 Good evening. We're calling the select board meeting of Monday, May 14th at order at 6.03 p.m. We'll start our agenda with opening remarks, announcements, and any review of the agenda. Is there anything that needs to be announced or mentioned about tonight's agenda? I'm not hearing any of that. We'll get right into our action discussion items. First up is our complete streets policy, which we received a copy of the most recent flavor. And so I think we have Mr. Mooring and Mr. Hayden here to take us through that a little bit. Would you like to share with us some information about it? The committee voted to have a feel for it to make a presentation. So last time I talked to the select board, you had three issues. The first issue, and actually I see you have the highlighted one, so that's good. Page two, the desire was to make sure that resurfacing and minor maintenance work didn't have to come to the select board every time. So that was, we separated out, we separated that out so that any type of work, such as routine maintenance and business management change really drowned into your operations, could automatically have a waiver from the complete street policy. And that the other four items that need a waiver are listed below that. So that allows us, if we want to resurface the road, you don't have to talk about how we're entering complete streets on it. The second one was that we had the tree inventory and the tree map on two places on the references, and we just combined those together as one reference that's on page four. On the top of page four. And then the final one was how to handle and implement this plan, which is on the last page, page six. And we took a stab at that in which we said that the oversight responsibility is a select board through the town manager shall oversee implementation and execution as policy in consultation with the Transportation and Budget Committee and other appropriate town departments and committees. And then we have an effective date and so forth listed on there as well. I understand you haven't really decided how you want the end of your policies to be yet, but we just took a stab at how to lay it out there. So that's kind of what we did. We hope that meets what you were interested in. If we need to go back, we can. If not, we'd be great to move this on to Matt's highway. Do we have any questions or comments on this? Well, I just kind of the obvious one. Clearly, if it goes into effect in May it's select board, but that's only going to be for X months and then the whole document would have to get updated to town council. Correct. If we go along those lines, I think that the if we use language such as town council or select board prior to the seating of the council then you don't have to take it directly back to the council right away. It can come back to the council at some future date. And I think that partly is a question of how much the council is going to be able to handle right at the beginning and thank you to them to not put the pressure on. So that was my only thought. But I really appreciate the changes. And so thank you. I have a question and a comment. The question and I actually wrote here, so maybe Ms. Krueger didn't tell me if she's satisfied with it. Under six jurisdiction I had made a note that she had wondered when it said the town shall advocate, she wrote, who is it that does that shall? Do you feel like you have enough of an answer to that? Since that didn't act up, that wording didn't change? The answer? Yes. So could you hear? It would seem at this point that it's who's ever acting on behalf of the town. The manager or the council or this report. It's a little but it's sort of within the boundaries of the town but outside it's jurisdiction. Such as on a private development I suppose it could be the planning board. I mean it depends who's the principal in that case. It's a little squishy. I'm not sure it harms anything but I can't really say planning board. You have to go advocate for this because it's just because it's in the policy. I imagine that could include other things too. It could be the university which is inside the boundaries but outside the jurisdiction or state actions and so forth. I guess it's a good question. It might apply to the second paragraph for six as well though it's a little more clear. But I mean I think what that implies to me is that it would depend on which body is initiating or you know if PPW is doing things, then it's obviously got to coordinate with these state bodies anywhere at the university and so I assume that's it. But it's a good question to raise. It was left kind of open like you say because you have a planning board, ZBA and site plan review which could actually be working on projects which aren't on town ways. And then it could be the PPW working with somebody or it could be the select board working with a developer who's coming in and doing a set of projects. So there's a multitude of groups that could possibly be doing this. Yes. Now that I'm kind of plugging you. I wonder, you know I think to make you come back again adopted as amendment. It's just advocate that the project comply as if like the planning board would make them comply in it. I don't know that this has authority to do that when it's not a town project or a town way. Right. Yeah, but very specifically the authority is laid out here and does not include other jurisdictions. I can't remember the exact word. So I mean that lack of authority or non-authority I think is clear. And the advocacy then would have to be or suggested to be within that framework. So yeah, squishy is the word and you know as much as I think we would all have. But certainly the committee would like to say God do this because that's not that doesn't seem to be appropriate in those cases. So how to take the squishiness out of something that we almost have jurisdiction over I don't know. We didn't figure out. Just I mean we're all getting into parsing words here. I'm assuming that Ms. Krueger is focusing on the word