 Thank you. It is February 13, 2024 at 6.30, and I'm calling the meeting of the Community Resources Committee together. I mean, I'm calling the meeting. And pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Act of 2021, extend by Chapter 22 and 107 of the Act of 2022, and extend it again by Chapter 2 of the Act of 2023. This meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public is possible, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real-time via technological means. We have called the meeting to order at 6.30, and we have no public hearings. We do have public comment, and we'll see if we have some folks in the audience. Looks like we do. I'm not able to hear anything. We have a couple of folks in the audience to talk about anything within the jurisdiction of the CRC. There may be another opportunity after we discuss some of the action items for a second round of public comment, but for now, I'm going to ask if anyone in the audience wants to weigh in with public comment up to three minutes, and public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of the CRC. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes. At the discretion of the chair, based on the number of people who want to speak, the CRC will not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment period. Anyone in the audience want to read a hand? Okay, I'm not seeing any. Last call. Last call for some public comment at this point before we jump into our action items. Okay, well, we may come back to it. Action item for a, we want to discuss the ZBA vacancies to begin with the sufficiency of the applicant pools and some of our options to proceed. I will start by just recapping what we have received from folks in the community as far as community activity forms. We have eight halves in our possession for the ZBA. People mentioned they wanted to be considered. We have immediate needs for the ZBA, and that is that there is a vacancy for the remainder of a three-year term. This would be for approximately a year and a half through the end of June 2025, and we have an ongoing associate member position vacant, which at this point would be four or five months through June of 2024. To also perhaps consider are the ZBA terms beginning July 1, 2024. A full member position completes a term, and that same member has actually submitted a CAF for consideration of renewal. There will also be four associate member terms because they are only one-year terms for July 1 through the end of June 2025. Any thoughts on sufficiency of pool and possible next step? Vandy Jo. Councillor Hanna. Thank you. If I'm reading this correctly, for the current vacancies, the ones that are open right now, there are potentially seven applicants because the person that you just said who has submitted a CAF who's currently a full member because the term is expiring, wouldn't be eligible for that, but the other seven would be at least eligible for the remainder full term. Some of those obviously are associates, maybe now that wouldn't be, but seven applicants for two spots seems fairly sufficient to me that we should probably go forward with them, and then if we're looking at the July ones to try and sort of be a little more efficient, we have eight applicants for five slots, depending on who got, and if we appointed someone to the current vacant full associate, we'd have seven people for those five slots in a sense. Not as sufficient as I would like, but at the same time, I also promote efficiency in our work. So I feel like it might be time to say that the pool is sufficient to move to interval interviews so that we can get moving on this. It might be hard to find a time that eight applicants are available for interviews too, so it might take us a little bit to actually get to those interviews, but it, I think it's probably worth, personally, I think it might be worth moving in that direction. Thank you. I'm hearing your call for efficiency, Mandy, but I feel uncomfortable having five open slots in July and only seven applicants. Some of them, it just makes me uncomfortable, so I would like to move ahead with the current spots, the current vacancies, and to work again on the vacancies that will occur in July. Thank you. Jennifer, you're muted. I'm sorry. I agree with Councillor Haneke. So we had one applicant for a long time, so we've come a long way now to have eight, and yeah, so I think with that we have pretty good, I think it's, you know, we have more applicants than spaces, and we can keep, you know, for the next, so this is a question I have. Until we schedule the interview, so we're going to have to do, pull all of us to see when we're available, and then pull the applicants, can CAF still be coming in during that time? You know, because we could continue to do outreach, but I would feel comfortable moving ahead with the eight that we have, you know, and seeing if we can get more in the next week or two. That we're a long way from where we were when we had one. Thank you. I, you know, I understand, Pat, where you're coming from, in terms of wanting more. What I worry about is thinking about the timing. If we ask seven, and it would be seven members to come in if we weren't looking to fill the July vacancies, it would be seven of the eight applicants to come in, because one is not eligible. They're already on the board as a full member. There's, there's no movement there. And we appoint one for four months and one for a year and a half. The year and a half person is done for the next openings, but the four month person is not. And then we've got, which means we've, we've passed over or chose, not chosen, you know, because two, two openings for seven slots, five people. What I worry, given how hard it's been to get to this point is that some of those five would not come back for a second interview, which we would be mandated to do in a short amount of time to get these positions filled by June 30. I mean, we're already mid-February. I imagine that we're not going to be able to hold interviews for at least three or four weeks minimum, which means the interviews would be mid-March. And then we'd be looking at holding interviews two months later. And I worry that our applicant pool would go from eight for those five slots or seven for those five slots to like three for those five slots, which is more problematic than seven for five slots. So that's my worry, given our history with ZBA candidates in particular of struggling to even get enough. I mean, the associate term has been vacant since July. And so I guess I just respectfully disagree, Pat, with your position, even though I understand where it's coming from, and it's certainly not as sufficient as I would like. I think we should still move forward. I'm deciding to weigh in and was thinking about the fact that some of the folks who have submitted a new CAF are people that are currently on the board as associate members and or full members, and that it may just be a shifting of a couple positions if they were to assume different roles in this coming round. I would love to see more people. I am pleased that at the moment, those who have submitted CAFs do outnumber the the current openings. And it could be that we end up, if we were to look forward into the next year, it could be that we still have some vacancies that we might need to fill, you know, as of July one, I would I would be more comfortable for the sake of the ZBA chair, knowing that in this case he has a as much of a complement of of board members as we can provide him it is it's our responsibility to keep it board full. And I think in this case I would I would agree with with Mandy that that may be the reason that I would feel comfortable with anybody else. I guess I'll make a formal motion to declare the applicant pool for current vacancies and impending vacancies that are impending for July 2024 sufficient to move forward to interviews for ZBA. There are seconds. Second, Jennifer. Okay. Let's take that to a vote then. Any other comments? Let's start. I'm just going to go across the board with my pictures here. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Councillor Ate. Yes. Pat Yangelis. Pam Rooney is an aye. Councillor Haneke. Aye. Okay. So it's unanimous that we will we will approach both current and coming vacancies as a as a package. To that end, I did put a draft amendment. If that if this was going to happen, I put a draft amendment in our packet. I think it made it into the packet, but it is the bulletin board notice and I believe we have to amend it in order to let people know that we are considering beyond just the two current vacancies. And I'm looking to maybe Jo Haneke to confirm that. Yeah, it does need amended, but that that begs the vote we just took. I had thought that had been posted. I think our town council policy does not allow us to declare the pool sufficient for those until that's been posted for 14 days. Say that again. So I think the town that the charter says we cannot appoint until the postings of the impending vacancies have been up for 14 days. But I believe the town council policy on making recommendations is that we can't declare the pool sufficient for vacancies until the vacancies have been posted for 14 days. And so my motion was based on the thought that that had already happened. If that bulletin board notice has not changed yet to post the July 1 impending vacancies, we probably need to go back and re-vote the sufficiency of the pool vote because we can't vote the July 1 pool sufficient until the vacancy notice