 You know, we have even the audience. Yeah, I just did that in case I have to hop off and do CRC. I don't want to lose a connection. Got it. Thank you. We're recording. And there's Matt. And Andy, I'm going to ask you to repeat that we're recording because the chair needs to make that announcement. We're not good at making sure that we do that for the chair. So. We'll do. OK, so I'm going to call the Finance Committee meeting of Thursday, December 15, 2022, to order 3pm. And thank everybody for being here. And I think we've one member present who's going to be hopefully joining us very soon. This is the meeting that is being held virtually. It's pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 is extended. This meeting will be conducted by remote mean members of the public who wish to access the meeting. May do so via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance. Members of the public is permitted. But every effort is being made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. And I need to advise everybody that this is being recorded, so it's a recorded meeting. And with that, I'm going to go through the committee members present just to make sure that they can hear me and we can hear them. And again, alphabetically, Lynn. Present. By last name, obviously. Matt, I would say Bob is next. I'm here. Matt. Also here, thank you. Bernie. Erzen. Michelle. Present. And Kathy. Yes, here. OK, so we'll keep an eye out for Alicia. And I do not see her in the attendees group. So if she comes in there, I will let you know. Lynn, since you're maybe need to be the one to help her then at that point. Yeah, thanks. So that being said, let's continue with the meeting. We also have two other members of the council present who are here because we do want to come back to the agenda item that we started last week on the residential property transfer fees proposal. And I want to we will get to that is our second major agenda item, because I want to make sure that we don't feel constricted on time, but also conscious of the fact that Mandy's chair of the CRC and their meeting this afternoon later and she needs a break between meetings, certainly to be able to get there. So for all of those reasons, it's we want to do that. The order of the agenda just so that everybody's aware of it and then people can choose to drop out and come back a little later if they want. Is they'll do quickly ask for public comment. Then we're going to discuss the draft of the guidelines and then talk about the transfer fees. And then the third and then the last major item of the day is we want to talk about 457 Main Street property acquisition, which was referred to the committee and Dave Zomac and Rob Moore are here. But if they don't want to listen to the next section of the meeting, I'm sure if they take come back in half an hour or 45 minutes, they're certainly saving probably at least an hour before we would get to that item. I would guess, but I can't be certain. So any questions about the agenda? And if not, see, there are a couple members of the public or at least one member of the public present. And I guess when we get to that item, if you might want to bring Rob Moore into the room too, he's in the attendee group right now. If any members of the public would like to make public comment, this is the time. And please raise your hand. I'm looking at the, OK, there doesn't seem to be a request for public comment. So we'll go into the guidelines draft that has been sent. It was sent to the committee for review. I believe it's in the packet also, the revised draft. And I want to thank Kathy for taking over the role of taking the prior version and the comments received at the council meeting and subsequently from counselors and providing us with the draft. So I'm going to turn it over to Kathy to see if she has any introductory comments that she would like to make. Or if not, if you have a way that you like, do you want to take over and proceed through the draft? Or how would you like to do it, Kathy? Anyway, the committee wants to. I don't you sent it to everyone in advance. So I'll just do a quick summary of what I did. For the most part, if someone sent a comment with added wording that fit, I just added it every once in a while. More than one person said to comment on the same section. And so I made an attempt to honor both of them. And there are a couple of places where there was a more significant change. So just on this very first page to make it clear that we're not moving away from any of our policy goals. We're just picking where the guidelines are focused in particular areas that have financial implications. So we just wrote them out as up at the top. So that was just a clarity because it used to just say, continue all our policies. So, Andy, anyway, people want, if people read it, they could ask questions. The other significant change, if you go to the next page, we wanted to make it clear. And I see in this version, now we make it clear twice, but that we're saying there is a limit on tax revenues. And we're recommending against considering an override, an operating budget. So we wrote it very clearly in case anyone didn't get the message. So we put in both what 2 and 1 half does, but also that we are making a strong recommendation that we don't want to even consider it. And then scroll to the next page. The initial one you see on Crescent AI, we wanted to emphasize that we were able to bring these programs in by extra money we had. So that's why as we go into FY 24 in future, when we lose that extra money, that's the tightening of the budget that we're facing. So we just added that this was achievable because we had this extra money. Then I think there was a clarification down at the bottom that it used to say three major tax exempt institutions. We didn't really say that we went the higher education thing. So that was just what we were talking about. Next page. I'm trying not to call out anything that's just purely. Sean just put his hand up. Yeah, the one thing I would suggest changing is the first edit there FY 23 included the addition of two new programs, only achievable by using $500,000 from a one-time transfer. So the $500,000 that we pulled from stabilization wasn't to support those new programs. It was to support possibly having our first debt payment for the Jones Library Project. So I wouldn't combine those two. Those things are both accurate, but I want to combine the two and say that one contributed to the other. So I would suggest thinking about that one and writing it a little bit different. Maybe we could just put a period after DEI. My memory is we pulled money for the firefighters, then Sean as well. So we used ARPA funds for the firefighters and we used the stabilization fund as planned if we were going to have our first debt payment for the Jones Library Project, which would have spiked our capital spending. But it was not to start the DEI or Cress program. So I think it's good to note that. So point of period after Cress and DEI I think is accurate that FY 23 did include the addition of two new programs. And then maybe rewriting the $500,000 just to say that it was that did include $500,000 to support capital, I think would be a different way to say it. OK. When I wrote the original, when you follow the logic through, the purpose of having that sentence there was to because we were comparing 22 to 23. And it was part of the 22 to 23 comparison. And that's why it was in there originally. And I think that you could move it back to where it was and then put in DEI and Cress is an acceptance in some way. OK, we'll fix that to make sure it's accurate. Michelle has her hand up. Yeah, Michelle. OK. Oh, I thought I lost the screen. Are we is it OK to make a comment on anything on this page right now? Well, if we say just with this, OK, but is it about this? And if we're finished with this, then we can go to the next. So, you know, so Sean, just so you could give us wording on this, but if we brought in our money to help. And if the point was we were able to do some things because we had money beyond property tax revenue. So maybe you can just. Yeah, I'll send I'll try to write it and send it to you and you can think about how to fold it in. OK, so Michelle, go ahead. OK, so this is on the last paragraph. I just want to clarify when you say you proposed no increase to state aid. You're talking to Paul there or. Yes, OK, yes. Oh, OK, and I'm not sure something about the word hope there is just not I don't. It feels a little off to me and I I'm not sure if that's that sort of language is used elsewhere in the document. But I see that you changed it from recognized to hope. So I just wanted to ask about that. OK, the change in this was not my wording, but suggested wording. It was because recognize assumes they're going to do it. So this change that they we hope they would do it. And we can't actually, since they've made no statement about that, we we can't even say they expect. Can we say we would like? Like, I'm just wondering if we can be more proactive in our language as, you know, like hope is sort of like, well, we hope it happens. But what we would like for it to happen is that I mean, is that true that we would like this? I mean, well, yeah, we could be more proactive. But this is anyone can give me a word here. But we could also just said, but we could just say, but but the governor elect. Or maybe likely or may increase the thing is, we don't know what they're going to do. So anyone can suggest wording here. Lynn, I just I just suggested some wording, Kathy. And I'm asking, are we would we like for that to happen? Well, like seems to equally anyone else can shout out. We would like the governor elect. We would urge the governor elect. Yeah, I mean, the reality is this is not a document. He's going to the governor. This is going to the governor. Yes, what you could say also is. But we. Recognize the governor like tea lean lieutenant governor. Like fiscal. May support. Yes. So. Propose increased state aid. Yeah, that sounds good. So we go back to recognize and change are likely to may it works. Just fine. Right. Thank you. Yes. I like that. Yeah. Kathy, do you have a document you're editing? Cause for all of a sudden I don't seem to be able to edit this. I can. If I do my screen to open. Do you want me to. Yeah, please. Cause this is not a word. I don't have a word document up here. Oh, you, you don't have a word document. Yes. So if you want me, I can share my screen. If I'm allowed to. Here they are. Yeah. I made it so you could. Okay. So you want me to take this down. You have to stop sharing. Yeah. Is mine up on the screen now? Yes, it is. Okay. I will capture. I will. The one other one we're fixing. So let me just get up to. Just bought while you're at the very beginning though. Let me also say you either need to not capitalize climate action, or you need to capitalize all of the rest. You also need to fix the subject line. The subject line. Yeah. It's just like 23 budget policy guidelines. I'll put the very top. Oh gosh. I did. No one caught that before Bernie. Thank you. My hand is still up for another matter though. Okay. So let me just. Let me just get to, since now I'm a scribe. John's going to fix the one. So. We. Recognize. Yeah, I got it. Yeah. And I think it was made may propose because they don't support. They propose. They're filing the bill. Okay. Okay. So Bernie. We, we may take this up again, or maybe it might be better to take this up when we get to section eight, but we, we continue to insist. That the higher institutions of higher education providers with pilot payments. I've tried to make the point and maybe