comply and I'm focusing on the word advocate. Will they go together You know, so yeah, so if you can't you can't require but you can advocate maybe you could have the words state be compatible with. I seem to call Mr. Moore an example of university projects when he was here before as I could be wrong about that. You know say how a university road interfaces with Amherst roads and our conflictries notions, things like that. But I guess the most of the advocacy is the keyword. I don't know if it's worth Mr. Moore. So I think this is a town of Amherst policy. So does it I think this applies to all boards and committees and officials of the town. So I don't think you have to say if you say one board then everybody else is sort of off the hook. I think when you're setting is a townwide policy how do we approach things you're stating you're enunciating what those goals are. I mean I think there's I mean all these policies are going to have to get reviewed at some point after the council takes office but and because there's a lot of committees that are cited in here that may or may not exist I think it's it's not it doesn't harm it to say just that we would have to select for Mr. Moore. So I haven't made my comment yet but I'm still going to ask another question. Speaking of the committees that are listed in here I had it noted last time that the future version was going to include calling out Shade Tree DAAC planning board and CBA and where is that done because I just need to We that committee kind of love those all out. So I'm not sure why Mr. Bachman just said that then so I'm confused because we're not in here. Well my point is that doesn't have to They don't need to. It doesn't need to. It says any committee because it's a townwide policy so it doesn't if you say the TAC is responsible for it that everybody else is on the side. I'm not convinced it is a townwide policy and that's what that's where my concern remains saying something's a select board policy we had more of a policy book maybe I feel a little bit better about saying if it's a select board policy it's a town policy but I'm just a little I guess comes back to the squishy part again I'm okay with not listing out committees although I would have used them as examples but again obviously they could change in the future as opposed to a set list of only these and if you're not on that list you don't have to worry about it but again comes back to my variation on what I wrote with Ms. Krueger's concern which was the town shall advocate or anywhere in here that's referring to the town I would just like something to be clear in here that while this is the select board policy it means all bodies are responsible for it not just the select board meaning also when it eventually gets revised which I don't want to comment I don't think it should be revised at all to reference town council at this point because we have other policies that don't need to be changed that way and it won't not apply because there will be a council and that's just how it will be but is there a way to make it I mean I understand you are saying I get those words but I'm trying to understand a word a phrase that we can put in here that makes it clear that when something comes to a complete streets policy it's not just the select board thought this was a good idea and the tack thought it was a good idea it's that everybody's got to think it's a good idea. Well I think that I would suggest that under the oversight responsibility that's been highlighted on the last page that talks about select board through town manager solver C implementation execution in this policy in consultation with transportation advisory and other appropriate town departments and committees that may capture other committees but it may be that we want to get just as much to put a little more responsibility on other committees at that point as far as the oversight which would then make everything previous to that inclusive of them as well as far as the responsibility for bringing that forward. I think the select board is responsible for public ways this is your ultimately responsible so this is regulating you're saying this applies to everybody in town and when we submit this to the state they're going to accept it if you voted that if the tack voted it they would say fine but what's the official name and they want you to put on this one and that's why it's a select board policy and it would apply to any public way because that's under your purview. So I'm really not trying to be argumentative that's for another topic but this issue that I'm trying to get at is the night is young. Yes Is I understand again all those words and the fact that we need to get this through the state I get that that's really important at this point. What I'm trying to understand is when somebody who joins the ZBA later knows that there is a responsibility of the ZBA to know about the complete streets policy it's not just the select board policy that's in a folder somewhere that ZBA doesn't know anything about and the person who's supporting the ZBA right now doesn't necessarily know that either. How do we feel when we're practically speaking it happens maybe we don't have to put the words in here but when I don't feel that we have a consistent way of communicating to all boards that something exists you know how can we feel comfortable with that and then later we don't want to complain because they didn't do it early on in their process when they kind of forgot it existed. This may be a little redundant on what Mr. Baldwin said but I think I'm going to attempt to answer your question. Because we are the executive branch it is a town-wide policy for streets if we adopt it and I understand your point. We have other policies sometimes we don't know they exist and other people don't. So to me that's more of an implementation piece and it probably doesn't belong here. For example if a planning board or a ZBA were reviewing something that had streets in it public or private ways they would get