has been posted for 14 days. Well, we couldn't do that tonight anyway until you all voted on it, but to amend the to amend the announcement. That's why it's in our packet tonight. I thought last week, last meeting, we had voted or agreed to allow you to just amend it. Oh, I didn't understand. I thought we had to. I thought we had to vote on the wording of it and that everybody had to approve and then I could hear that was Athena. So if that was the intention, it could go into the packet tomorrow, but would it still have to be there for two weeks? Technically, it does under the policy from that the council has passed. Can we vote to waive the policy? We cannot. The council can waive it, but we as a committee cannot. It's a council policy. So here's a potential option thinking on the fly. We reconsider our vote that we just took, amend it, or just withdraw that one and ignore it somehow and and revote sufficiency for the positions that have been noticed. Post the notice, but as you are looking to schedule interviews, schedule them far enough out, potentially, I mean, this would delay filling the other two, but if that, the notice isn't probably going to be able to be posted tonight, but 14 days, if it's posted tomorrow is technically probably, if you count tomorrow as one, two weeks, 14 days would be our next meeting if it gets posted tomorrow. So we could declare the pool for those potentially sufficient tomorrow, if it gets modified. Can we vote to, can we vote that the pool is sufficient and that the terms of the bulletin board announcement will be modified to reflect that as soon as possible, so that any interviews would be. Well, you're not going to be able to schedule interviews for less than three or four weeks. So if we declare the pool sufficient next week, next meeting, for those vacancies, but we start trying to find interview dates now, it won't slow down the two openings that are now, because once interviews are scheduled, you have to allow times for statements of interest to be submitted and those statements of interest have to be posted on the meeting notice seven days in advance of the interviews. So, you know, we're looking already at, you know, from the time you pick an interview date, you can't pick one less than like 10 days out, right? Once you get everyone's response back. So that's why I say, we're probably looking at interviews in mid-March, no matter what, which means our next CRC meeting would be early enough to satisfy the requirements of the town council policy by declaring that pool sufficient prior to the interviews. So that makes sense. Our next CRC meeting is March 12th. That's practically a month from now. Don't we have one February 27th? That's our agenda item for C. I have one listed as February 27th. We added February 27 in. You're right, right. February 27th, correct. Good. Just didn't go on my wall calendar. Would you like to raise your motion? Well, I'm trying to figure out how we backtrack the prior motion because it included both. So I moved to amend the previously adopted motion to delete the reference to the impending vacancies that will be vacant as of July of 2024. There was second. Second. So just for Athena's sake, the intention is to remove everything such that the prior motion is just declaring the pool sufficient for the two vacancies that are actual vacancies right now. Councillor Ate had his hand raised. Thank you, Councillor Ate. Still up? I was just wondering. So what would be the difference between this new motion and withdrawing the previous one and having a new motion where we declared the pool sufficient for the one spot rather than the one coming up later in the year? Having to only vote once instead of twice. No, that literally is the difference is we only need one vote if we do this one. I'm seeing everyone ready. So I will call the vote. Again, Jennifer. Yes. Councillor Ate. Yes. Yes. Pat D'Angelo. Aye. Pam Rooney is an aye. Mandy Johanna Key. Aye. Thank you. It's unanimous with the amended motion. So we will proceed at this point to focus on the current vacancies. The next step would be to reach out to everyone who submitted a cast who would be eligible, in other words, not an active board member today, to fill the actual vacancies and request statements of interest. And I have a concern about that because I could see very easily having someone who is currently a serving member be appropriate to fit into a longer term full position if that was a choice of ours. Jennifer. Would you're saying somebody applies from now to fill a position from now until June but we might decide that they're appropriate? I just want to make sure I'm understanding it quickly for the fuller term. Yeah. And then the issue would be that if it hasn't been posted for other people, I guess that's why I'm asking why would we, what would be the drawback? Because we've done that before. We've had, haven't we had people apply to be an alternate and then asked if they would want to be considered for full member? Mandy. I guess I'm not quite sure what your question is. I think that's what Jennifer was asking too is we have a full, a vacancy to fill the remaining term for a full member that's a little under a year and a half now. So it ends June 2025 and an associate vacancy opening right now that ends June 2024. Anyone who's not currently a full member can apply to that. Okay. Okay. Okay. And if we happen to appoint someone who is an associate member to that, we could, their associate member term would then be essentially vacant, right? But only till June 2024, the remaining length of their term, we could potentially fill that with a new associate member for those three months at the same meeting. Okay. That's my question. That makes more sense. Because I think we wrote the current board notice a little, I think we wrote at least one associate member vacancy. I think we didn't say it was just one. To at least one. Yeah. To hedge on that exact matter. So I'm just going to ask sort of a technical process question then. So if we, if we move forward, we post an amended bulletin board notice which says, Hey, by the way, we're also looking to look ahead into next year. Is that now void, null and void, or do we just simply start that process from scratch with, we're looking for one full member plus four associate members? I would, I would, if, if the timing were such, I certainly would be very open to having a pool sufficient to look at all of those. And the people can play ahead. They say, Oh, okay, I got something for three months, but I'm also signed up for next, you know, another year after that. So that's, I can deal with that kind of Jennifer and then, and then Mandy. We should let Mandy go. I mean, this is probably for later in the just, just out there for some point. Would it be just easier if the alternates serve for the same amount of time as the full members and then we weren't, this is just like very, there's always somebody getting on and off and on and off. I mean, wouldn't just be easier to have everybody serve for the same. What is it? Two or three year term, whether you're an alternate or, and what I've observed with the ZBA is often alternates do serve because you have to serve for a complete application. So it seems like it's, it's not like the alternates only serve very infrequently. So it seems like if they signed, if they were appointed for the full three years, it's not like they would just be, you know, sitting around. They wouldn't be just an alternate name only. They would actually be reviewing applications during that time, but that's maybe for a future conversation. Oh, Mandy. So to answer Jennifer's question, the charge and our bylaw set the associate member term at one year. State law may actually set it at one year too. I'm not sure, but associate members are a state law thing. I'd have to look up the state law, but the associate member length might actually be set by state law such that we couldn't change it. If it's just the zoning bylaw and the charge in theory, we could, but if it is state law, we can't. And I just don't. So it may or may not be able to be changed. The point of amending the bulletin board notice is to be able to use the current process for those impending vacancies too, without having to require those that submitted CAF since November to resubmit a new CAF for those impending vacancies. Because the town council policy says once you post a vacancy, only the CAF submitted after that bulletin board notice was up are considered applicants. Hence the desire to modify the current bulletin board notice to include the impending vacancies such that the people who just submitted CAFs three weeks ago do not have to submit another one in four weeks when we would normally start the process for filling vacancies, when the planning board process vacancy recommendation process will actually begin. Somewhere in mid-March to early April, that process begins and all CAFs need submitted after that date. So to answer Pam's question, once that bulletin board notice is modified and two weeks have passed, then we can as a committee under the council policy declare the pool for those vacancies sufficient. If we happen to have interviews set shortly after that, that everyone has had time to submit CAFs, SOIs for after this new these vacancies are posted, we could potentially use those interviews for all of the openings, not just the two that are currently open. But at this point, that would be decided at that time, right? So we'd make those formal decisions once the bulletin board