nobody agrees that. If you look at the Boston program. They give credit for community benefits. And it's oftentimes easier for an institution. If you are the CFO of an institution to donate services, goods or services. Then it is to write a check. So if we're, we're. My point simply is if we're looking for assistance, we need to understand the colleges or the university in the colleges. May be able to provide us with beneficial activities. For example. If we're going to get to section eight, we may want to, and you're referenced the Boston program. There may. I would, would strongly suggest that we put in a line about. Engaging in activities that benefit the community as well as. Cash contributions. I don't know if it's true, but at one point they were the largest taxpayer in town. So again, if we're going to, when we get to section eight, we may want to end your reference to the Boston program. There may. I would, would strongly suggest that we put in a line about. The city of Boston. The city of Boston as well as cash contributions. Okay. So when we get to that page, Bernie, those words were added, but you may want them to be added more strongly. So I'll point them out. Yeah, let me look again at section eight. Get to the end. They said. Benefits, but, but you may want them. Added more strongly. Should. Should we, should I now, I guess I'm the scroller. So just. Kathy, let me just. I can wait until later. Okay. So the state program actually is called pilots. Right. So I, we have to differentiate how we say that. Okay. So let's look at it later then because. You might want to just mark that we want to make that part consistent with later. If you want to send me this document, I can. Become the scribe. Okay. So the other thing to know is though that. Pilot has also been used for proposed legislation. And this is not just recent. This is for many, many years. To allow. Towns to require. Some sort of payment consistent with the statute. And. You know, that's why I think the pilot keeps coming up in this fashion. Okay. So I'm just going to. It's hard for me to get out and send it in. So I'll just. So we'll just keep going and the actual, the word pilot means payment and lieu of taxation. So if we want to add other words, we have to add them later. So should I keep scrolling? Please. Okay. So. There were a few places that it's word smithing. So just making clear that the budget committee would also, the finance committee is providing advice. We deleted. A section that was later. You'll see it later. Okay. So on. On reparations, we changed the wording and I double checked it with Michelle so that we would address the concern that. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. We're we advocating for new policy? We just state that. When we are considering the stabilization. After the free. F wait, 23 is stabilized. We will be. We will be, we will be need to consider the amount. So we just changed to a simple statement. And Michelle, this is the language I shared with you that you gave me a thumbs up for. I apologize. I apologize. No, it's not in the language. It's fine. I will take it down. Okay. So then on the next page. Deleted improved the rating because. This was actually a Lynn at it. It's highly unlikely that we can get a higher rating than double A plus. So we just get rid of the statement. Not to. Quick heads up that Alicia has joined us. I just brought her into the room. Alicia, can you hear. Yes, thank you, Andy. Okay, thank you. Okay. So the major change on this page is BCG has already met. There was no recommendation to do anything else. So we just deleted the paragraph. And inserted that. We're good to go with two and a half for each of the major divisions. Percent increase. I'm waiting for that. I'm waiting for each of the major divisions. Percent increase. I'm waiting to see, Sean has a handout. It was just in regards to the BCG. I think you're right. There was no recommendations. It did seem like there was a general consensus that. Operating budgets need more money. All operating budgets need more money, not just, you know, not just the schools, but we talked about sort of the needs of the town and the library as well. So it may be, it's already kind of said throughout this document. But just. It may be worth clarifying that the sort of the consensus from that meeting was to put more money to operating budgets when we can. Or that was my, my takeaway from that meeting. Yeah. So is it good enough for the committee? I think saying that. Given what's going on. Even living within this is a very tight operating budget. So. You know, rather than saying if there's more money put it into operating, but that would be, you know, we're, this is a council document. So. Are we saying that should money become available? We want to put it into operating, but which is what that would imply. I'm just looking to land. I'm actually more comfortable. With the way it's stated here. Because adding what Sean just suggested. I mean, I think that goes without saying, and we did it this past year when we had money as we closed out the year. I just don't think we want to hold out that hope all the time that we're going to be giving everybody increases. Okay. So I'm going to leave it as is, unless I hear more. Okay. So I noticed when I read this, there's a typo here. We recognize multiple fronts require a multi-year. It says multiple. So I'll fix that. It will require this, this, this was supposed to go out. But the point here, and this was when we talked about that. We're just advising on next year's budget. So not everything can get accomplished in one year. So I'm just going to leave it as it is. I just realized that some of these are multi-year strategy and that we have to live within available revenue. So this was kind of a restatement of what we've said multiple times. Not much, not much of a change. So Kathy, I can't. I don't have a raise hand function. Okay. Just that. Let me just go up to where the yellow is. Yep. They are now town manager goals as the way. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So in the top yellow. At the top of the screen where it says council and town manager goals right there. It just should say town manager goals. Yep. Oh, we're going to do a real word at it here. Okay. And then with the second yellow FY. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Just stop me if I'm scrolling too fast. Okay. So what was added on this page, we talked about it that we might need to do a salary study this year to inform next year budget. And at least one committee member said, well, should the schools do one? And I think Sean, you said the schools may have done one already. So I, we put both pieces in here on it. Maybe we need to do this. And this was everyone said, you know, we're going to do a salary study. We're going to do a salary study. We're going to do a salary study. We're going to do a salary study in mid-year. It's going to come back, but it's also going to come back to the finance committee. So it's just that was met. That wording was missing before. So that's all that other red is. Yeah. We had a statement that the operating. Once the schools are consolidated. They're going to save money. So we're going to see this. Hopefully in 2026. But we haven't decided who's going to benefit. I think that sentence was just added as I think a reminder. The next paragraph just reminds people that the capital improvement plan includes a joint capital advice planning committee. And, and we added, and this is a strong statement. Every single piece of capital. Buildings improvements vehicles. And that's what we're going to be doing. And that's what we're going to be doing. And that's what we're going to be doing. And that's what we're going to be doing. Or being talked about with a climate lens in that. So that was added to make it clear that we are. We are doing that. And the town is doing that. Most of these others. This was, we added town recreational fields and land. In the last discussion, but we may add to clarifying that the regional schools has a significant impact on the city. So we're just making sure the long list on the capital inventory and multi-year plan includes fields. Okay. Budget process. This was Lynn nicely caught that. We have to swear in the new counselors before they get to do anything. It's not just an or duration. So those are wording changes on when the new counselors get involved. Okay. So that's what we're going to be doing. We're going to be doing all of the town managers goals. So keep it town. Manager. Managers. Okay. Okay. Then. We added. This was, I can't even remember who. Me. The semi annual. The mid-year report. We want to get a mid-year report. So it was semi-annually. Okay. Let me. Maybe I didn't say it right then. The problem with this amount of money that you mess pays. The universe. The university pays the schools is that was set on a figure that was figured out about. Four years ago. It's never been reevaluated. My guess is the cost per people may have gone up. I think it's appropriate to think about that. I think it should be reevaluated at least every other year. Okay. So it's not semi-annually. It's. Other. Yeah. Right. And as far as I know, we've not ever asked for a reevaluation of that. And now that they're back in North village, I think it's appropriate to think about that. Okay. So now we're in the. Yeah. I think that was a multi-year gift and it was a multi-year gift. And this is Bernie Bernie, where I added the. Consider actions that could benefit the community in addition to financial support. And later we added again. I see it once. Okay. Maybe I'm just reading this, but, but in the sentence here. I think it's appropriate to think about that. I think it's appropriate to think about that. The benefits to the community and consider acts. Actions that could benefit the community. I really think that needs to stand as a separate sentence as it reads now is like, you know, don't compete with us and do nice things. But do nice things. You know, so that. That, and that, that should be somewhere. Okay. So maybe it doesn't appear strongly. Yeah. I also have questions about they need to. Avoid actions that compete with businesses. Is that aimed at UMass food service? It is. Yes. And we, we put that in last year. Yeah. Because there was a real concern when they started catering in town. Not just not just that people were going to eat there, but bringing. Yeah. Well, you know, there's also 30 boltwood. So, so I mean, I think if we have a challenge with UMass catering, we should say we have a challenge with UMass catering and not paint that with the broad brush. Okay. Typically they know. I mean, typically the colleges, you know, the schools don't compete other than UMass catering. As far as I know. Well, some of the bookstores would say that when they, you know, they don't, they don't use our bookstores anymore for textbooks either. Yeah. Well, that was, that was a fact. Yeah. That's the faculty has that problem. So, so does anybody else this is, this may be the only place I think 30 boltwood is actually taxed. The whole hotel is. Yeah, it's taxed in the restaurants taxed. But, but I mean, you know, that's a business that competes with other restaurants in town. Well, I think of it as business in town. So anyone, I'm just waiting to see this. Community in addition to was, it's also been added to the town manager goals to seek financial support and community benefits. So we can do parallel goals. No, that's fine. Well, I'll let it be. Okay. And then this, on the last page, it's, um, so this was to make it clear that we're talking about the pilot payments we get on state owned