commentary from the town engineer of the DPW it's really their job in reviewing streets and sidewalks and the whole thing that this applies to say by the way 2018 here's the complete street policy so there are different mechanisms to let whether it's a permit granting board or other boards. No people are working on streets and sidewalks all the time so yeah we don't always educate all of the other boards and committees about all the stuff we do but I would think in this case sort of the keeper of this policy is going to be the tech in the Department of Public Works. We're going to be aware of this and own it and share that as they're giving technical assistance to other boards and committees. Does that help at all? It helps. The town engineer you can see is just about every development that comes through town there's only a few that they don't see and the few they don't see are more special, they're a little different either they're approval not required type subdivision plan in which there is an impact of the roadway but it's because of the approval not required we don't get to say as much and there's one other one that we don't really weigh in that much on and don't actually see but they're very except for approval that requires the other ones are a minor we do see almost everything else. So you would be the keeper of this policy in a sense. In a sense it does come to us and the planning board and we input to the planning board so. Further comment or question? Are we ready for a motion? The one place that shall advocate for compliance I might say may advocate for compliance but maybe that's I know it's not what the community wants but the opportunity to advocate for compliance insisting that another group advocate a little hung up but I I'll go with the majority on this I guess I'm seeing that particular concept as whoever's feeling like they're responsible for this some given project. So if it's ZBA who's working on something then it makes sense that they might want to advocate if it's TAC working more directly with somebody who's been talking to them then they shall advocate but saying that they may makes it seem optional and I don't think we do want to make it seem optional. Alright I said I'd go with the majority. It's a little loose. Someone likes to make a motion. I move to approve the complete streets policy dated April 9, 2018 is recommended by the Transportation Advisory Committee. Second. Is there further discussion? Somehow at the end of this again as was pointed out we don't exactly have a template for our policies but somehow that it's clear that obviously we're not approving it on a day in April and it's not effective on a day in April but so I know it's a little confusing because the motion says it's an April draft but the reality is we did not amend it and we just are saying this is the new policy effective May 14th right? It'll just say revised May 14th or voted May 14th or something like that. The last line approved this it'll be this 14th day of May 2018. So should you say as amended? That's the only thing I was confused about that and the fact that we don't want the footer to say April 9th either. Because once this is over the list of documents we used at this meeting includes the April 9th version. The next meeting that we have some day it'll say May 14th on the bottom of it. So just something that clarifies that just so it doesn't keep getting dated April because we didn't do it in April. But the draft I mean it's sort of like the problem is wanting to identify the draft that we're taking care of and the approval is a blank line. I'm fine with the motion. She just wants this to come out a certain way. I just want it when it's printed to not have the date on the footer that's April and to show like you said at the end where it's yelling nice and yellow where it says approve this date of adopted by the board. In fact that would be even better because then you don't go to the end right? Those are helpful suggestions. Any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor please say aye. Thank you very much. Our agenda is the summer meeting schedule. So there are two slightly different B.I. and B.I.I. I didn't see a material difference in the two counters at the end of my talk. One was stapled to the back of the complete streets policy so I think it inadvertently got attached to that. I think the distinction between the two sets of dates which are the list of dates, the difference gets to be in October. There's October 1st, 15th and 29th or October 15th, 22nd and 29th and I think that's the only difference in the two. And it really had to do with the holidays around the 1st of October. Are there any other questions or comments or suggestions around those dates? We kind of used last summer's template to frame that a little bit. Well I'm just perplexed and maybe we can resolve this once and for all but the Jewish holidays that we don't meet on are the Jewish holidays which are Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah. And then these other ones pop up and it's not... we keep acting like we can't meet on those dates and I don't have any information that says we shouldn't or can't. So I think it was known as it was a holiday but didn't know how significant it was at this meeting. Yes, ma'am? So had I worked on this which I did not but if I had I would have looked at the listing and it says which days work are allowed and there's a reference for example into that at the end of the September colorful coded calendar. So to me if it's a holiday that's beyond what Ms. Krueger mentioned but that no work is allowed on certain days of it, that that is a good one not to have in there because it doesn't prospectively the end of the franchise our employees who may be celebrating etc. that might need to come before us but it does get wicked complicated obviously depending on how many holidays and where the new calendar falls any given year. But that's usually what I look to as those basic most clearly high goalie days plus any that