notice has been posted and we know dates and all. But yeah, we could potentially be done with the process together. That was my whole goal in suggesting it, I'll say that. Yeah. So I will proceed with forwarding the draft amendment and now I guess not a draft. It is the approved amendment and the wording simply says in addition to what's there now, it says the CRC may also consider filling positions that will be vacated as of June 30, 2024, semicolon one full member position term to expire June 30, 2027 and four associate members terms to expire June 30, 2025. And that was the only wording that was added to our current bulletin board announcement. If I have permission, I will send that off to Athena Morro tonight and have her amend the bulletin board announcement. Okay. I think we've spent enough time on this. Thank you. Have we covered so just and then next next step though is to is to start the process of looking for interview date and as soon as we but we also need to have statements of interest in hand in order to do that. No. For interview dates before statements of interest are out you just pull are in you pull everyone who is a current could currently considered an applicant. Okay. And so at the same time we say you're considered an applicant we're starting to get interview dates you need to send in your statement of interest. Sorry everybody this process is not. Oh, sorry. Yes, there are in SharePoint there's a cheat sheet of when you have to do stuff and when to ask stuff but yeah in short yes you would contact every current everyone who is currently considered an applicant and and tell them they should send in their statement of interest and I always did a poll through a form an online form. I will send you a copy of that form so that you can just modify it it makes it a lot easier to see who's available when which dates easiest. But but you can do those things together and you can set a tentative statement of interest deadline for submission and then once you know an interview date you can set a final deadline but only those who submit statements of interest will actually come to the interview and be interviewed under the policy. Okay we can we can discuss that offline we don't need to take up people's time who are here patiently waiting here at the meeting thank you very much for that guidance. Let's move to action items B or B which is discussing the bylaw the the rental bylaw the regulations and the fee structure I would like I would like very much to look at the regulations that were put together that were in our packet and I think that there were some we got a lot of really good information in our conversation with landlords last time they're in our documents that Mandy may be able to pull up we have the 2023 December 14 version which has a number of red lines and strikeouts and I think it would be helpful to pull that up because is my thinking that we can go through these and I'd like to I'd like to discuss the red lines and we've gone through this before briefly but I think I would like to come away with decisions on the things that have been highlighted and come to agreement on the wording so that we can wrap up if possible this particular document I was going to ask David Zomek if if Rob Mora is around I don't know that specifically need his help but it may be helpful Rob Rob is here he is why am I not am I not seeing there he is you were below my screen sorry thank you I'm embarrassed okay so let's start at the very top this is the the regulations that are associated with residential rental property by law and we have we have eliminated item number g and I'm going to pause just for a second any suggestions on other methods of attacking this document any other thoughts I can no longer see Mandy so I don't see your hand up okay we'll just keep going here okay so item g which was the number of dwelling units that were occupied by someone attending a higher end institution has been struck we are no longer going to ask you would no longer ask for that kind of information on the essentially the occupation of rental units we understand that many people in their in their leases might ask for an occupation but we are not going to require it by this bylaw frequency schedule b you can scroll down and Mandy perhaps you can comment on this yeah um you know the the note I did at the December meeting was that the there was a suggestion made to reduce the number of units inspected for multi-unit buildings a large multi-unit buildings if if you consider anything above 10 units or 25 units large and we had not finished that discussion so it's still in there as 10 um moving from 25 a minimum of 25 units inspected for any building that is over 25 units um but at least 20 percent so where that 20 percent would come it so it would be 25 units for every building up to buildings with 125 units and once you were parcels with 125 units and once you get above 125 units on a parcel then you would inspect 20 percent that's what we had originally proposed and voted to the council back in oh no august there has been a request to modify that down to at least 10 units and 10 percent so you would and and at least 10 percent so that means that parcels with rental units above up to 100 rental units on them would have 10 units inspected and if you have over 100 units on the parcel you would have 10 percent of your units inspected um and we didn't finish that discussion um partially because I think we had questions for Rob and Rob had not fully thought about what that change might do so personally I'm hoping that Rob can give us some guidance on his thoughts on this potential change and I guess that would be a question for me to Rob but yeah yeah and if and if I could add it would it would be a reflection perhaps of how much staff time would be required to implement Rob so I it's not really a large number of properties that fall into this category so I think the discussion was more about you know what is it translate to for the number of inspections uh you know to support the fee schedule that's needed was really the bigger question um as you get into those higher number properties there's there's fewer of them uh that I don't think um you know I don't think it makes a big enough difference no I I know it doesn't make a big enough difference to say change the number of people we need to have assigned to the program uh so really you know to me comes down to how many inspections do we need to do in a year to uh support the program Jennifer yeah and I guess I would also ask you know how many you feel you need to do to have a sense you know that you know that's sufficient enough pool that you would feel like you know you have it you've looked at enough enough units in a building have been inspected that you feel comfortable that if a certain percentage is up to code they probably most of them are yeah I'm fairly comfortable with reducing the 10 for that matter uh a lot of these properties that have that number of units will be subject to some other inspection for at least a portion of their uh their number of units that will have access to those documents as well and I think if you know in 10 units if we see something we're not comfortable with if we find things in the common areas that raise further questions we'll have the opportunity to increase that number if we need to thank you Andy does that answer your question yes it does so Rob sorry I when you're ready to move on from that I just wanted to go back to 1a whenever you're ready to talk about that about the dwelling unit versus property on the exceptions we'll do that right now okay so the the original language um had the five-year requirement except for when oh unless the dwelling unit is exempt from inspection we struck that out when we put in property in its place I don't remember exactly the conversation that caused that to happen but the bylaw actually says property or dwelling unit and I think in this section we either need to either do the same go back to dwelling unit or just say unless an applicable exemption of the inspection requirement you know is determined something like that because we do have subsidized housing section eight vouchers and smaller properties although it's less common I just wouldn't want to say on a simple example if there's a two-family dwelling one of them has a occupant that has a voucher I wouldn't want to exempt the entire property I'd want to actually have the inspection of the adjacent property that wouldn't get the inspection by the housing authority inspector or whatever agency is inspecting over that program I'm looking at Mandy with her cursor my feeling is is that the word dwelling unit is is maybe more appropriate because that's where the flexibility I it seems like that's where the flexibility would be yeah if it was dwelling unit we could we'd have the option to accept all dwelling units you know so that that works but I think also subject to an applicable exemption you know also allows that to be interpreted as the bylaw uh specifies the exceptions any other thoughts on that Mandy I'm just going back to the bylaw the bylaw talks about properties and as Rob said properties and dwelling units and exempt from inspection so occasional rentals are dwelling units um yeah I I think we could potentially go to the original language unless the dwelling unit or property or you know unless the dwelling unit or property as applicable is exempt from exemption under the bylaw something like that um because it's it's just a weird right now it says the residential