land and new legislation that opens the door, door to leverage for leverage to negotiate the public agreements with for leverage. So this was added to make both of these clear that they both would require a change. The charter requires a change and this other formula is not benefiting us. So this was suggested both by counselors and then we discussed it and that's it. There aren't a huge number. I would say there are very few substantive changes here. Um, but I think we're ready to take this to the council. I mean, there's a few changes. Kathy, we can probably. Get those, um, finished up and bring it in on by Monday and, um, And put it in the packet tomorrow. Michelle has her hand up though. Michelle. Make sure. About the goal priorities, um, being maybe somewhat off from, or needing to have some more consistency. Okay. I'm just going to mention that next. And since your book, your, uh, voice is not coming through clearly. So I'll mention that, but. This is a document that basically says, here's the financial picture. The problem we're now running into with the goals. Is, and CRC has been working very diligently on these. The goals. Imply the expenditure of money. The financial guidelines basically say we don't have. So for example. Um, and, and, you know, I hate the bottom line is we can't go out and print more money. Um, and so the, the real discussion is going to have to be on the goals and at. GOL the other day. Um, We're pretty sure that the goals document is not going to come back to the council for final approval until January 9th. And Paul the other night during our council meeting, not it and basically said that was okay. But there's some conversations that are going to have to take place. About the areas in the goals that ask for essentially new resources or new. Uh, Our more staff time than it's perceived that we have. So Michelle and I, and maybe Andy to some extent need to decide how to bring that conversation to the council as we firm up the goals. But. I don't see. How we can change a financial guidelines. Based on what is said here because what is said here. Is the real picture of our finances. And the issue with the goals is going to be a matter of. Making some tough choices. And they are tough. They're very tough choices. So. Go on, Andy, but I was just saying that if we could finalize this document. That other discussion can happen. And I think the other discussion would be good to repeat this table that I just did that. This is our budget. This is the revenues. And they're aside from grants that other. That can be brought in. Only got. Two million more than we had last year to work with. This is it. And, you know, so that's the context Lynn, that the town manager goals has to operate in. Where anything, where anything needs money. There are things he can do that don't require money. Exactly. So I, I personally, as a councilor on this committee. I feel that this is ready to come to the council with a few of the tweaks that we've discussed today. And I think to bring it to the council on Monday would be a very strong move. So Andy, I'm turning this back to you to chair. So I will save that. I'm going to save this document. And I will double check it for typos, your duplicate words. But otherwise I'm not making any more changes to it. I'm not making any more changes to it. You know, we've got the one, you know, a double check. Sean's going to give me a sentence that we don't have yet. And then I'll share it back. So I'm going to do file save. Okay. Well, thank you. No, what I was going to say as far as the interrelationship with the goals. We made a decision early on in this process. That we were not going to attempt. In this document to set priorities for. Policy. That that was going to be left to the other discussion. And that we were going to talk about the financial reality. And then try and bring in. The council separate process. By reference only because. For us to make that decision was, was going to. Make the. The whole discussion of the guidelines much more complicated. Than it needed to be. And so I think that we've gone the right direction. It is important. Council remembering the only thing that I had thought about this morning. I brought this up to Lynn earlier today in a different context. But. The Fed has made the point very strongly that the reason that they keep. Jacking up interest rates is. Because. The average increase. In the goal. Of the Fed. Has been over the last year. And I think it's important. To make sure that the goal. Of the Fed. Has been over the last years. 2% per year increase in inflation. And 2% inflation limit. And to try and manage towards that goal. And that currently inflation is three times as much. Well, when you put that together with. Proposition to. You know, it's the same reality that's bumping into each other. And so this isn't just an Amherst problem. But. I don't, I'm not sure that it's worth adding anything to our guidelines at this point. About that, I may just. Say it at the meeting when we present. And if we do, we do say inflation has come back in. And I don't think it's worth adding anything to that. But it's just a sentence. I don't think we. Bernie's got his hand up. Yeah. Well. I. American city and county, which I don't think it's published anymore. Used to publish a municipal. Inflation rate. In municipalities have a higher rate of inflation than the. Consumer price index because of how we operate and what we buy. And so for example, if you look at the, if you look at the, if you look at the nominal inflation CPI is supposed to be 2%. Cities in towns are typically looking at a point, point and a half higher. And that was the, that was the intent. Behind two and a half. And by the way, citizens for limited taxation is dissolving itself. You know, the intent was to starve the beast. By setting a rate. Budget. Inflation rate. And we've dodged that in a number of ways, but there's nothing sacred about, about two and a half. I think we need to make the point that. You know, we're, we're, we're looking more of an inflation. Likely at a higher inflation rate than the consumer price index for one. And for two, I think that lens suggestions are really good one that. You know, it's frustrating to me to look at the beyond the finance committee and then to look at goals, which require the town manager to spend money that. Just ain't there. So. That's it. So either Lynn or I can just say that when we introduced the topic at the council meeting on Monday. That would be fun. I think what would be in order at this point is. A motion to. Accept the revisions. And. Forward them to the. Council. With the committee's recommendation. So moved. Sir, second. I second. Okay. So the motion has been. Made and seconded. And. I don't know if you're still taking notes. Yes, I am. I'm here. I do. Would it be acceptable if I just added the budget guidelines? The title of the document. So that's included in the motion. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So. Everybody knows what the motion is. It's essentially. We're accepting the changes of forwarding it to the. Council and with our recommendation. To. Adopt the guidelines. And I'm going to call for a vote. I'll go back with the same list. Lynn. Support. I mean, yes. Bob. Support. Matt. Support. Bernie. Support. Michelle. Hi. Kathy. Yes. I mean, yes. Lisa. Okay. So. The vote is. Of council members. Four to zero with one abstention and. Three. Residents. Members of the committee. Supporting. So on with that, I think that we. We've completed our work on the. Guidelines and can go on to the next agenda item. Which is the. Going back to the discussion of the special act on. Residential property transfer fees and. Mandy and Anna are. In the meeting again for the purpose. I think we have the same. Problem that we had last time that there's. A quorum of the council president and. We have been advised. That. The member, the. Two sponsors. Are here. Can answer questions, but cannot participate in deliberations because of the open meeting law. And so, but I think that what I'm, as I said before, a lot of what we're going to talk about today. Is why, because. Both of us have had communications with. Representative. And Senator Comerford. As has Anna, who was part of the meeting with represent representative Dom and. Senator Comerford. In order for us to go forward on this, we need to make sure that the council needs to vote. And then we need to forward that. Representative Dom has. And Comerford both have particularly urged us to do that. If we're going to go forward to do that sooner rather than later. Because there are similar bills. Coming forward from other towns. Largely from Eastern mass, which is a point I want to get to in a moment. I want to make sure that the council, that the council, that the council foresees that the bills would probably have hearings at the same time. And that there might then be an attempt to merge them into one bill. But the main thing is that. We need to be at the table of the discussions. That are going on with the Eastern mass towns. And one of the reasons is the following. We need to be at the table of the discussions. The sale limit of 2 million. Well, we don't have houses in Western mass, except for a particular one I can think of. That sell for 2 million. Okay. And so we really need to be at the table so we can talk about, how do you set a price based on the cost of housing? Where it's being levied. We need to be at the table with the other. The other piece. And now I, I, so anyway, that bottom line with regard to all of that is. We need to decide if we're going forward. We need to vote here. We need to vote in the council. We need some language. And we need to be at the table with the other. Communities that are thinking about this. And that are filing legislation. Anna, would you have anything else to add to that? I do have some things that I think respond to the, some of the questions that we got last week. If that's, if it's okay, Andy or Sean, if I can share my screen. Let's, let's, let's hold on for a second. If it's not directly related to the process. That Linus introduced. Nope. Nothing. Not necessarily other than to reiterate the, that there is time pressure on this that we want to get this done. Yeah. Let's hold it. I will come back to that in a few minutes, but let's stick with this. And I just wanted to say that. I've had communications with. Representative. Which are. Obviously consistent with what she reported to the two of you. And. She was. Did not give a particular date, but. I sort of got the impression, you know, sort of. As soon as we can. It doesn't have to be at the beginning of the session. But it shouldn't be delayed. And. I sort of. Took that to mean. Trying to do something in January because we have no idea when. The hearings will be set. And so I think that was. Pretty much what I got out of it. Which sounds consistent with what the two of you had. So I just wanted to say report that Kathy, you have your hand up. Yeah, I do. Before we get into the substance of what this would do, or any concerns about it. If we're talking about the. Asking for legislation. If we're talking about, you know, the wording. I'm sure by. By heart. With this, give us the option to do this, but not say we are definitely doing it. So if we have the option to do it, then we could be reporting out of finance. That we want to can, we want to be able to explore this, which would require legislation if we ever want to do it. And the timing is such that we need to move this. We need to be able to do it. And we need to be able to do it. We need to be able to do it. We need to be able to do it. We might want