it was very hot. So keep up the good work everybody. Yeah, pretty scary. Okay. Items for the next meeting agenda. Do we still want to have that map discussion or did we get out and need to be gotten out today? I would still like to raise that, but I may not be available at the next two meetings. I'm going to be traveling for business. So maybe for July, for August. Yeah, but not the August second meeting. I think I'm also, I'm away until then. August 14th, 16th. Just to note that I'm away on the 16th of August. What happens to these meetings when you're away? Well, we get somebody else to just start them and the chair basically does what I do for technical support. Okay. That's what you think, Stephanie. You have no idea what happens at these meetings. So right now, technically, you have a quorum, even without you and Andra, and we don't have a Sue, obviously. I didn't hear from anybody else about their vacation schedule. So right now, as far as I know, you have a quorum, but, you know, things sometimes change. Stella couldn't make it tonight, but that was like a last minute thing. So if something like that happens, I don't know. And I believe there's one more meeting in July, correct? July 19th. I will be at that meeting, and that will be my last meeting. Is there an effort underway to recruit some additional members? They are aware. I mean, all I can say is they're aware that, well, there's always a call. There's always a call for membership. So remember, as I've reminded you all before, you're not the only committee and that you're not the only ones with vacancies. So they're trying to do all of these kind of at the same time. I know there was a bunch of recent appointments. So hopefully they're, you know, they're sort of going through. But I always reach out and say, especially when I like when I knew that Andra was definitely leaving in August, I sent a reminder and a note that that was the case. So let's make sure we revisit the question of whether we'll have a quorum at the future meetings next time so that we can, if we need to reschedule the meetings that we have a quorum, I would hate to see us, you know, we're going to be right. I hate to see us cancel a whole bunch of meetings because we don't have a quorum. I'd rather find a time when we can all be here. There's no real threat right now of you not having the quorums, even with two members down. You still have seven people. Yeah. And that means five need to be present. For the quorum. Jesse, are you raising your hand? No. OK. All right. So if there's nothing else for what? Well, what else is on the agenda for next time? Pace, if we can get done here. And not much more to say about heat pumps. Let's go there. I want to talk about solar outreach for solar to. Right. What next for solar promotion? I have on my list here. So, yeah, a discussion about solar. What we do, what we can do to move that forward. I think we have to talk about town manager goals again. So that's ongoing annual report if we need it. But I think it'll be hopefully done. I'll send out something for one last set of comments. And if I don't get any back, I guess we'll just send it in. All right. If we get the comments back, we might have to discuss it one more time and then we'll submit it after the next meeting. They get substantial comments. All right. So with that, what's the next we have? Are we at the public comment yet? Where do we go? So let's open it for public comments. Martha and Eric, Martha, go ahead. Go ahead, Martha, you can unmute. Hello, it's Martha Hanner and Amherst resident speaking as an individual. But as you know, I am a member of the solar body or working group. So I must say, I found all your discussion interesting today. And one thing I'm just concerned a little bit, you know, sometimes you sound like it's we versus them. And really, we're really honestly trying to do the same thing, right? We're all concerned about the environment and trying to get this right. And so in the bylaw, we have a lot of, you know, sort of the little technical details we have to get right in the draft. And then we have the bigger issues. And so certainly all the discussion of the maps and the issues is ongoing. Just had a couple of things to say. I see there's a lot of potential in the built environment, like some of you said, you know, you drive around town, and you're looking to see all these roofs that really they're sloping and facing south and why the heck don't they have solar panels on them yet. But if you got the email from Joe Cumberford, I just got it today. You know, she has quite a few bills in progress on the subjects of climate change and solar and so on. I wanted to point out one particular that they just had hearings. Was called an act promoting solar energy canopies on large parking lots. And she actually referenced an article about a new bylaw in France that's going to require large parking lots all over France to have solar canopies. So, you know, maybe that's our future too. It seems that would be helpful. Then beyond that, I just wanted to say to Jesse, you know, appreciated you're going to town council. And it certainly is true. They have so many different subjects that they have to deal with. It's challenging for them to get the knowledge base for every single one. You know, when they have these, you know, 630 to midnight meetings and so on. And so many different subjects. And so all you can do is just, again, try to be patient and try to feed them the information and talk individually to your individual. District representatives who are usually receptive to, to hearing from, from people. And also a final just comment on the impact of COVID. If you look at the Massachusetts reports on climate goals and so on, you see that COVID helped the whole state reach their 2020 goals because there's this nice big dip in transportation that happened in 20 to 21, which was the largest chunk of greenhouse gas emissions. And it's because everybody was suddenly working from home. So that is an effect. So you all just keep up the good work. And I do want to assure you that the solar bylaw working group is working conscientiously. And we do have a lot of issues still to discuss and then the maps to study, but I think it's interesting that you folks also want to have a good look and discussion of the maps. So thank you. That's it. Thank you, Martha. And thank you for your work on the bylaw working group. Very much appreciated. Did you raise your hand again, Martha? Or is that? Oh, no, I'm sorry. I didn't. There we go. Okay. So if there's no other comment. I think we can adjourn. They're moved to adjourn. Second that. So see you all. Thanks, Lori. Yeah. Thanks, Lori. Thank you. Thank you. You're all good. Bye. Bye. Bye.