rental property shall be inspected unless the dwelling unit is exempt well if one dwelling unit is exempt does that mean the whole property doesn't get inspected right and so we could say each residential rental property or dwelling unit still be inspected because some of them exempt the property some of them some of the exemptions exempt the property some of the exemptions exempt the dwelling unit from inspection exempt certain dwelling units you know an owner occupied parcel the owner occupied dwelling unit is exempt from inspection but not the whole property but an occasional rental the whole property is exempt from inspection I think under the bylaw so any other thoughts on that that seems that seems to work for me want to keep going let's move down to number three then and does that meet but Rob does that help clarify in your mind that it it's it's an and or not necessarily one of one of the other yes it does thank you we need to go back up to three Mandy sorry I still had those those time frames so number two this is one this is one b three let's just make sure we're clear we've clarified that the residential property with 10 or more dwelling units we subject to inspections on the schedule being necessary to inspect at least 10 percent of the total number of dwelling units at least every five years but no less than 10 dwelling units and though it doesn't make a huge difference in the workload it it also gives enough flexibility I guess for the larger property is everyone comfortable with that we move on number two really hard to read I'm squinting here yes thank you thank you thank you the number of units inspected with less than 10 dwelling units 100 percent of dwelling inspection and again so we've lowered the number of units in a property below which 100 percent gets inspected to be of properties larger than 10 there is discretion whoops we shall we shall inspect the sampling but we still have the we still have the count above to dictate uh at least 10 percent if I'm not mistaken but I'm looking at Rob yeah yeah that's good I'm just not sure the reference to the section is correct b1 c3 that's what I'm looking at now I think it's b1 b3 Mandy can look at that thank you everyone feel comfortable and Jennifer sorry you got your hand up yeah I'm just a little confused so if it's 10 or less you inspect all the units if it's 12 you only have to do 10 percent I'm sure I got that have that wrong you'd still have to do 10 10 and then just 10 percent of that above no above the 10 10 not less than 10 dwelling units so yeah I you know what I'm looking at I guess I'm wrong I was looking at to be but we're not there sorry yeah no to to be references this one here that was what the attorney we had a conflict there and so the attorney we rewrote it to reference so if you've got a property that has between 10 and 100 10 would get inspected when you cross a hundred 10 percent would get inspected right okay I just went to okay I was not quite understanding to be but I just want to make sure it wasn't what so to be if you have 10 or more dwelling units the code enforcement does a sampling I but it there have to be at least 10 inspected plus yeah yeah thank you that it ensures compliance with this okay thank you I think we are um yeah we could go to item number three actually back back up to three inspection standards this is something that was brought up by a couple of people and there was a request for a top 10 list of inspection criteria or what we're going to look for and the response to that was that if you're inspecting you're going to inspect for health and safety with the applicable codes as dictated by the state that you're not going to necessarily just do a short checklist however in in our in three let's see three a and three b and three c it does say that there's some sort of a checklist so the question to Rob is are we going to should we should we be asking for a checklist as sort of an appendage to this document since we seem to be asking for a checklist you would obviously at some point if this were enacted it would be something that a potential landlord would go looking for you could give a little bit of feedback here on three a b c sure so I think you know as far as how we educate landlords and make them aware of the program the checklist will include a document that is a checklist you know so we could be inspecting under you know the extra of the property for zoning matters and that's a much shorter checklist that's easy you know to prepare and show but once we enter the unit it's conduct the inspection is conducted following the housing code and that's a very comprehensive checklist so if a tenant contacts the health department and asks for an inspection we are obligated to follow that so I think I think for advertising you know for making everyone aware of our program it would be the list of things that we would do in response to a complaint or during our inspection and that would include our housing inspection list which is very comprehensive state the set by state code and that's a document that's readily available so we could leave this in in here referring to a checklist and it would be something that that your department would have developed and or have have available we would I think there may be you know there may be a you know what you would expect if we are responding to a zoning complaint or something related to the grounds or parking related on the exterior of the property and that might have its own you know section in checklist form of parking on paved surfaces and not in the setback so you know there could be things like that that are developed as well so it isn't you know not every not the entire scope of what we may be dealing with doesn't necessarily apply to every complaint and every inspection yeah and Mandy you just you just highlighted for a just these are the topics that would be covered essentially so um Rob thinking about this if this is enacted is there a fair amount of work that is needed on the town website for sort of upgrading the form the application the website the link so that it's easy for people to find their way to this kind of information absolutely there's a lot of work needed you okay thank you that was the that was the end of my questions does anyone else have questions or comment on the material within the regulations and if you could read it that quickly you're you're good so here again we have our we have our b inspection checklist and that just just for clarification numbers a letter c the tenant information sheet is the one prepared by the town it is not the same as the state mandated documents that was shared with us by one of the landlords who just basically says this is getting passed out to every tenant and it talks about life safety and and the rights of the tenant and the landlord has has his or her own requirements of what they have to provide in their lease or in their in their handouts to their tenant does anyone have any other comments about this if we have if we have come to general agreement on this document does anyone want to make a motion to that effect candy i think the last time we did motions we did them all as one bylaw regulations and fee structure and i certainly would like to talk about the fee structure before i personally vote on a new recommendation on the regulations and potentially go back to the bylaw to given some of the concerns we've heard so i i would request that we hold off any additional motion until we've been through all three sounds fine i was you know looking for some accomplishment that we could enjoy for the moment oh i still think we can do it today okay let's talk about fees next thank you rob for your input on on that topic andy could you pull up the schedule cover sheet uh for the benefit the benefit of our for the benefit of myself and for any newer members of the crc um the fee schedule and the documentation that that has been developed um including the excel spreadsheets that were allowing people to play with different numbers to understand what the costs were for a program such as this and what the um essentially if we were to go ahead with this what is the coverage that we should have to make this a workable program and so all of the all of the little spreadsheets with various numbers in it uh that that were um interchangeable um are in support of this summary um on the on the fee schedule itself any comments on the fee schedule andy this fee schedule we have not talked about what it shows is requests and for changes made by a counselor but we never discussed those changes um and particularly with the inspection but also with the other parcels um and so i'm not sure this is the sheet that was most helpful to look at um i think a spreadsheet or um we have several different spreadsheets we we have several different right and so i'm trying to figure out i created a bunch and i'm trying to figure out which one is is the best to pull up um i'm gonna while you're all you're thinking about that i'm gonna add um just some of the some of the thoughts that came from the uh from all of the conversations that we've been having since two years ago um but that it was stated strongly that the fees that are collected have to equal the service provided that we're not we're not taxing people um and that a number of people suggested there there are many different ways to assess a fee um and we have heard we have heard one flat fee for every property we have heard fees proportional to uh the size of the property and the number of units on it we have