to do on our own by law. And that would make me a lot more comfortable that we have time then. To talk about what we started talking about last time, unintended consequences. And how you. Could address this or that, which seemed to me. I mean, Mandy had some quick, very good answers that we dealt with that in this wording, the bylaw. I mean, I'm not going to say right now, if we're basically same, this is enabling legislation, which is different than I think about the rank choice voting where we were asking, we said, I'm going to do it. So we just worded in a way. And then my second thought, given what you just said, Lynn, if. A dollar figure goes in that fits eastern mass better than it does in eastern mass municipality. That legislation would have to allow for different kinds of, you know, if we go in as a group, it would have to be worded in a way that said in. However, you know, and outside of Eastern Boston, people could set their own limits or something, you know, I mean, would give permission. So I don't, I don't know where the flexibility is in, in that wording. So that's kind of a question. I don't think we have the direct in front of us. So is it permissive as opposed to saying we're going to do it. And secondly, do we. Around the. At what, at what point does this trigger and Mandy, you had said avoid specifics or you on us said avoid specifics in the legislation to leave us free to make those decisions at the bylaw level. So I don't know where the $2 million. So that's a question. And I'll take my hand. Yeah, I'm just going. In order that the hands went up is quoting. So Mandy is next and they know we have to please be mindful of the warning we have from Athena about not deliberating. Yeah, no, I just wanted to answer Kathy's question, which is section one, the very first sentence. And I'll just read the first sentence, which says, except for otherwise exempt. The city, the town of Amherst may buy bylaw impose a fee of up to 2%. So not only did we, we in the bylaw, make it enabling in this special act, make it enabling so that the council would have to actually enact the bylaw for the fee to go in. So that's why the city of Amherst actually gave the discretion to enact a bylaw that does a half a percent or 1%, or one and a half or two, two. That answers my question. And the reason I asked that is, because I don't have enough information to focus on the bylaw. So I wanted to deal with that in a separate session. And some of the information we asked you for, Anna. I need time to think about it. But that didn't apply to this if it's enabling. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So. Given we're not. On this, if we move forward with it, it sounds. We wouldn't be seeking the local approval through a town wise. So we're doing it through the council. And so I think it will be really important to. Try to educate the public about this. And I know that on a man, people being way on top of that, they're not being concerned. And giving the public the ability to. Provide input on this. Because. As I understand it, it would go to a council meeting and of course, it would be on the agenda. And folks could come and provide public comment. But how are we actually letting the town know. More broadly, that this is something that we are moving forward with this. Because I do think getting. Getting, giving the public the opportunity to. Way in on this. Okay. Thank you. I was consistent with what my thinking was, but I'll come to that later. I'm just going to keep going on. You're muted though. Got it. Got it. Sorry. I wanted to respond to the second part of Kathy's question, but I just wanted to make sure that we don't get lumped in. I just wanted to make sure that we don't get lumped in. Which really is about the need for us to come in with our home rule. Right off the bat is because we don't want to get lumped in. So we're not, we're not pitching the. Combination of all these transfer fee that transfer fee legislation, all this transfer fee legislation. It also is just to throw a quick plug in for Senator Harris. I think that would remove the need for this to be special legislation in the future and would enable towns to set their own fees. Not based on a $2 million mark, but based on, you know, up to 2% based on how they, how they figure it. So that's why that's one of the reasons why it's important to get this in soon is that we don't want all of the eastern states or eastern cities. Seriously, I don't know why my brain has left my body. I have a 2 million or higher mark. And I have a table that shows where different, different cities and towns are at. And have that become the standard. Right. We, we need to demonstrate that it's different. And that's also one of the reasons why Mandy and I left the, the proposed flexibility for the percentage that it's based on. As well, because we need to make sure that we're meeting the market where it's at and not doing something that's ridiculous, but that will all be discussed in the bylaw. So I think that's one of the reasons why it's important to get this in. To answer the question about public input, Michelle, I think that's critical. I also think we need to do something similar for the sewer and water regs and bylaws. We haven't really held a community forum. Like CRC has been doing with the rental bylaw. And I think we need to do that with this and also with that. I think we need to do something similar. I think we need to do something similar. I think we need to do something similar. I think we need to do something similar to the idea that. We have flexibility at the local level. And I of the various comments that were made last time. And I actually can debate since I'm on the committee. I was really taken by Bob's point that. You know, here I am. I've saved all my life. All of my savings are in my house. So I'm hoping that at the local level, we can come up with some way to accommodate. For those people where that is what they have. Without getting too nosy into their personal finances. And then the other thing is I, what I'm assuming. And. Anna, you just addressed this. And basically that is that this would be a statewide law. We want to just make sure that the state will be able to accommodate that. So we want to just make sure that the statewide law. Is written with the flexibilities that we need. So that it fits for our community. So thank you. Bernie. This is going to be a heavy lift because there'll be many, many groups out there that will find ways to oppose this or try to limit it. So it's important that we get in before the late final deadline. And it's important that we're at the table. And it's not as concerned about, you know, the poor, the person who's. Had a house for 50 years. It's not being asked to give up 1% of it because I think. If I understand it's 1% from the seller 1% from the, the, the buyer. You know, I'd like to be able to have this the ability to customize this in some way, manner or form. I think that's a good point. Again, I just think it's important that we're at the table. And I'd like to move forward with this. This is not going to solve in itself. It's not going to solve our affordable house program. But I think it's a piece. It's a component that we need to have in place. Okay. Since everybody's been called on once I'll. Say a couple of things and then go back to the people whose hands are up. I think that's a good point. So there's a great question. From late filing. And we have been advised that late filing does not apply. Under current rules too. Home rule petitions, home rule petitions can. Currently be filed at any time. Late filing doesn't apply. The deadline is only applying to. Other bills, other than. things as this is. So I just wanted to clarify that because that was very explicit and representative Tom Gmail responding to me. And the question that she also very strongly addressed was the single bill that she I think is very concerned that not combining into a single bill will lose the option to get a special bill through and that we need that our strongest chance of getting permission to do what we wanna do. If there's gonna be a bill for multiple communities is to be a part of that bill that going separate is not an advisable strategy. And you may wanna pursue that further with her directly if you feel you need clarification, but I think that what she said, what I understood her to say makes sense from what my experience in working with the legislature over quite a number of years in my legal aid work. So I guess back to Mandy. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to add one thing, which was an update as we met with you last meeting, we said we were going in front of the housing trust that week and the housing trust voted to support this, but with one change, which was to section three regarding the remainder of funds after the 250,000 and they voted to support it with the addition of themselves as one of three places that the remainder of the funds would go per a bylaw allocated as a bylaw. So I just thought I'd update the committee on that. Thank you, Michelle. More to become a statewide. So if this were to pass statewide, because I'm taking Lynn's point and Anna's point I think about what happens in each of your masks very different than what's happening here. So does our home rule petition just go away or what happens to our home rule petition if it's in process or if it's already been approved if then a state approval on this happens? Things I would say in response to that. One is that if a home rule petition is filed from a number of communities which is what it could be happening and there's a proposal for a statewide omnibus bill to address all communities, they just wouldn't act on the local bills. They would only act on the one that falls out of the committee process which would then be the omnibus bill to cover all communities. So that's why it's important. However, that we get our bill in and which then gives us a seat at the table essentially. And secondly, that we get into the bill, things that we feel strongly should be there into what we asked them, what we asked Mindy to file on our behalf even if it may not come out in exactly that fashion. So it sort of gives us the ability to say this is what we would like it to be. And it doesn't take away the opportunities to get in put an appropriate point down the line as you indicated or make further changes as we adopt the bylaw. So, Anna. Oh, could I just quickly follow up and maybe Anna will be able to answer this if that be okay, Andy? Yes. Okay, just a quick follow-up. In the other communities where this has already passed, are they using the same system where the bylaw in the municipality dictates the details of the program or is there some other model that's used in those communities? I can answer that, Andy. Yeah, go ahead. Okay, so I wanted to first back up just for a second. The legislation that Joe filed is to allow communities to opt to do this. So I don't know that it would necessarily undo if hours passed. I don't know that it would necessarily undo what we had. It's basically just saying that communities don't have to do a home rule in the future. It would be more similar to CPA, right? Where you opt in versus needing to go through the legislature. That's my understanding of her bill and if folks have a different understanding, that's fine. And we are in support of that. The only difference is that her bill has the full amount going to affordable and ours gives us flexibility. So that's one of the differences there. If it's okay to answer, Michelle's second question, may I share my screen? Sure. I can. I have one. All right, so these are communities who