 All right, then welcome to the, where are we? November 16th, select board meeting. A little bit confusing here. We are still in the band room at the middle school because this is, we hope, the last night of town meeting. Next time you see the select board, we will be back in the town room at town hall on Monday the 21st. Tonight, we've got a couple of logistical issues related to town meeting and then some other things that have come up in the meantime. So we're gonna start with the town meeting issues. And we have Barbara Fort and Helder Greenbaum here to talk to us about their motion to divide. So Ms. Fort, would you like to tell us about this? Well, the motion to divide is fairly simple. We're asking to take out two definitions from article 17, which is the article in the section 12 of which I believe is... Eight. Whether it's A, B, C, D. I think it's H. H, okay. And the two definitions are the townhouse and apartment. And the reason we're asking to extract them from this and vote separately on it is so that hopefully if they're voted, if they're supported, we will have these two definitions in the body box regardless of the disposition of article 17. So if article 17 passes, they will remain in article, and call a new article 16. And I'm also gonna make an amendment to propose 12.04 which is the definition of apartment. By the way, the apartment definition does not exist as a definition in the current bylaw. There's something in section P, boy, three. But otherwise, it doesn't have a specific definition. So I'm going to amend that. And the amendment is to remove from the first sentence, the phrase where the majority of such units are designed and used for residential occupancy. That is a confusing phrase. It seems to refer to live use type of buildings or the kinds of buildings you have in Village Center with small businesses underneath and residents of... And it's confusing because apartment, I believe, is never meant to be mixed use of the definition for apartment, always to be different. So that's hence the amendment. And then after we amend it, we'll discuss the purpose of abstract and then get to vote on it. And then get to vote on it. Okay, okay, so you've got two proposed changes. And I'll ask actually Mr. Tucker to comment on the second one. The first one, it seems to me is completely non-controversial. The idea of separating out the definitions because this is an amendment, this is a zoning bylaw change that is either going to pass or fail tonight. Isn't that a clever deduction? But no matter which of those things happens, it will be valuable to the ZBA and others to have these definitions of apartments and townhouses. So I think that that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. And so Mr. Tucker, do you know, is there any issue with the amendment about striking the deficit? This was discussed at the planning board meeting tonight and the consensus was that that actually clarifies the definition that's proposed. The language in question that's proposed to be removed is probably actually vestigial from the borrowing of aspects of other definitions and does create confusion that's left in it. It allows for the possibility that people might think that there's some new seller that was eventually used that's intended to be as an apartment. Whereas the only other kinds of uses to be accessory, long-term levels and so forth. So the consensus was that this is a different thing. Okay, select board have any questions? Mr. E. I just, yeah, I don't need an answer for this directly, but in buildings where there's a mixed use, is an apartment, one of those mixed uses, or could it be upstairs you have four units? The intent is that there be a single principle of mixed use for property. So mixed use would by definition subsume any other multi-unit residential use. Got it. Other questions about the division or the amendment? All right, so then the reason this comes to us now is so that we can actually take a position if we desire to on the floor of town meeting. So if no one seems to object, Ms. Dymers would like to take a motion. I move that the select board support Barbara Ford's motion to divide and amend November 7, 2011 special town meeting article 17 Village Center zoning as attached. Second. Because otherwise I don't think it's meaningful. So we said all right, if I like that, put that in. Do we attach these? I don't want to attach. No, they'll do it, you know, as attached. How about we just copy and paste it? Okay. All right, so I'll just include that in the motion. As I don't know, I just want it there because it's too vague without it. All right, that's fine. So I'll just copy and paste. Yeah, include the motion. Yep. Okay, Mr. Hayden. I want to kick around with my three colleagues, the idea of supporting the division part of this. You got a second at first, please. I did. Oh, okay. Oh, I meant to. Okay, good. I thought I did. Second. Okay, thank you. And for the discussion, I'd like to discuss my four other colleagues, the idea of supporting the division. I make it a personal policy, not to vote on procedural things of town meeting, calling the question the likes of that. That really is a matter that I imagine belongs to town meeting and not so much as a select board function. I'm wondering if moving to divide is along those lines. Okay, that's a good thought. I mean, and don't misunderstand me. I said, good. I'm absolutely going to support the vote. I'm hoping that we