heard fees proportional to the assessed value of the property um and then we have also discussed fees per unit that would um with a cap or a particular you know for properties so those are all of the variations that we've heard on so man can you tell us what you have here that looks different than yes so so this is the one i think that might be slightly helpful um to describe what's going on and then if we want to actually look at options i can pull up a spreadsheet and we can depending on which of these option one option two we like um we could potentially pull up a spreadsheet and figure out whether we want to actually recommend changes to the originally recommended fee schedule um so the top row this is what CRC voted to recommend to the council adopt back in november um i think it was november um which is an application fee for a hundred of a hundred dollars for owner occupied units and two hundred and fifty dollars for non-owner occupied units plus fifty dollars each additional dwelling rental dwelling unit above one with a maximum application fee of seven hundred dollars and an inspection fee of 150 dollars per unit for every inspection whether that be the required inspection under the program or an inspection done in as a result of a complaint made to the inspections department or anything like that a re-inspection if the first inspection failed and the department has to go back that inspection too um that and and that we would be inspecting 25 units minimum of the large apartments or 20 percent um and so what you can see here is with that recommendation the estimated base revenue was 462 thousand dollars 463 thousand dollars out of a rest estimated program cost of 474 um base revenue does not include um inspection rev um inspection revenue other than the initial the inspection required to obtain the permit the one that's needs done every five years so it doesn't include estimated complaint or reinspection fee revenue um this column here is how much of the strategic partnership agreement revenue would require to be used in order to cover um the program costs the estimated program costs of 474 thousand because application and inspection fees fall short of 474 so for this first one the fee schedule we recommended would use 11 000 an estimated 11 000 of the strategic partnership revenue that is meant for um I don't know what the wording on that one is Dave so Matt can probably be better there's a potential revenue additional revenue for complaint and reinspections of 50 000 but we had heard from Rob in previous meetings that that that that in those inspections are not always charged a fee um and I added a column here that is an estimated number of inspections 628 um under the 25 units 20 so there was a counselor that asked for a couple of revisions to that fee schedule the first big revision was the 10 units 10 so that's that's the only sort of revision made under option one is changing the number of units inspected so you'll see that over here in the last column is the estimated inspected number of inspected units is 496 what that changes is the inspection fee revenue from 94 000 down to 74 000 which means the total estimated base revenue changes um and it would be estimated that we would need to the town would need to supplement the inspection program the fees received under the program with 30 000 of the strategic partnership agreement money um complaint and reinspection fee estimates that numbers there that's option one option two and and and that one so at a minimum that's the one we're looking at um if we're going to go with regulations at 10 and 10 um so this is the number we're looking at option two is the 10 units 10 but adds a different change in it which was the inspection changes that was shown on the initial sheet that popped up that I said might not be helpful um and that that changes two things option two changes two things first it changes the application fee for non-owner occupied units would be reduced from 250 plus 50 dollars per unit above one with a max of 700 to 150 plus 50 dollars um per unit above one with a max of 1100 as an application fee um which is um an extra I think it's 20 it's instead of the max 700 at 250 and 50 was paying was an application fee for up to 10 units um the 1100 is um an 8 9 10 it's up to 20 units so you would be paying that additional 50 for an up to 20 uh up to 19 additional units any parcel that has more than 20 units would be maxed out at 1100 in the original proposal any parcel above 10 rental units is maxed out at 700 so that's one of the changes the application fee so you'll see that the application fee actually goes down um the estimated application fee revenue is reduced the other change the counselor asked us to consider was under inspection fees where the inspection fee would be 150 dollars for each dwelling unit that is on the five-year inspection plan so if it's getting inspected once every five years but if there is a property that is getting inspected yearly because it has had multiple violations and x y z of the things then it would the inspection fee would be 250 dollars per inspection um but it would also be 250 dollars for any complaint or reinspection so an inspection following a failed inspection so given that option you'll see the one the number that changes with that potential option is over here on complaint and reinspection fees and the reason this seven the the required inspection fee did not change from the 10 unit 10 percent is because I can't estimate how many dwelling units or properties would be on a more frequent schedule and so this 74 000 is potentially under option to an underestimate but it's because we can't estimate how many would be on a more frequent schedule to be able to do that estimation what you see here is the base revenue is 355 which means you would conservatively need to use 118 000 of the strategic partnerships 100 000 dollars in um revenue I'm happy to answer questions about the spreadsheet or if we want to see an excel spreadsheet and play with numbers I can pull that one up two so basically to give you an idea option one right now is base is is what the current revenue would be under the policy under the regulations we have just tentatively we haven't voted on yet but that we've just gone over and modified under the current draft modified regulations option one is showing the estimated revenue the recommended one is now out of date in theory Jennifer thank you Mandi yeah thank you Mandi um so I like an option two I like the new application fee schedule so that if someone has one unit two units if they have one unit they're paying 150 dollars instead of 250 dollars so I like that better if less revenue is generated from that than an option one and we need that additional revenue is it possible that instead of maxing out that basically 20 units you max out if you have 20 or more I mean could we make that if if you're a complex with 100 I mean could we have you max out later so if you have 40 units you're paying more than a building with 20 units I mean would that help make up for some of the revenue that we're losing from option one would you like me to answer that sorry my hand's still up yes it would change the application fee revenue it would it would put it above 281 um I can go to the spreadsheet to change those numbers to to show you where it would be I can't do it in my head um but it would it would change this number I'm gonna weigh in here as well so um I'm I'm thinking that having a consistent inspection fee whether it's for whatever purpose I think is a more the most reasonable way to go in terms of just if it's an inspection you're going to put time and energy into it let's not differentiate between one type and another we we talked about different fees for different circumstances like owner occupied or you know this or that and it was determined that from the staffing standpoint that it made more sense to have a simplified schedule free schedule and I and I feel like the same applies here um reflecting I think what but I heard Jennifer say the maximum number um if you look at $1,100 for a property of 400 units or 300 units the the per the per unit cost is is fairly low compared to what a single family house ends up paying um and I and I think it wouldn't it wouldn't bother me um I mean all of this bothers me I I really would love to not have to have these kinds of fees but I think having a higher maximum um make sense just from the scale of the handy so I agree with Pam that I don't like the requested consideration of a change in making the inspection fee differential I think that complicates things and we were trying to be a little less complicated in a fee schedule so I don't like option two's inspection fee change um so if we wanted to look at potential options for application fees I would request that we look so under option one not option two so that we're not dealing with the inspection fee issue um I think given that the application fee is frankly subsidizing the inspections too the inspection you know given the program and all of the inspections that are going and given when you look at these that were the the fee revenue the inspection fee is not covering the cost of the inspection so the application fee in some sense is is covering portions of the required inspection um of the program as a whole and if if that is going to be the case while I do actually still agree with a separate inspection fee even though we are setting it lower than the costs of the inspection portion of the program and we're setting the