have past home rule petitions that are awaiting state approval. So Boston, Concord, Somerville, Brookline, Provincetown, Chatham, Cambridge, Arlington and Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard has received state approval. And then Barnstable County imposes a local transfer charge as well as a state transfer fee. So you can see there are a number who have submitted this and are awaiting state approval. Our estimation is that these cities and towns will once again submit in the next session. And just to show you, this is my really quick, I know it's not full, and you're seeing where I have question marks because I'm still trying to confirm things, but bear with me, this is a quick job. So just to show you what folks are proposing, Boston, it's up to 2% on properties over 2 million. Somerville, it's 2%. I believe on all properties, but it does not apply to owner occupied. So it's 2% on all non-owner occupied properties. Those are both split between the buyer and seller. Nantucket and Provincetown both have a half a percent fee on all properties, except I believe in Nantucket, it's only the amount over 2 million. Concord has a 1% on properties over 600,000. Cambridge has, sorry. You don't need to read them all, yeah. Well, I wasn't sure if folks were on their phones and couldn't see the screen. I wanted to make sure they had it. So Cambridge is 2% over 1 million. Arlington has a lot of flexibility in theirs, somewhere between 0.05% and 2%. And then they go by the state median. Brookline has a 2% over 500,000 on the amount over and Chatham has a half a percent over 2 million. So there's a variety here, but the reason why these are all accessible to me to pull is that they put their amounts in their home role. So our structure is different. We are giving ourselves flexibility. These cities and towns have, they've given themselves some flexibility, most of them say up to 2% or between a certain percentage, but it's in their home role. So they're kind of boxed into that for lack of a better term. So we are unique from all my accounting in terms of how we have structured ours to give the local, to give ourselves more ability to flex as needed within the demands of our town. Okay, I can continue on. Thank you, that's helpful. Lynn. You're muted, Lynn. I'd like to move us to the discussion on process about what is our next steps because I'm watching the hour and Mandy Joe's going to have to go real soon. And so are we as a finance committee basically saying at our next meeting, we'll start looking at what? And how do we want to proceed? I mean, I have some thoughts on that. So maybe I should just say this that I think we definitely need to move into what it is that we want to file. The question that we're sitting here and getting into the debate on whether the home rule petitions will disappear if there's an anonymous bill and the important, it doesn't really matter because we still get to the point that all of these bills will affect our ability to be at the table and to lobby for the provisions that we think are important, including that it not be all for affordable housing, for example. So I think that what we really want to do is at our next meeting move to the discussion of what should be in the bill to file and what we want to recommend to the council. The council in the end will have to make the decision as to what it wants to propose to file and whether to propose to file. But we want to try and get it back to the council so that the council can act in January. That would be my thought, which would mean that we would probably want to have public comment generally limited to what public comment takes place of meetings that are relevant or any meeting actually and have a more formalized process later. But that would be my suggestion. It's obviously up to larger group. So, Anna, did you have anything else because your hand is still up and Kathy was next. I re-raised it because I did have an answer to one of the questions from the last meeting that I wanted to just get to briefly, which is first off, there's some really wonderful resources that I'm happy to send you, Andy, as chair that if folks are looking to do some light academic reading that they can dig into some studies that have been done. But the lit review that I did basically boils down to this quote that I found, which is, though such attacks could marginally impact transactions in the high end of the real estate market, it is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on other housing transactions because buyers of higher priced real estate have preferences very different from those of other home buyers. These studies tended to find that there is an incentive once these fees are passed to, because 38 other states just allow this without needing to go through all these processes. So there are significant, there is data on this. So the studies found that there is incentive to sell below the threshold or below the cutoff and that above the threshold listed prices tended to fall a little bit. However, most of the research is actually not necessarily all aligned with itself, right? So there's different case studies that show, Toronto, there was much more of a significant decline. In DC, there was an insignificant effect. There was essentially no effect. So there's varying information, which for me and for at least one of the papers indicates that the flexibility based on your location is really important. So being able to, the ability for municipalities to adjust based on their market conditions as they see this going forward is very important. So reiterating the need for this to be regulated by bylaw so that we can adjust based on market conditions. And I will send these to you to send out to the committee if that's okay, Andy. Yeah, I also gonna ask you about what you showed earlier with the other towns. Research and I think the question that I'm gonna have to check with Athena about is that she may feel that since she showed a meeting we need to put it in the packet. I'm fully prepared for that. And if I hadn't been doing it 15 minutes before the meeting it would already be to you to be in the packet but I was working on this right before the meeting. So yes, I'll send it to you. Thank you, and I appreciate you doing that. Kathy. I'll make it short, Landy. Andy, I agree with what you said and what Lynn said earlier and I think our next meeting is still, it's on the 20th. I would like to just focus on the proposed piece that we would be sending forth to the legislature and have the discussion be pretty short because I feel like we've gotten a fair amount of information that we could put more information in this but we didn't because I think moving that forward, there's a longer discussion and Anna I really want those resources to decide whether we wanna do this but to leave the door open to the possibility of doing it and being at the table, I think it's important. So I don't think it's a long discussion is actually where I am on this. And it's partly when Lynn you're gonna be able to bring it back to the council but I think if we just focus on that rather than the bylaw, I'm much more comfortable with a short discussion and focus to then move it. That's my opinion. Okay, let me ask you one question, Cathy. Would you also agree to have the discussion starting with and framed by the legislation that was drafted by Mandy and Anna that began the process so that we work off of it? Absolutely, because I think I don't wanna start from scratch. So the only thing I, Lynn has her hand up on this the quick discussion on, we already heard if we looked at other versions they've put more detail into it but I would just want anything that is significant that's in the wording to be flagged beyond the first sentence which Mandy just read to us. So I just would want it flagged so that we didn't say, oh, this all looks good. You know, if there's some interesting tidbit in there. Lynn? Yeah, I'm just suggesting that in the packet for next week, we have that draft we also have what Anna just showed us we have a copy of Joe's legislation and that we focus our discussion on where we wanna make sure that any state legislation creates the flexibility for us. Yep. Okay. So- And then we would target to bring this to the council on the 9th of January. Maybe, it's not until the 23rd. Okay. Okay, but we will try for the 9th. Is our initial target and make adjustment if necessary. And I want to emphasize a couple of things. So one is that to remember that the proposed legislation is in the packet from the last meeting a week ago. So that it was on January 6th, I believe. I think it's in that packet. There's also in there a possible bylaw that is not subject to discussion now. We're really focusing on the legislation only. So if you're looking and spending time at it of course, it'd be appreciated but stick to the bylaw. It's usually stick to the legislation, not the bylaw. Michelle? Yeah, just one more quick thing. So I know that Mandy and Anna are super smart about all of this and have probably already looked into this but it's interesting that all of the other communities that Anna just shared with us are using aren't using this model that you're proposing which clearly gives a lot more flexibility. So I'm just wondering if it's worth just looking into whether there's any problem with the model that we're trying to use here or maybe you already have. But it's just curious to me, not that I don't think that I think that it's not to dismiss your creativity in terms of having coming up with this but to say that it's interesting that no other community has chosen a similar model and I'm just like questioning why. Does that, like so do we know for sure that this model is a model meaning the home rule with the bylaw? Do we know for sure that that's a model that can work for this? Can I respond, Andy? Yes, go ahead. So I mean, nothing is for sure but we have spoken to both Joe and Mindy about this approach and they did not see any problems for us to shift up our approach necessarily. But I hear you, I mean, we are doing it differently because we're special but that's what I was trying to get at. I hope you heard that. No, no, I mean, I think that it's more so I think we believe that this method works best for our community and so we have to be true to what we believe is going to be best for our community and so that's why we took this approach and we haven't spoken to the other communities but I am in touch with someone from the local housing option coalition to talk through and we're hoping to connect in the next week or so. So but our legislators are aware that this is our approach and did not see it as a problem. Awesome, thank you. Of course. Okay, anything else? So I don't think we need action because this is a process, we've been discussing processes and isn't substantive. I don't think we need a motion if anybody wants to offer a motion. Of course they're entitled to but I don't think it's necessary. I don't think we need a motion. We've just said, here's the agenda for next meeting, right? Yeah, we'll come to the whole question of next meeting after we do the next agenda item. So I want to get on to Dave's own Mac if and take up the proposed purchase of land on 457 Main Street because I know that there's, that's a time crunch issue also. So anything else on this? Andy, I've been made aware that there is a person who came into the audience late and would like to make public comments specifically on this. Okay, since Anna's still here, I think that Mandy had to drop out because of her other meeting, but Anna's still here. If there is a person, since we offered public comment earlier and