say no work allowed which sometimes is at the beginning and the end of a particular issue. So Mr. Waltz since this policy has never actually been written do we have this handy on which of the days work is not allowed so that we can straighten out the October situation. I was going to pass that along to the council since we waited. I mean so which one do we talk about September to October? October that's basically October 1st through yeah basically October 1st is really the question Mark. I mean it's a judgment call. I would think that actually more people would be involved in say evening activities on the 2nd of Tuesday than the Monday. The Monday is not observed by a lot of people. I mean you know you're looking at a list of right orthodox that says what you can do and can't do. Right. Of course you know that it's like constitutional rights. You don't want to disenfranchise people based on numbers. But I think if I were to make my best guess I would say Tuesday evening is more of a problem than Monday during the day. Because there are ceremonies that people might attend on Tuesday the 2nd. I mean wait I'm sorry if that's the way to hold it. Is Monday night the first night? That's the crisis. Did they do the calendar right? Yes. Otherwise we can, if you want otherwise we can set those dates aside and come back to them another next time since they're not urgent. Well we're trying to decide if we should meet the 1st, the 15th and the 29th. I know but it's May and October so if we're to wait until... Yeah we do have some time to research. Oh come on people. Geez. Okay so no okay so I think the Monday we appreciate that staff tried to tell us what the coding was for this but I think we just still are not quite getting clear on what it is. Because we do have a lot more information. I think the October is in that case correct. It begins in the evening of the 1st so it doesn't seem like we should do it. It's correct to avoid Monday in that case. Yes. It depends if they put the calendar right. Pretty 4th and 25th there if you're something that might have family activities in the evening. That's a good number. So that's fine yeah. So October 1st I think I would avoid since they got the way they marked in the calendar. So that puts us to the II version 15th, 22nd and 29th. The only other thing I would suggest folks do is pencil in or between the 15th and the 22nd October 18th because we'll do our budget forecast for the coming year as far as expectations of state revenues and that sort of thing. Likely that Thursday. That's the 4th board. That's marked. It says 4th board. But that's not at night. I want to say we usually do that about 5pm. That's what I thought. It's a little later than our budget. The budget we usually do it. 4th board. Right. So at this point we're looking at the 15th, the 18th, this 4th board, the 22nd and the 29th for October meetings. That's correct. Which means there is kind of a gap in September but it is what it is. In terms of from the 17th to October 15th which obviously you guys struggled with. Unless we added a meaning on a not Monday. Which we have done. If things get, I would suggest that again, well playing off of the idea that we have time is maybe not at that meeting at this point because we will still have three and a partial meeting on the 18th. Like we could do liquor licenses on the 18th that we didn't do on the 15th for example. But I'm back looking at September. I guess we have the 17th. September is really hard for people because they have so many of their kids back to school things in terms of seeing what we're doing or coming tower things if they're staff members. September is tough for people. You are way more tolerant than I am. We have a job to do. We're meeting. We're not going to let me twice in September because it's complicated. Because of the holiday. We could meet on the 12th if we needed to. The only thing is, if we wanted to reserve a date where we could meet and then cancel it, it's better than trying to add it later when people book things. So add it now. That's right. So the planning board doesn't steal it from us. That's right. Because that's Wednesday. I'm suggesting putting it in and maybe put. The 5th is already a Wednesday and so it's kind of consistent to do it two weeks in a row. If we don't need it, but I think we might. I think there's enough moving parts that it might be helpful after the primary. And it makes sense to do it two Wednesdays in a row rather than like Tuesdays or Thursdays in a row. We can always cancel. We don't have a compelling agenda. So does someone want to offer a motion that captures all of this? There's part of it on our motion sheet. I can find that. To include meeting dates, because the June dates are already approved. That's why those aren't on here. Meeting dates of July 23, August 13, August 20, August 27, Wednesday, September 5, Wednesday, September 12, and everyone assumes Monday the 17th. October, not the first, but the 15th, the 22nd, and the 29th. You forgot the 18th. I'm going to not do that right now. 15th, 22nd, and 29th. November, Tuesday, November 13th, November 26th, and December 3rd. And it doesn't need to say as presented or amended. It's just those are meeting dates at the meeting schedule. Is there a second? Oh, either one. There is a second. Two seconds. And then would you also like us to just add a second sentence that the October 18th four boards meeting is also just as soon to be a four boards meeting, not a regular business meeting, but that way we can put it on our list for a meeting schedule so that people have it. So we've done business and sometimes we have to take in a license or something. Yeah, and so that's our Thursday. I would make it a... Can we make a part of the motion as a second sentence? Would the seconder agree to that? Rather than trying to mix it into everything else? I wouldn't. Does the other seconder agree? Yeah, okay. So the second sentence is something along the lines of the Thursday, October 18th four board meeting will also be