application fee sort of to include portions of the in required inspection given that we have just decreased the inspections required inspections to 10 units or 10 percent um I struggle with maxing adding a per unit fee above 10 units because those units are not those additional units are not necessarily contributing to the cost of the program because we're basically inspecting 10 units on many of these um but if we lower the number to 150 we don't have enough and the goal was to basically have the estimated total revenue base be close to 474 and and so the other potential if we want to lower the one unit cost to 150 for non-owner occupied is to look at adding uh increasing the per unit cost above that but still maxing out at 10 and seeing what that does but I'm not sure I can support increasing the max number of units charged above 10 because we're only inspecting 10 Jennifer um for the application fee I am I don't have a problem charging per unit maybe I misunderstand more increasing the number of units maxing out higher that if you have a large if we need the revenue if the if the program requires the revenue moving a lot of concern over the last 10 years has been that if you own you have one unit or 100 you're paying the same application fee and I would really like to keep the application fee for the smaller non-owner occupied for a single unit at $150 and if someone's so if we need to generate more revenue I would like to see it come from increasing the max on the larger complexes go ahead yeah I I have a question about the strategic partnership revenue and in the second option we're using more of that money and this may be naive on my part but the strategic partnership money is supposed to go to other issues around town too so I'm I'm unsettled with an increase in that usage to $118,000 I'm also I'm I I feel like I I don't agree with Jennifer about dropping the cost for someone with a with small units or one unit I think I'm just not comfortable with that I'm not being very articulate I apologize the pet can you can you explain which what you would support for the fee for a non-owner occupied unit then for me I think it would be the max of 700 I feel I feel more comfortable with option one and I'm certainly interested in listening to more and I oh Rob what was that there were all these balloons that went up in your picture anyway the other thing it's I'd like to hear Rob on some of this and Dave on some of this as well Dave yeah what I can say there's not a lot to say about the $100,000 in the strategic partnership agreement other than you know when we negotiated that it was generally to be used on initiatives that made rental housing safer and healthier for all so you know I think you know Rob and I have had a number of discussions about this some of them with Paul I think Paul is aware that obviously aware that this is being you know looked at as part of the revenue stream for the program that that you've outlined here with Rob's support over the last many months so I think it absolutely should be considered in in the in the mix here there were no there were no specific strings attached I guess I would say that it was to be used generally to support making rental units in Amherst safer and of course UMass has the interest of their their students in mind but the program is is a broad program that will will ultimately result in safer units for UMass undergrads and graduates off campus thank you Dave that's helpful Rob anything to add sort of along the same lines I guess I was always if the opinion is you know that money should be accounted for you know as much as we need it to be I'm not sure what else we're going to do with it and I think in the first five years it seems very useful to put it into this program and then decide from there what Paul might have for other initiatives that could use some of that money but I think in the first five years it seems very appropriate to put into this I also wanted to just mention that you know the original $474,000 estimate included the $50,000 legal estimate in that breakdown and you know the town budgets for legal fees in other ways you know and it's there's no way to account for how much we will or will not use to to support the actions that are taken by this department so I actually feel like option two is you know doable when we consider kind of the reality of some of these numbers shifting year to year and what what might actually incur for an expense thank you Mandy Joe and then and then I think we've talked about this a bit I would I would like to open up I see a couple hands in the audience and I wouldn't mind hearing both weigh in on that thing so I the finance committee to report on some of their report sort of as that I was attending while I was chair of CRC indicated because these estimates are really just that estimates that they would rather see an initial fee schedule that estimates revenue as or close much closer to the estimated program costs such that the strategic partnership agreement amount may not necessarily be needed to run the program or not all of it to mainly give the program a little leeway a little leeway in the first year or two because we don't know whether that revenue estimate is is as it is is as good as it needs to be right we we can guess all we want we can do the numbers we can do the projections but after when all is said and done we don't know what the actual revenue will be until the program is in place and so what's shown as option one gives us some ability to you know make sure that the program is runnable using if the estimated base revenue comes in lower than expected there is still enough money for the program because there's some there's some additional you know an option one seventy thousand dollars that that could go um you know I would be open to opening the spreadsheet pooling up option one the only difference option one is easily the spreadsheet and option one is easily changeable to change that 250 to a 150 and the max to 1100 so that we can see what the revenue options are because because the big thing with the option to spreadsheet is it's got this inspection fee thing and if we're not going to do that we can we can pull up the spreadsheet and plug some numbers in and see I think I'd rather if we think 250 is too much I'd rather look at increasing the per unit additional from 50 to 70 or 75 than increasing the max number of units that is accounted for it would increase obviously the max that 700 might go up but I would look at keeping it at nine additional units but maybe changing 50 to a higher number and one 250 down to potentially 200 or something but we can play with that if we pull up that spreadsheet but I think I would like to see the estimated total base revenue closer to 474 or in at least the 400s if not near 450 um with whatever we recommend Jennifer you had your hand up and I was I was gonna weigh in as well well I was just gonna say that I um I could agree with that that if we went down to the 150 and then raised from 50 to 70 or 75 excuse me did not have to go above the 700 of that that's a good suggestion too my my comment was slightly different and that was that having the 150 plus uh the the $50 per unit um to me is is not an onerous fee but that I would actually encourage us going a little higher in the maximum because there are some in fact properties that have 200 units or 300 units and so they're we're talking application fee not not inspection fees and so that having a relatively smaller additional fee per additional unit doesn't seem it doesn't seem as onerous to me especially if we if we drop the if we drop the fee down to 150 I'm not sure for tracking that well I'm going to I'm I'm going to let Sandy Joe pull up that spreadsheet but I'm going to go to the audience Renata Shepard has her hand up and I know she has a comment on these Renata can you can you bring yourself in or David can bring her in and unmute name and address please hi you know me so well Renata you won't just this drive embers um yeah really the fairness of this needs to be looked again I do like the idea of going back to the spreadsheet and I'm going to give you a really concrete example for example I have a two-bedroom condo that you know the outside is regulated by the condo and behavior trash whatever is regulated by the condo it is rented for less than $600 a month and it's going to have to go up because of all the you know taxes fees etc why would I be paying $250 which is way above 10% of my my income for the month um when others condos let's say similar would go for 1800 2000 I've seen 2100 and they're similar and I'm trying to keep mine low because my tenants have been there for 10 over 10 years and you know but I won't be able to do this for very long um a person that has a duplex non-honor occupied duplex that would rent each side for $2000 would pay $300 if you go by the 250 plus 50 and yet they're making three times more than I'm making um a four-bedroom house that has four students that might be partying whatever that are making $4000 a month will pay 250 and they have a lot of inspections to do because you have to inspect inside and out and it's a bigger bigger house so why not reduce it to $100 per unit up to a thousand because if you have two units you're going to be making $1800 $2000 per unit $100 per unit will not be unreasonable I mean all these fees are unreasonable I have to say but I know you guys are not going to back down on this so I'm trying to figure it out of way of not going out of business really my children