there was none, I'll come back to public comment. The public comment in this case is about the VFW purchase. The VFW purchase, not this. The VFW purchase, nevermind, then get to it in a second. So Anna's, the public comment apparently is not about the treatment. That's okay. People want to talk to me normally anyway, it's all right. Okay, so I'm going to- Thank you all. All right, thank you. Andy, if, I mean, Rob and I are fine with this. If you want to take this public comment before we go, that's fine too. It's up to you. Why don't you introduce the purchase plan? I don't know if you or Sean were going to do this, but I think that the, we had a good introduction at the council meeting. I have forwarded that material to all members of this committee since not every members of councilor. And so, and I think it was pretty self-explanatory when you take the totality of the documents. The thing that was wanted to make clear is the funding mechanism, which either you or Sean or Rob can talk about. So- Sure, well, I think I'm joined by Rob Mora tonight and we could just quickly, I don't, unless you want us to, we could go through the PowerPoint or if the committee has the PowerPoint, that's fine. You probably, many of you saw that at the council meeting, but happy to just go through this quickly. As everyone knows, we have been fortunate to have our partners, Craig's Doors, providing sheltering in our community for over 10 years. The town has supported Craig's Doors in various ways through the years with staff support, as well as financial support. In all of those years, Craig's Doors has been fortunate to find locations at various houses of worship. And they're currently at the Emmanuel Lutheran Church on North Pleasant Street and also renting rooms at the University Motor Lodge about a year and a half ago or so as part of the town manager's goals. Working with Paul Bachmann, Rob and I began to look at properties throughout time with the goal of trying to find a location that might be a fit for a permanent shelter. The industry standard now, what is happening in communities all throughout Massachusetts as well as New England is many of these facilities are combining both a place for sheltering as well as permanent supportive housing. Projects like this are happening all over Eastern Mass. Right here in the valley, we have various nonprofits working in Springfield, Northampton and Greenfield to do very similar things to what Amherst is proposing here at 457 Main Street. And maybe if I could turn it over to Rob just for a quick summary of why the VFW site. Again, I wanna acknowledge the leadership of the VFW in general, they have been really open and supportive of working with us. We worked through an appraisal process with them and a purchase and sale agreement. And I'll turn it over to Rob for the quick specifics on why this property. Thanks, Dave. Yeah, so this is a almost one acre piece of property in the neighborhood business district. This district allows for a number of possible uses but in particular the uses that we're looking at a lot by right in the location by site plan review. The dimensional requirements fit very nicely for the intended use for enough density for the supportive housing units based on the land area and space available. The property contains a building that was built in 1961. It really doesn't have a whole lot of value for the intended purpose. It's a single story with a finished lower level. It is not fully handicapped accessible. It doesn't contain sprinkler systems and just isn't of a quality construction that would be suitable for change of use. We also looked at this property by location, great access to the downtown, sidewalks, walkways, crosswalks and all directions. Bus stops directly across the street and a nice flat level area to redevelop would make it an easy project to start. Approximately half of the property is, you know, covered by either pavement or a building. We envision that being removed and the site being prepped for future, you know, construction and development. Thank you. Thank you. Shana may turn to you on the next piece, but the proposed order relates to allowing, to recommending the purchase, but to allowing the purchase the order would, but it does not specify funding. And you had an answer to that question for the committee, I believe. Yeah, so the proposed funding source for this is the American Rescue Plan Act. The town went through a process to allocate funds. Roughly a million dollars was allocated towards supporting the homeless. And so David, Zomek has been sort of in charge of that pot of money and determining the best way to use those funds and has brought forward this project. It doesn't need to be reappropriated because the council has already authorized the use and expenditure of the ARPA funds. So it's really within the town manager's purview to spend the ARPA monies. But because this requires a land purchase, that part of it's being brought back for discussion. Andy, if I could just add before we open it up to questions, it is very early in our process, as we stated at the town council meeting, we do need town council authorization to purchase. As Sean said, the source of funding, 775, is coming from ARPA funds. We will have some remaining funds that we hope to allocate to some pre-development work that Rob and his team and the planning department will spearhead. We also recognize that this is new information for the community. There will, you know, we will need, this is not an effort that Amherst can shoulder alone. We are going to need partners in this. Obviously, Craig's Doors could be a partner, but they are a service provider. We're going to need development partners. We have a wonderful group of development nonprofits and other similar organizations in the Valley, some of whom you all know about, the Valley CDCs, the Wayfinders, the home city developers out of Springfield, and the list goes on. Many of them very experienced at this kind of work. And again, we are not going to be able, this will be a heavy lift. It'll take some years to do. And honestly, it's going to be some millions of dollars. This is not something that the town can do on its own, but site control, as Rob said, having a flat accessible site that is developable with the right zoning close to all the amenities and services that Rob said on water and sewer, that's what make it an important piece of property to look at. We know that there will be opportunities for us to do outreach to the business community, to those who live close to the parcel, and all of that process is ahead. But it's a little too early to be speculating about size and numbers and configuration of the building. We don't know any of that yet. We just know that there are models out there that have been very successful and we'll try to learn from those models in Eastern Mass and some of the ones that are getting underway here in Western Mass. So thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank both of you for your presentation. And what I'm going to do is recognize committee members for a few minutes and then I want to go back to public comments. So public, you can leave your hand up. Doesn't matter. I remember that it was up before Tom. So we will get to you, but I wanted to hear. Councilor questions and just in order, that I think they went up, Lynn. Yeah, I have two questions. So because we had already authorized ARPA funds, does that mean we do not need to do a public forum? So we are not asking for an appropriation. This is a grant. So we don't do whole public forums and we expend grant funds generally. So I would, yeah. All right. And my second question is, when do we have to sign this purchase and sales by? The purchase and sale is signed by the town manager, Lynn. So that's already been done. We are actually moving fairly rapidly if the council on the 19th votes in favor of the acquisition, we hope to close by the middle of January. Okay. I'm not sure we put it on the agenda. It may be on the next agenda. I'm sorry. Yeah. So if it's on the night that still can, it's still early enough. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I just, I don't think it's on the agenda. I have to go search for the agenda. Yeah. We have some. I do questions. We have some flexibility, but we have a signed purchase and sale agreement. As I said, the leadership of the VFW has been remarkable and Rob has been shepherding that through and they've been very supportive. Yeah. I mean, on top of all of that, I just want to really thank all of you that have worked on this. This is a tremendous step forward for Amherst. Thank you. Kathy. I have a what's next question rather than the purchase question that Lynn just asked. And this is having just seen that the, we authorized CPA funds to buy land for the Belcher Town Road complex and they're back for $2.8 million for the Belcher. So that, and we gave them land that we had. So do we have any thoughts about the next step? Would this be mainly time financed as the actual, Dave, you just said we don't know the size or anything else, but would we be counting on external support to build the permanent shelter or would we be coming back for more? And I'm asking this because in the past, we haven't asked that question very well about grants that we've received. You know, it doesn't come with strings. So this is a purchase. And the second is if we own it completely, is it usable for a variety of purposes until we got the money to make it bigger or different, knock it down, whatever we end up doing for that. So it's both, before we get the next step of figuring out what the entity, the shelter will look like, the home rooms, does it have, is it usable? And my understanding is people have been using some of those rooms. So it's the two questions on the what and both of them are around what's next. Andy, is that all right if I jump in there? So why don't I answer the first question and then I'll turn the second question over to Rob if that's okay. So thank you, Kathy. So again, going back, I really wanna emphasize that this is a very first step in a long process where we are going to have to work with partners. This is not Amherst alone. We have no intention nor do we have, but realistically we are not going to fund a project of this size. This is something that we are going to have to bring in with a development partner, not unlike the East Street School Belcher Town Road project. And we are going to partner with an entity like wave finders like Valley CDC and others to come in, help us vision the project, to meet the goals we've talked about for sheltering, other related services and permanent supportive housing and ask them to go out and raise the funds, some millions of dollars to make this happen. There may well be an ask of CPA in the future, not unlike again the East Street School and the Belcher Town Road project. Just to clarify, Kathy, you mentioned a number of 2.8 million, a wave finders actually asked for 1.8 million. Yeah, 1.8, exactly, exactly. And I think Sean and I have been working on that in parallel to the CPAC and we think we've come up with perhaps a more realistic number to support that. But yes, the answer is we would have to partner, if there is no way this is going to be an Amherst lift and I'll turn it over to Rob for questions about the usability of the current building. Thank you for correcting me. Hi, completely. Yeah, no worries. So the VFW had given up their licenses for the alcohol service and assembly space a couple of years ago. So the building hasn't been maintained or inspected for that purpose. About this past last winter, we did authorize Craig's Doors to operate a