posted and added to the schedule. There's a majority between the maker and the seconders. We have a majority. Yeah, you don't have to say posted. Add it to the schedule. Okay. Is there further discussion? The only thing I would notice is that we didn't put in our individual vacations and I will not be here on the 27th but that's obviously not a reason that we shouldn't meet then. We should talk about August 27th. So I think whether from this motion we need to start filtering through our vacation numbers. Yeah. If we could vote on that and then we could perhaps ask Mr. Bachman to make a note about August 27th for you, Mr. Steinberg, so that when laying out agendas and particularly the evaluation, we try and avoid doing significant work that day. I mean, not that all our work is significant. Let's stay with the motion and dispatch it. All right. Is there further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That should be done. Thank you everybody for coming that out. And so we know August 27th is not a great day already and then we'll continue to feed our other dates as we can. So next on our agenda, review and take positions on April 30th in your 10 meeting articles. I believe one remains and that is article 27. And so I'll introduce this a little bit. There's no one in your packet from the chair of the Amherst Municipal Affordable Housing Trust. The trust met last Thursday night and voted to move this first of all to send this memo to us. I did not vote because it was self-referential in that regard. The other thing I'll share about that is that the amended motion language which is also attached I believe is, it was formally taken under consideration by the full board and voted to support that because it clears up some concerns they had about the original language that was in that war article. I understand from the moderators that that modified language indicated there is allowable as within the scope. It really sort of creates a two-stage process for convenience of property. Typically three if you consider the school committee's got to release it first but it does create a tiered approach that allows some level of control and some assurances. So if the trust gets to a place where they're looking to do an RFP they can have a sufficient level of site control that allows for the full fruition of the project to be possible. And I think the other piece that I think they stress in here is relative to the delay it would cause to not continue to move forward with this. So I think it, you know, it's a something we can, you know, the trust has been working on, the town has been working on. I think it falls into that category and then also if we stop this process moving forward it potentially delays significantly affordable housing at that location if it proves to be possible. But I will take any other, that sort of lays out somewhere where we're at on that and I just wanted to see if anyone had any comments or suggestions or want to offer a motion relative to that article. Before doing the motion I did have some two things that I was thinking about and they all have to do with the sixth line in the article as presented in that piece that's attached to Mr. Harnick's memo. When I was trying to remember why it was that we had to include eminent domain since it's being transferred from the school committee to the select board so that we're, and the other thing that is significant is even beyond that the question is why after the words eminent domain does it say for affordable housing purposes because if this transfer doesn't work out for transferred to the affordable housing trust which we hope will happen through the course of events including beyond our time in office shouldn't the town own it for broader purposes than just affordable housing purposes so that future bodies including the council can make appropriate decisions about intended uses for the land if affordable housing is not practical. I think the intent was to say it's expressly for affordable housing and I think that they, my estimation is that they did not want it to be had the select board have the opportunity to do something different with it. Except in the next sentence it authorizes us to transfer to the affordable housing trust for affordable housing purposes so we've got for affordable housing purposes in the twice in fairly rapid succession and the friar one is the one that I'm questioning about I also wonder if whether the moderator would rule in scope to take that one out but I don't know the answer to that. In a way it's redundant I mean I've read this a couple times and I didn't notice that but it does mean if it's sitting with the select board and it doesn't go forward for site reasons whatever as an affordable project with the trust then we've just limited what we can, what we or the council can do with it in the future if I'm understanding Mr. Steinberg correctly Well the other reading might be does it revert back to the school committee at that point? Well it doesn't say that. Well if it can't be for affordable housing purposes First they give it to us and then it's with us forever until we give it to the trust so it is kind of, the eminent domain doesn't bother me because it does say too clear title and even though it is with the schools with the town and then to the town who knows what the old dean had and if you start tracing it so we always have that in there to cover us because of title complexities but I can see that that first affordable housing kind of sticks ya So the question is is it possible to amend the motion It's our motion to amend the first words for affordable housing purposes and those five words and then it reads said property by eminent domain for the purpose of clearing title the town's title there too and to authorize the select board to convey and then we get to the affordable housing in that next piece So you know what this means, you've asked the moderator but I think what we may do procedurally as far as the motion I don't know that this will come up