cannot live in this house they have to live with me because they cannot afford renting in this house they would not be able to buy in this town it is very sad very very sad so really um play with that with that spreadsheet and see if you can do maybe I don't know $100 for the first unit $100 for the second up to a thousand and then you know have a maximum or or go by revenue I don't know but it needs to be more fair because no matter how I look at this it is not fair why would somebody with three units would pay much less than me to have one unit so yeah please take a look at that spreadsheet and see if there's something that can be done thank you thank you Renata I'm not seeing other hands in the audience so let's go back to the spreadsheet thank you Mandy for doing that if I may can I explain a couple of things and then we can change some numbers just so people know what we're going to be looking at this is this is the spreadsheet as option one showed so it will say this it will have the same numbers as the document we were just looking at that was under option one owner occupied parcels up to six units $100 base fee no additional fee per rental unit above one unit um non-owner occupied parcels 250 per permit plus $50 for everyone above when you go over here that's where the max fee with the guard rails is charged you can see it set up to be per nine units for additional nine units plus the base so a total of 10 units anything above 10 that is not the maximum total fees collected so total number of rental units for the guard rail collection is on a different spreadsheet it references a different spreadsheet so if we change that nine to 10 I have to go to over here and and find that number and that's this one here and I would fix that number if we move up to 20 for some guard rail numbers um but the one the one I really wanted to point out when we change those numbers on the first tab this is the column we're looking at right here on what the total estimated revenue will be the number in bold right here is the total estimated revenue this number is how much of strategic partnership agreement money would need to be used to make up and get up to the 474 estimated total program costs if the number in b8 is larger than 100 000 there isn't enough strategic partnership revenue because the strategic partnership revenue is a hundred thousand dollars and then we can change numbers or people have questions about how the spreadsheet is set up I'm happy to answer them too. Mandy could you go back to the previous sheet the one with the the green in it this one or this one one yeah that one so in your in your column E you have all other parcels max of nine additional units charged the number here that is shown is 1505 in fact we have 4952 units are you capping that at 9 or 10 units total so we we really don't get to count the additional 3000 units that we have in town that in a in a sense ought to be contributing to this algorithm. So the fee schedule said you would cap the maximum fee at 700 dollars which is a fee of one unit for the base permit and nine additional units paying the extra additional fee per rental unit for a total of 10 units so how do I figure out how much total fees collected are that when we have 4900 total rental non-on-occupied units what I do is take this number here that 1505 is here and as you can see it looks at f3 the these approximate total numbers of units it looks at all of these until we get to it it adds up these numbers f3 through f10 because those are the approximate number of units in buildings with two rental units all the way through nine rental units nine was considered we have one building with nine rental units if it's got nine rental units and there's one building there's exactly nine units there in the nine rental unit buildings in the six rental unit buildings there are 15 buildings that have six rental units and so six times 15 but once you get to 10 rental 10 to 19 rental units only 10 are being charged that fee only nine additional ones are being charged the fee so how did I do that calculation when I got to f11 I added up the total number of parcels that had 10 or more units and it would be that number of parcels times nine additional units so the question add to that and so that means if we are maxing out the guard rails at nine additional units plus the original unit there are 1,505 units that would pay that extra 50 dollars total across the board if we max that out at 20 units or 19 units plus the base fee I would be changing this calculation basically moving this 19 the c11 would become a c12 and I would add an f11 in but I can do that if we want to do that that's what I'm saying once when we play with numbers I can make those changes it will just you'll you'll get to see me make the changes here so that when when we play with them you can actually see what these numbers are so I think the question that the that the committee needs to consider is is is capping the number of units that we that we apply the fee to the administration fee to um is it appropriate to cap it at 10 units total again as the speaker just said the benefit to the larger the larger properties is that they essentially get a discount for having many more than than 10 units and the and that's so that's the question that I would like to pose to the committee Andy so as I said I think capping at 10 units is logical for an application fee Rob has told this committee many times that the processing of the application is no different for a parcel with one unit than a parcel with 100 units um and so if fees have to relate to costs it's hard to justify an application fee that changes dramatically for a 100 unit building than a one unit building when the processing of the application itself is the same cost to the town which is why I started the conversation originally with it's clear that the application fees when you look at the application and the inspection fees are subsidizing the inspections too it's not just the cost of processing the application that the application fee is paying for it's also a portion of the required inspection under that application that it's paying for and then we're adding an additional inspection fee on top of it if we're only going to inspect inspect a maximum of 10 units it seems disingenuous of me disingenuous to to me to to charge an additional an an application fee for the 30th 40th or 50th unit on that parcel when only the first only 10 of them will be inspected in a five-year period but that's one of the reasons I suggested maybe we increase the per unit additional unit fee for the application because that first 10 is subsidizing that inspection fee where the big difference comes is that inspection fee is per unit two in the number of units inspected so that 150 inspection fee for a one unit rental is $150 for a 10 or 100 unit rental is $1,500 because 10 units are getting inspected for the 206 200 unit property it's a $3,000 inspection fee on top of the application fee and we can't forget that that that's getting paid to by the units it's not just the application fee every year it's the inspection fee too my other concern I would say with reducing the base fee is most of our rentals will not pay anything above the base fee and so reducing that makes it hard to pay for the program and we've also heard that it's those one and two and three unit rentals that sometimes cause the most problems thank you thank you for a very thorough explanation Jennifer and then I want to yeah just you know for us all kind of to be mindful that when we talk about the inspection fee it's once every five years so it's not an annual correct yeah just just just in terms of you know for the community and the public that the just to keep bearing in mind that the inspections happen once every five years not every year like the permit fee thank you so this is this has always been a very a very slippery slope and a very complicated conversation because it's it's trying to weigh a lot of different elements in trying to implement something as equitably as it can be or at least as consistently as it can be and perhaps inequitably I want to I want to take a pause it's quarter after eight and we have 15 minutes that we I want to spend at least five minutes talking about calendar I'm looking for interest in pursuing this for another five minutes or something if if nandy could do two things one is to put a date on this example so that we know this is the one that we talked about on February 13 and to create some some comparable charts that are like this but for each chart to label it like a today's date a bmc so that we have or option one two and three so we have something that we can much more carefully study individually and be prepared to talk about this at the next meeting which is the 27th and that's nandy so what I could do is play with the spreadsheet and give me a second and create a document let me like the one I initially showed I have to get it up again I could create a document like this that shows options between 100 and 250 plus 50 max 700 and 150 plus 100 150 plus 50 plus max of 1100 something with options that are up to 10 units up to 20 units but somehow fit within so so you know maybe a 250 plus 50 a 200 plus 100 a 200 plus 75 a 150 plus 75 a 150 plus 100 something like that and create instead of all the spreadsheets with that create a chart like this in a word document that shows the results of me plugging in those numbers and then shows application fee what what what this what this line was including instead of