move to support the actual amendment. The question is whether we're going to, for me is whether we want to be involved in the procedures of town meeting. And I think dividing the vote might be something likely close to process. We don't actually vote to divide. It's not a debatable motion. As soon as there's one person moves to divide, the moderator believes that the article is divisible, then he'll say yes. Then it's divided. Then I would like to amend this to not include that. We're supporting the action that she's proposing here. So do we have a problem? So it's, I mean, our emotion that I animate, says to divide and amend. And I think I'd like to just see and amend, or just amend. Amend, amend. You have to wait to be recognized, please. Miss, thank you. I don't agree. Okay, I mean, for all the reasons, Mr. Tucker said, Mrs. Ford, Mrs. Ford, and Hilda said, I just really feel the division is to get it away from the rest of the article. So we have good definitions to go by in the future, whether article 17 passes or not, so, or the rest of it. I just think it should be in there. That's what our action is, and I will support my motion as I originally made it. Okay. So I agree, dividing isn't really, completely aligned with you on not voting on calling the question and stuff like that. That's for the body to decide, but only one member needs to divide it. And once it's divided, it's the concept of what's being divided out that we're supporting here. So I don't think it's quite the same as a procedural issue where we're supporting the action of what happens after it's divided. I mean, you don't have to go for it, but I'm not supporting your concept. I wanted us to think about that. Okay, yeah, no, it was an interesting point. Miss Ford. The division will take place if I move to divide and the moderator accepts. Correct. So what I'm asking to do is to consider the definitions. That's really what I'm asking to do. To consider, then once it's divided, I want us to consider the definitions and vote them on them up or down. And then of course I'm gonna make a amendment first. So then maybe you're not really supporting divisions, supporting voting for these articles or these particular parts at this time. Which is why we're including the text of this after the motion in minutes. Right. The division to me is important. That's the point. I think it's an important separation. So no matter what happens, these definitions, which I assume are useful to the zoning board of appeals, two members of which are here, would find it helpful and I would like them to become part of. That's why I think it's important to divide. So I think the interesting thing here is we're actually using divide in two different ways. There's the technical part of what town meeting does to divide an article and then we're actually dividing out. We're separating out the definitions and the fact that we're using the word divide to mean both of those things is making us a little bit confused, but it gets us to the same place. I think that the motion really is fine just as if you don't mind. Ms. Brewer or Mr. Waldo, do you have any issues on that? I'm just not gonna, I'm just frustrated that we're talking so much about dividing rather than the substance itself, so yeah. So we did start to talk about the substance and we were all fine with that. So did you wanna comment on the substance? Okay, so you're good. Okay, is there further discussion then before we move on? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye, that was unanimous. Okay, all right, so we're all set with you folks. Thank you very much. It seems like a good thing to do. Then the other thing that happened under town meeting is planning board met tonight and has something to propose to us for consideration. So Mr. Tucker. Thank you Madam Chair. The planning board has already been amended in terms of the article to accept change of the permit requirements for townhouses in the NAVC and AC districts in the site plan to do a special permit. So that one amendment is now being incorporated into the planning board's, you know, every other possible iteration of the division and amendment that they want to think of. They're probably still talking about that, but there were no other options to have the planning board either move to divide something or move to amend something. Okay, questions or comments from select board? Mr. Aden. I'd just be curious if there's a quick synopsis that we can have as to how that changed. I mean, I've been part, I've been listening to the discussion over and over again. The principle for reconsideration of this, the original intent to have townhouses by site plan review was because they were approximately half as dense as say apartments are because of their, because of the definition and also because they were a use that contributed to residential density at this lower level in village centers. And that was something that the board wanted to support. Tonight, the discussion centered around the fact that in the majority of the area where the new NAVC district in particular is being created, you're going from a circumstance where these uses are not permitted at all. It's a no, it's a no to by right. And that seemed to be a very large leap for some. And they thought that it would be useful for the town to be able to try to operate that under a special current circumstance. They lived with it for a few years. And then if it proved that everything