this evening but so we have some time so we may need to take it in pause and not take action tonight and ask those questions to the moderator and then come back Is that sort of where I think people are at on this or not or I'm I mean so practically speaking in terms of scope obviously we need to know what the moderator thinks but to take out the four affordable housing purposes it doesn't necessarily seem like it's somehow broadening the scope although maybe it would be interpreted that way since we're saying the real purpose is for clearing the town's title when that's always been the real purpose of that sentence as opposed to that was extraneous when it was written in there it isn't more of a scrivener's issue is how I would promote it rather than as it needed to say for affordable housing purposes in there that we were trying to do a whole lot of things at once is where this got really confusing that may or may not be considered in scope and it doesn't change my vote what I'm practically I think it makes it cleaner and I think it makes it smarter but I don't think it makes the article fatally bad if it's not fixed and so if the moderator says no I won't accept that then fine and the other although I'm happy to hear why that wouldn't work but as opposed to a preference the other thing I'm concerned about given all the frustration town meeting has exhibited this time around and in past years about changes being made I really find it unfortunate to say mid sentence we're going to replace some text with another sentence I think it's a much better idea to try and get it right in terms of lined out stuff associated with what was in the warrant because doing it mid sentence is just people trying to figure out what did you change so you're on the script now so I'm looking at the script and I'm also looking at the actually not particularly informative red line version that we have here in front of us because it's not quite right in terms of what we're changing and so if we need to just the script itself doesn't need to be a minute what needs to go up on the board is what I'm saying it goes up on the screen it's just going to confuse people because everybody wants to know what words did you change rather than reading three quarters of it and then the last quarter being something else please let's figure out a way to line it in red appropriately which it isn't quite the version we have it's close but it's not quite right so that's nice for Mr. Slaughter and it's for staff when they put it up on the board when he makes the motion because what they have right now is what he needs to tell them what it is so aside from that technical aspect of it are people concerned that if we can't fix the affordable housing purposes and that that somehow changes our position? I would have serious questions because of the reason that I stated previously I fully believe that the affordable housing trust is going to do everything possible to make this work as an affordable housing project therefore if it turns out not to work for them then the town is owning the land and to have had that limitation in the acquiring document could be problematic so I don't think it's a light subject and I regret that I didn't think of it earlier but I didn't so I think why don't we, my suggestion would be to hold off on action on this because we need to ask the moderator a little bit and I think you're right, you could almost consider it a scraggers type error but certainly the intention in that sentence is about clearing title. I'm sorry, I missed it too because I think it is potentially a fatal flaw. Okay, so I just wanted to clarify. Last slide, are there any other town meeting related items? Any other related town meeting items? If not then I think we have one item under seven which is a wine and malt license also if someone would like to move that motion. Yes, I'll move to approve the application of wheelhouse farm LLC for special license to serve wine and malt beverages and wetting on the premises of the immersed women's club May 26th, from 5 to 10 p.m. check to meet your owner. Hearing none, all those in favor please say aye. That's unanimous and I believe we'll go into unless there's something else. We had in our packet the economic development forum part two. This one's going to be early in the day because that gets a different audience and also has a different topic. So 8.30 to 10.30 a.m. Thursday May 31st in the town room. The next stage of the Piney Valley planning commissions, this is going to be talking about SWAT analysis, the strengths, weaknesses opportunities and threats and they have taken our advice from the last one so the data should be interesting for that. The other things are this Wednesday we have the very first medical marijuana provider is running an open house on Wednesday that the entire community is invited to. There's a ribbon cutting at 1 p.m. at 169 Meadow Street but the event runs from 12 to 3 so people can get tours because it's not open yet. It's to open the following week and the other marijuana related issues since it's such a hot topic is on Thursday the 17th of this week there will be our third community outreach meeting and I say our meeting being held in Amherst not having anything to do with the town setting it up. The applicant has to set these up and have them within six months of their application and so there is a gentleman named Jack Carney who has put out a public notice associated with that and it's at the Hangar at 10 University Drive at 6 p.m. and I would say don't be late because the last one I went to took 30 minutes and they were done so it's not necessarily a long meeting as opposed to an open house development forum which may well go a full two hours. What time is that? Community meeting is at 6. On Thursday the 17th. The day after. The other companies open house. Are there any other announcements? Yes. Yep. So if not then we shall go into recess and we will adjourn at the end of the town meeting session as is appropriate. So thank you all.