just the max number how many units contribute to that max number something like that and I can just create an option you know like six or seven different options like that that all fit in if the committee gives me an idea do we want them all using $100,000 or less of the SPA like this one here uses more than is available so my mind it's not even an option because it it doesn't give the program enough operating costs potentially but I could work with numbers to try and find a way to get every option using $100,000 or less of the strategic partnership agreement if that's what the committee would like I'm going to weigh in on that I if you would keep that option I think that's important to understand what what creates the overage and just keep that as the the least desirable but at least it shows us the the sideboards between most expensive and less expensive and I truly appreciate if you would do that I would I would say keep it to I don't know four new options total and we've heard we've heard a couple things that the the cap could stay the same the per unit application might go up a little bit after the first unit and then um that's what we heard or and also with with a $100 initial application fee plus $100 for each dwelling unit up to a thousand dollars was one suggestion tonight so we'll make sure that gets included okay I will create something it might end up with more than four options but I will create something really appreciate it and so if that could go into the share point when you're done with it put it into the share point and just say as discussed every 13 will be very helpful I'll do thank you so much uh let's transition so I think Rob and well Dave's still here but but Rob I think we're done with this discussion tonight we'll come back to it um on the 20 thousand appreciate your feedback that's very helpful and so if we could transition to the conversation about the calendar this is totally um at at my call and the only reason I wanted to bring it up again for discussion is that I realized as we were looking at all of September all of October all of November and and all of December that our CRC meetings would fall the day after town council meeting all of those all of those months and I I don't mind following some and some of the dates um are already like I think April 9 uh April June 25 follows immediately after a meeting but you know I'm I'm comfortable with it happening sometimes but I was I was staying a little uncomfortable having it four months in a row of back to back any other thoughts and if it's the will of the group I'm fine but I just want to at least discuss it again Mandy so November and December are only other options because of the holidays in November and December and the holiday weeks are to do two meetings in a row and only have one of them right after a council meeting right now they're all November December are also on the same day as finance that affects me I'm okay with it um I will have three meetings in the span of like 26 hours um you know I I'm okay with it um because I I'd like to see CRC be able to meet twice each of those months and I feel like November November 12th I'm not sure is even an option because I think that's a holiday um no I think November 12th might be a holiday 11th is the holiday the 11th oh Monday's the holiday so we could do the 12th but 12 19 is two weeks in a row and I just feel like the space that that's just really tough to do two weeks in a row for the same committee I think it's easier to get stuff organized if they're better spaced um so so that sounds like November 5 and 19 could remain November 5 and 19 that there's not a lot of flexibility there and same with December 3 and 17 unless you want two weeks in a row so so then I will say that if you change the September ones um they would likely then be on the same day as finance I haven't gone through and looked but Athena originally set up this calendar so that one and three were finance and two and four were CRC and so if we move the two and fours to one and three um in September and October it will be four months of finance and CRC on the same day fine so I will also say finance is generally meeting the day after council meetings the rest of the year oh right um there is a meeting basically every Tuesday the whole year and it's either this committee or finance we need more days in the week um so in that in that sense in that case if we keep we'll keep November 5 and 19 that what's going with November 12th I'm sorry November 12 because that's there's no council meeting the 11th that's Veterans Day it just puts two meetings in a row 12 and 19 we would tell whether the committee wants to do that no one no one wanted a meeting on the 26th of November even though it's it's a couple days before Thanksgiving right um okay so November are we meeting on November 5th that's election day that's what we're scheduled for I think I'd rather meet on the I don't know 12th than the night I see you show my two weeks but I mean I guess on one hand meeting on election day is a distraction but I I'm gonna be very I don't know polls don't close till eight there's no information till like 8 20 you know it's the emotional load that will all be very as we near the election I mean I can go either way I mean it's fine but I was just there's no reason I didn't have the 19th on my calendar so I'll put that on um so back to back to September sorry so September finances on what days finance on is on September 3 and 17 I mean I will do it I you should have to do it I think we're I feel more for Athena than I do for myself finances two to four this one's 6 30 to 8 30 so there's plenty of space in there um but I feel more for Athena than I do for myself doing that to her for four months versus two it also feels to me that yes it's after a council meeting which can be totally exhausting but it's happening in the evening we have a whole day to recover um so I don't see the point of changing these and make and glomming it on to Mandy Joe or Athena or anybody else's schedule in that way I think it was my chair recognizing that I would need to get all of the material done by the week before because I'm trying to spend time on council stuff Thursday Friday hopefully not much on Saturday and Sunday but then Monday so I was trying to get some of the chair duties spread out a little bit um I'm well you have a vice chair so you the two of you can alternate work you can find ways to work that out thank you um then let's just accept it as we originally voted and I'll shut up okay so I will let I will let Athena know that we haven't changed a single date and she can go higher her note takers okay it is 8 28 do we have any if any other business let's see where's my live uh we do not have minutes that I saw any announcements Mandy sorry it's a next agenda well an agenda item request I guess more than an announcement um if that's okay at some point I wonder if we can find some time to ask the planning director in the planning board has been discussing a lot of stuff and this might be a better agenda item for potentially after the retreat that the council might have at some point but the planning board's been discussing a lot about a potential revision to zoning over on university drive and it might be good for us as CRC the other committee that would have to make a recommendation on that if it comes to the council to get an update on that maybe if the chair thinks it's logical and all but it might also be worth doing that sometime after a council retreat where we might be discussing zoning priorities anyway but I thought I'd put that little request in sure sounds like a good one and um since I listened into the zoning or some planning board you most of the time anyway it'll be easy to get a sense of when they think they have kind of a handle on things and if they're starting to come to consensus the approach they want to take and it would be a really you know good opportunity to have have an overview provided to us that'd be great good idea I do want theoretically I'm going to be talking at least with Paul and maybe David this week I put in a request to um at least talk through with staff how they might want to be incorporated into the conversation about the solar bylaw and I'm just trying to get a sense of what their time frame might be how they want to be integrated into this conversation and I was hoping to have that conversation with Paul before the end of this week or at least by the end of this week and that was going to give us a sense of how to start structuring of the solar bylaw conversation so that's still a future agenda item we have not talked about nuisance bylaw for some time it ties in directly to the conversation that we had tonight it is yet another cog in the wheel so that's still a future agenda item as well no items anticipated within 48 hours is there anything else anyone wants to add future items Jennifer I missed it so we'll do the nuisance and the rental bylaw the rental well I yeah I mean I think we we need to we probably could talk about the bylaw we didn't even touch that tonight um at some point I'd like to get through fees and really have a robust conversation about that and then we can talk about nuisance so it there may be time for it next week next time but if not the following I hear that okay that anything else counselor essay anything else okay then I think we could adjourn it's 832 thank you everybody thank you thank you oh Dave before you close down um were we going to be able to see the YouTube recording from last week