was working fine, the question of considering some of the multi-year uses by right could come back to town meeting. But it was more about reducing the size of the leap, reducing the size of the scope of the change that's being proposed. Thank you. I think that's a great idea. Let me do it. Anybody else? Anybody want to comment and ask questions about this? Okay. Ms. Stein, would you like to make the motion to support the playing boards? Do we have this one on our? We don't. Okay. You have to wing it. I have to wing it. Okay. I move that the... Mr. Ncinti has created a... Oh, okay. Thank you. She had a lot to say. I move in terms of the article, I've moved to support the planning boards moving in terms of the article, except changing the permit requirements for townhouses in the NAVC and AC districts from SPR to SB. Second. For the discussion, what's the case? I just might comment as far as the process goes, because that's the way it's going to be moved. What really we're doing is recommending to town meeting to accept the article as we're expecting the planning board to present it. So it's not a separate thing. That's a good point. So the main point is it doesn't change our position on the article. We continue to accept it or recommend it as a board, even with this change. Maybe. We're going to find out right now. Yeah. I mean, some of us... Well, that's what the motion is without necessarily supporting the board. We support it the way it was. Now we're going to be asking ourselves if we support the way it's going to be. If you want me to abstain and keep the confusion down, I can. We did, you know, the previous vote was in favor of the article. Well, we need to be clear about this, because Mr. Wild is going to speak to what the select board's position is on this. So you're perfectly welcome to vote differently here, and you can say that it was unanimously supported. Here is where I stand very straightforwardly. I'm not supporting article 17, but should it pass, I'd rather see this in it than not. So I could support this without supporting the whole article. Okay. Mr. Wild, does that seem like something you can represent? Can we deal with that, Mr. Wild? Yeah. It's your reputation on the mind, on the mind as well as mine, so I'll figure out a way. Yeah. Good. All right. Further discussion. It just gets more fun all the time. That's true. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And that was unanimous. Okay. Anything else related to town meeting that we know about? Mr. Hayden. I want to appreciate La Paz Center for bringing apples to the... Coffee. We're going to need coffee. Okay. Anything else? Did you have any logistics related to town meeting that you have? Okay. Good. We're down with the town meeting discussion. So next up on the agenda is key information from the town manager. Mr. Macy, I do. Sure. I have one update, one announcement for you. I'm really pleased and it's in your fresh packet. The press release that I issued earlier today, jointly with Steve Gaughan, firefighter union president who's also here tonight along with chief Tim Nelson. Very pleased to announce that the town and the Amherst firefighters local 1764 have reached agreement on a new three year labor agreement for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30th, 2013. The key items in the package are a wage increase, 1% retroactive to July 1, 2010, a 2% adjustment to the effective January 1, 2012 and a 2% increase effective July 1, 2012. Another key provision is an implementation of a new 24 hour shift schedule. And we have worked in a very collaborative spirit with fire command staff and the union leadership to look at a number of different models of 24 hour shift. And I think we've come upon a model that can work really well in Amherst and has worked really well in other fire departments across the country. We think it continues our focus on patient care and we're really pleased and we'll work out the logistics of the exact implementation date, but it'll be somewhere around the first of the year and we'll be worked out between staff and the union. And also another key change is the, there's a change in the time of the, when the shifts are rotated, there'll be one rotation per day and it'll occur now at 7 a.m. instead of 8 a.m. And then there's a proposal that was data driven when we look at our ambulance call volume. In particular, there's a spike in call volume around the eight o'clock hour, which was our old shift, our current shift time change. And this will allow our person just coming on shift to be able to respond to those calls instead of being at the end of their shift. So overall, I'm really, really pleased with it. I wanna thank Steve Kahn in person now as opposed to by phone, et cetera, et cetera, for really an ongoing good candid dialogue about what's working well, what can we improve upon and we worked hard. Chief Nelson brought forward many concepts for consideration as well. Our human resources staff, our labor negotiator, Jim Connors, all were active on this for a long time and we've now gotten the fruit of that labor with a ratification vote on Monday night by the firefighters union. So I'm really pleased to announce that and we're looking forward to implementation and continuing our dialogue on this and other issues. The 24-hour shift is a big change but we think it can be a very positive change in Amherst and the way the contract was negotiated. The first year really is a trial