small capacity warming center there that was appropriate in the large open ground level space that has the ramp leading to it. So there's parts of the building that are not appropriate for use. The fire department actually shut down the gas connection to the commercial kitchen and that's been disconnected and made safe. So it would need some work to be used and the building does not have a sprinkler or fire detection system. So the options are limited. So I just want, you know, I don't want to suggest that the building could easily be used for something. It would be very limited if it was brought into a condition that could pass inspection and gain occupancy for. Okay, thank you. Oops, sorry. Bob, did you have something? Yeah, I just wanted to echo Kathy's concerns about, you know, what's next and what the future, you know, what the future obligations of the town might be. And I understand it's too early and I understand, Dave, your opinion is that it's not going to be an Amherst driven project. But, you know, given that we already have tremendous pressure on the budget that we just talked about for the first hour, I just, I'm concerned. I mean, I think this is a great idea. Don't get me wrong. I fully support the idea, but I do think we have to be very cautious in terms of making it clear that where the funding is coming from as we move forward. And I think you've stated that, Dave, pretty well, but I just don't want us to forget, you know, like two years from now. So, thanks. Okay, thanks, Bob. Birdie? Yeah. Gentlemen, this solves a major, major problem when you're trying to start any program, which is citing it. I used to have a sign in my office it says somewhere else, which is the best place for any program. So you've just solved the somewhere else problem. So thank you. I'm happy to know that the town is not intending to construct or run the shelter that that's something that will be left to an appropriate, not-for-profit organization. I'm fully supportive of that. I don't think the town should be in the shelter business being a landlord is one thing, being in the business providing services a whole nother process. So, you know, I think this is a good move. I'm presuming that there's gonna be money left over and that a million dollar allocation that will take care of the cost of raising the building. It's gonna have to be taken down and recycled. And, you know, I too will try to hold everyone to the promise that this is going to be operated by a third party and not by the town. So, but again, thank you. If I could, Andy, Bob and Bernie absolutely, you know, agree with your comments and Rob and I at the direction of Paul have clearly gone into it with those assumptions. We are not, we are well aware of, and Rob and my work touches so many projects throughout town. We are well aware of the four capital projects and then all of the other projects, many of which we are involved with at different levels throughout town. We are very aware of the budgetary constraints. We are moving forward to try to acquire a site and then the hard work really begins, frankly. It's taken us, you know, a year, year and a half to identify different properties and find this site and hopefully close on it in January. But then we've got to roll up our sleeves and find those partners and again, this is, the goal is to really achieve one of the broad goals that the council set for the town manager and for the community. But we recognize we are not shelter developers, we are not shelter operators and that is crystal clear in all of our minds. So we're going forward with those assumptions. So, thank you. Please take Matt first. Matt. Oh, just a quick question and Dave, thank you so much for the work on this and it's really important issue. I guess I want to echo what I'm hearing, but I just wanted to ask, you know, looking at just other municipalities around our size, I mean, how typical is it for us to be the landlord on something like this versus, you know, partnering and having the organization, the management organization, you know, on the property. I mean, as others have said, I mean, it is a little concerning to make a purchase now with, you know, with such a long timeline ahead of us and not knowing sort of, you know, how this is going to sit on the books. Again, happy to have Rob chime in here, but although I don't want to presuppose where we go with this, but I think a typical way for a municipality to proceed would be not unlike the East street school project. That is a piece of property that the town has owned for a long time as a school and had other uses. And we are in the process of entering a ground lease, a very long-term ground lease. So even though the town may remain the owner for all intensive purposes, we are leasing that property to wayfinders for a very, very long time. And I could see this project moving in that direction. I forwarded to the town manager and it might be helpful to have that sent around. I could get it to Sean. There was an article in the Greenfield recorder within a few days about their project. I believe they're proposing a $23 million. And again, I don't know the particulars of it. It was just in the recorder, but the state is very, right now very supportive of these projects where it's a combination of sheltering and permanent supportive housing. So I think our timing is very good. There's state and federal funding for these projects. And again, I think if our window is right, we can try to move this forward during that open window with the state, but we would not be running the shelter. We would not be developing, owning a building of this size. Yeah, just a quick follow up if you don't mind. So do you foresee us building the building? No, no, no, absolutely not. We would not build this building. This would be- Do we have prospective partners, obviously we don't have, can name name, but do we have prospective partners in mind who want to take out the loan and do this, build this? As I mentioned, I rattled through some of the non-profit developers who do similar types of work. I've already had conversations with two of them, but again, it's still too early to really, we don't have a development partner at this point that would all be worked out in, probably in the new year. And again, this is, Rob jump in here anytime, but this is a three to five year horizon easily to move this forward. And can I jump in real quick, Andy? Yeah. And Matt, just again to the timing, ARPA sort of made this a possibility, having the ARPA funds, we do have some restrictions on when they can be spent, knowing that the town allocated a million for homelessness, and this being a goal of the council, it seemed like the right time to get the land secured and then work out the details about how it'll be developed in the future. Yeah, no, that's great. And I apologize, Dave. I know you talked about the development. So just to be clear though, the developer would incur building costs. I mean, we are really looking at town costs ending at the purchase of the property. By and large, yes, but as I said, in response to one of Kathy's questions earlier, I think it's realistic at some point that a developer might come back for CPA funds if the project were eligible for CPA funds. We'll also be looking as you might have seen in our prospectus in our point, our hope is to work with our veterans agent, Steve Connor. There are various vouchers available to veterans and that is a very consistent and predictable source of income and our hope is for a developer and our hope is through various vouchers, our hope is to set aside some of the units for eligible veterans. So that would all be on the developer, not on the town of Amherst. So if it's okay with the committee, I would like to actually see if there's public comment that on this particular issue, because- Fine with me. Said we would do that. Yeah, that's fine. I can wait. So this is a request now for public comment. I know the person that had their hand up before and took it down. Hello. Okay, you're in. Tom? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. So- Yes. Yeah, no, I'm reaching out. I am, I work in property management and own and operate properties in this particular neighborhood. And I am excited, both good and bad for what the potential is for this project. I know that there's a need for shelter in various capacities. I am wondering how the public will be engaged in the process of this development. If there's going to be a committee that works through this, if we would have the opportunity to have a voice for a seat at the table. And I do trust that there are some diligent organizations that will do a terrific job running this. But I'm wondering what type of participation can be applied for the owners of abiding properties in terms of protecting their vested interests? Thank you for your comment and I appreciate it. We don't have a guarantee of responding to public comment to take it under advisement. But if David or Robert Lynn want to respond to that, they're certainly welcome to do so. Yeah. No, I'm happy to quickly respond. No, Tom, thank you for your question. I think it's an excellent one. And I guess I would say we will take it under advisement. We absolutely want to have as much public participation in this project. It's going to be a very high profile project for the town. I did engage with the town manager briefly by email today around kind of next steps. We have not determined those yet. Honestly, we're simply working on getting through the process of acquisition. And then we can take a little bit of a deep breath and say, what's next? But we hear you, Tom. We know there will be interest. There will be some concern. There will be lots of questions. What is this going to be? What's it going to look like? Everything from any development, traffic, hours of operation, potential impacts, near and far, you know, how big is it going to be? We don't even know that. We don't know how many people it will serve. Will it be a shelter for 10 people or will it be a shelter for 25 people? None of that has been determined yet. We have not looked at any of that. But we will, and we will take your question internally here. And Rob and I will talk with the town manager and there may well be a committee. I can't commit to that. I'd like to get some feedback from Rob and Paul on that. So we will let the community know. Good, thank you. I'm going to exercise prior to the chair and ask one question of Rob. Is my understanding from what you said before that there is no zoning change that would be required to use this land for the envisioned purpose? Is that correct? That's correct. Both the residential portion of this type of facility and the congregate shelter itself are both uses that are permitted in the district by site plan review, which is a by-right use authorized by the planning board. So there would be no hearing attached to any zoning change because there would be none. Correct. Lynn? Now, let me begin with a response to Tom Crossman and say that in a similar situation of 132 North Hampton Road, the both the town and the developer had a serious engagement with the surrounding community. And as a result, some additional features of that property were added that have really helped the neighbors to feel much more comfortable about that facility. So I just want to say that while there's, we don't do building committees for buildings, we're not going to build, but there has been some serious engagement processes that have led to very honored input from neighbors. So we hope that will happen here. I had two other comments. One is this is two housekeeping items. One is Alicia left at 404 and Michelle