period and there'll be regular dialogue between the fire chief myself and the rank and file to see how it's working and I'm confident we're gonna continue that good dialogue and we're gonna inevitably find things that we want to tweak in terms of how it's set up and we're confident that we can have this be a permanent part of the landscape here. So I don't know if either of you want to say anything but I just wanted to thank you both in person and I'm just pleased to announce this. Obviously it was a long involved process. Historically, those of you who know that the fire union seems so at times at fire contracts and it's been a historical thing and we've been negotiating as we're discussing probably upwards of 18 months. Obviously it's our goal, I'm sure it's Amherst's goal is that maybe we'll get the next one done before this expires. It's a good shot. This is the contract that we feel is he's good for the town and good for the fire manager obviously. It helps us potentially there's some cost savings for the town, there's some efficiency stuff with some fire inspection stuff for the businesses and the restructuring of the work schedule doesn't eliminate the hours worked but it allows us hopefully to have a better rest at staff and when the time comes. Obviously as we've spoken to the town manager and chief it doesn't help our call volume which is becoming astronomical here. It doesn't add people but at this moment today it will hopefully allow our staff to be a little bit more prepared, a little more rested. In the long run obviously we've got goals and we have to look at how we can better serve the citizens in the town and that's something quite different for two with the town manager and I thank him for his efforts to get this done and the fire chief. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have to look at Steve, Steve said this is good for us, it's good for our part and it's good, it's good for the town. And one of the things I found is that when I first came here I was told about there's a spirit of collaboration here. And this has been this whole whole thing that we've been about, it's been really good. We've disagreed at times but it's been an adult conversation. It's a little different from what we were from where I came here, it's a little more contentious than what I came from. But we agreed, at times we just disagreed but we weren't just disagreeable, which is good. And again, in a long run, this is the first step to get into a really good place for a first step. Again, for the department and most of the board working down, so this is a good event. Thank you. Congratulations to all of you for doing this for all the work that went into it. And I think that the 24 hour shifting is a tremendous example of thinking creatively about how better to use the resources that we have available. And I think that might be a model not to shift departments into 24 hours but to really say, okay, we've always done things in this particular way, but that doesn't mean that's the best way to keep doing things. Let's try a dramatically different way. The time changes a significant change. Absolutely. For us, even for starting your day, the time you get to start your day in the morning, it's a significant change than the membership and the firefighter. But it's something that we're obviously willing to take on because we're looking at potential cost savings. Hopefully we can realities our money into places we need it. So. And as I said, this is the first step for anything we want to do down the road. And so we, at times we do things because that's the way we've always done them. And Steve and his group, and us, we're all willing to ask that for a simple why. And it is the best step, it is there another way. It's not going to hurt to ask and look. So as I said, this is the first step in the process. That's tremendous. Thank you very much. Questions or comments from Slickway? Ms. Stein? I like very much the fact that the first year you're going to have feedback going on to evaluate the process. So we don't get fixed into a new model and say that's the way it has to be, that you can alter it as it goes along. I think that's really, really fine. And I'll ask them to put that up for now. But we need to have a true clear assessment. I think we're going to end it and we'll get that. Thank you. Other questions or comments from Slickway? Mr. President, anything else on this? No, that's it. That was a nice summary, too. Yeah, really pleased. Thank you for coming in and congratulations. Our many thanks to all the men and women of the fire department. Thank you. OK, so we are going on here. We've got a taxi license. Shall I make a motion? I move that the Slick Ward approve the new taxi driver slash chauffeur license for Jasmine powers of Springfield and asked on behalf of the Zickley Taxi Company. Second. Further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. That's unanimous. And are there any other issues that we need to discuss tonight? I'll remind us that we are meeting on Monday night, the 21st. We've got a pretty good full agenda for then. And we're also meeting the 5th and the 12th. Those are our only other scheduled meetings for the rest of this year. So we'll have a lot of things tipped in. And I can't think of anything else I need to tell you. Mr. Hayden. I would move to adjourn to town meeting. All right. And then with that objection, this meeting adjourns at 6.59. Thank you very much.