Miller had leave at 449. And once we get done with other councilor comments, this, the earliest this can go on the agenda is the 9th of January. We did not post it for the meeting on the 19th of December, but I would suggest that we go ahead and vote recommended to the council tonight. Okay. Kathy? I second that motion, if that was a motion and I just want to state even more strongly if is Matt still here. Dave's caveat about town money when CPA is town money. And this year, the number of requests far exceeded what we have and we can go into debt for it, but a competing part of it is our community fields, not just community fields, recreation areas, name it. So when we take on these projects as yet, Dave, not a single housing project has come to us that didn't need CPA. I'm not saying I can never imagine one in my time, but they also take a community block grant money. So that's become part of the package that brings in the state dollars, the other people's money dollars. So I think we need to be careful to say that it may not be on the town budget, but one of the ways our town budget is functioning well is we're using opportunities to fund things under CPA, which might otherwise be funded under the town budget. So the athletic fields are a recent example of that. But I mean, so not to discount that we're in a, think of the whole budget in the future for this. So I just wanted to make it clear that Dave spoke very carefully when he said, work with these partners. He didn't say the partners will come up with all the money needed for this. So that was all, it was just a comment because this year it's a pretty big set of requests. So these things, and it's all things we want. So not a thing, almost nothing's on the list that we wouldn't want to have. So if I can just clarify, Kathy, thank you for saying that I misspoke what I meant was town debt. I didn't really mean grants and other available fund sources. I meant debt. Hey, Dave and Lynn, then I want to close this because I think we need to move towards adjournment. But I think we now have them. I just want to clarify with Lynn and Kathy, we have a motion on the floor and the motion is that we recommend, I think that the appropriate thing to do is to recommend the order. Yeah, let me let me make a more formal motion. I recommend, no, I move that we recommend that the town council approve an order authorizing the acquisition of property for sheltering affordable housing, supportive slash transitional housing and or supportive service purposes. And I second it and we're looking at that motion is in our packet. So it has the dollar amount and the verbiage behind it is this is ARPA money. So it goes as a package. Yes. I can show it on the screen if you want me to, Andy. No, I'm seconding that motion. Now you've got me confused because we have an order that was drafted and submitted to the council too. I think that's in our finance package for tonight. Yes. It's the same order, isn't it? Lynch just recommending that order. Yeah, she's recommending that order, Andy. That's what I understood. So should the motion be, I can't get to it. What the, there was a number to the order. There's no number in this one. Sean, do you have a number? So it's not an appropriation order. So I don't have one. I don't know if Athena's still on, but because it's not an appropriation order, it doesn't come through Sonia and through the accounting office. Athena's raised your hand. Okay, Athena. Athena? I got to allow her to talk a little bit. There she is. You're in, Athena. Thanks. Sorry, I had to join in a different way so I can be in two meetings at once. Sean's right. We use the order numbers for financial orders and this doesn't have a financial component at the moment. So it's a, it would be a certified vote of the council rather than a financial order number. So I would actually take that out when the council approves that. Do we not need to say this and the money is coming from ARPA? There's no dollar number in here and there's no source number. I mean, it's a blanket. Go ahead and buy it. It's an authorization for the town manager to purchase. This is, and I don't believe that, Sean can probably answer this better than I can about use of ARPA funds, but we haven't made appropriations for ARPA funds. Is that right, Sean? Right, again, it's not an appropriation so you don't have to specify the amount because it's within the town manager's purview to spend it. Obviously he's going to try to get the spend efficiently and wisely, which is why we've given you the backup but it doesn't have to be in this order. Do we not have any language that says we think the price is $7.50 and it's coming from ARPA? I mean, I'm just, this is a, as written, this is go out and buy it is the way I... Yeah, I mean, that's what you're, that's essentially what the council is doing is giving the town manager approval to go out and buy it for based on the price that for the backup that he's provided. Yeah, I think that's okay, Kathy, when you think about it because he can't use any non-grant funds for the purpose without coming back to the council for authorization so that this authorizes him to buy but doesn't give him any money that he doesn't already control, which is only grant money. Right, but we've been told an amount and ARPA, there's money in ARPA going for other things too. Well... There's a purchase and sale agreement sign, Dave, right? That has a number in it. Right, so can't we, I'm just looking for based on the purchase and sale, something, Sean, that anchors it into, we're looking at a purchase and sale agreement. It's not a... Okay, why don't I do this? Amend the motion to say that we recommend that the town council approve this order, blah, blah, blah, based on the provision of the purchase and sale agreement or something like that, if somebody else amended, but mention the purchase and sale agreement and we can even attach it. That would make me feel a whole lot better. Thank you. Kathy, I can't see anybody here, but Dave and I can check with our legal counsel too. We worked with legal counsel to draft this. I think if I could, that question was asked of Sharon Everett and really because it's ARPA funds, it is not needed for the purchase and sale agreement. In the order, it is not an order, it is an order to purchase. And I think Lin's, and that is needed legally for a municipality to purchase land, but because it's coming from ARPA funds, it does not have to have the purchase amount, but I think Lin's amendment to the motion contingent upon a purchase and sale agreement and we can get Sean the details of that and Athena and that can be packaged as part of the motion, even in your motion, you could say as per the purchase and sale agreement dated on such and such a date for the purchase price of $7.75, period. That's all I was asking for. Not to, Sean, I wasn't suggesting rewrite the order. I was saying that the motion we're passing be anchored in that purchase and sale. Perfect. And if the purchase ever did change, we would bring it back to you. I mean, we wouldn't tell you it's gonna be one number and then buy it for a different number. So just as a general, we would... We can make sure all of that is written for the motions on the 9th of January, but Athena, you have your hand up again. Thanks. I just wanted to clarify. I'm sorry, Andy. Let's just say, please take the screen share down. I did. I took it down, Andy. I don't know why. I don't know what I'm doing. Okay. It's down for me, yeah. So for the motion now, I have to recommend the council approve the order with the order title in accordance with the purchase and sale agreement and price signed by the town manager. Dave, is it correct that Paul signed the PNS? Okay. So I can say signed as signed by the town manager. Is that acceptable to the Lynn and Kathy? Yes. Yes. Thanks. Okay. So we have a motion that's been made in second. I don't think we, unless there's a question for further discussion, we'll go ahead and I'll ask the resident members first whether they support and then I'm going to ask the three members of the council of president and note the absences. So Bob. Hi, support. Matt. Support, thank you. Bernie. Support. Michelle is absent. At this point, Kathy. Yes. I'm a yes. Alicia is an absent at this point and Lynn. Aye. So it's three in favor, none opposed. Two members absent and three resident members in support. So I think that the only thing that I want to touch on because I'm not going to do minutes today is the next committee meeting in Lynn. I think it's going to quickly put that agenda up just in case there are any questions about it. And which I think means that Dave will be back with us on Tuesday. If you can't find it, I'll put, then let me share. Andy, are you all set with Rob and myself? Thank you. Were you able to find it, Lynn? I think I'm coming back to talk about the park grant for Hickory Branch next Tuesday. Let me just, I'm just going to read the topics that are on the agendas so people know and then we can go ahead and see if there's any unanticipated business and close. So I think now I'm trying to make sure I also have the correct, and I just realized that pulled up the wrong one myself. It's up on the screen, Andy. Okay. So what we have on the agenda for next, for Tuesday includes, we don't need the guidelines anymore so that will be eliminated from discussion. It's been posted but we're done with that. I don't know that we have reserved the opportunity to come back to talk about transfer fees. I think that we're not done with 457 Main Street. Remember what happened with this was that it was posted, it had to be posted before the start of today's meeting because of the two-day rule. And so we just threw everything in to the posting but not with the intention that we would actually have to talk about it. So item three is done and we probably don't need to talk about for any further. The major things that are watered sewer regulation needs to come back because there's one modification that might be important for us to know about and I'll come back to that in the second in Hickory Ridge. And then we hopefully get to push up the minutes problem. So those would be the major purposes we're trying to keep to be a very limited meeting because it is a holiday week also and we don't want it to be long. The reason that the sewer regulation would be back on the table and Sean will explain this next week and we'll know more information is that they've been talking with insurance companies that might provide insurance to the town to limit the town's liability on taking on this additional cost. And we should have quotes before we meet on Tuesday and be able to recalculate. It could reduce the rates that are in the, that we talked about at the last meeting. So it's additional information but important for the committee to have. So that's the reason that that's back on the agenda. The only other thing that I wanna quickly mention is that Kathy and I have been working on a report for the finance committee to give to the council meeting next week. And we're hoping to have that draft done by tomorrow hopefully noon. And if we can, we will send it to the committee but there's very little turnaround time because it is Friday needs to be posted so that if we don't have any comments by the end of the day on Friday tomorrow, we're gonna have to close it and submit the report. So I just wanted to let you know that. And with that said, is there any other requests for things we're not anticipated that need to be asked? Seeing none. Thank you. This has been a full meeting for the very productive meeting. So. Thank you very much. Hi everybody. Thanks everybody.