 Okay. Good evening and welcome to the select board meeting of May 16th, 2018. I'm calling the meeting to order at 6.08 p.m. We'll start with opening remarks and ask us an agenda review. Just on the topic of agenda, we may probably get largely in order. Hopefully the crew will join us fairly shortly and be able to be a part of the letter items on our agenda. Does anyone have any announcements to the ACOR direction and additional instructions to the agenda? Actually, it's from the lawyer here for the downtown part of your group. Oh, he's the one for that? Okay. I don't know if he was here for the mass outreach. Okay. So we'll start out with our first action discussion on which it's from a recommendation from the downtown part of your working group. We've got a memo and a map in our packet. We'd like to take us through. We can be the hearing for the person. We need to have a schedule of public hearing for it. This isn't the hearing. This is the pre-to-the-hearing. Sure. Yeah, made my way to plan out the town and stack the liaison to the downtown part of the working group. The group's been working for a while for almost two years now and they made recommendations in the fall. And they are proposing three recommendations now for the psych ward consideration. And so as Paula mentioned, if the psych ward would like to report with these, then there has to be a public hearing two weeks notice at a later date. The recommendations are in a priority order. So the first recommendation is to meter the 13 parking spaces off Kellogg Street, adjacent to the annual parking lot. So there's 15 spaces against the fence. The east side used to be reserved for LSDC when they were there at the bank center. And now it basically has a sign saying no parking anytime. It's been used by contractors for different construction projects. But the working group's recommending that they become metered spaces. So they can become part of the downtown metered space public parking at 50 cents an hour with a four-hour limit. So that's the first recommendation. So that's something that the division endorsed and looked forward. The second one is there's five taxi spaces along South Pleasant Street adjacent to the North Common. So the first understanding was that some of the regulations say that these spaces are reserved only for taxi cabs that maybe refine that they're only reserved for taxi cabs Thursday through Saturday from 11 to 2. But you know, nonetheless, they're like those signs if you're moved and be clear that those spaces are meter spaces. There are no taxi businesses in Amherst and they haven't been for a few years. And the third one is adding a second 15-minute free space on the, called the Boltwood lot or the Kellogg lot. It's behind Cher Coffee. There's already an existing 15-minute free space on the east side of the parking lot adjacent to Ann Whalen. So next to that, there'd be another 15-minute free. And that's a highly sought-after space. And it's well used. Coincidentally, I went to Jen Reynolds, an apartment enforcement officer today, right in that area. I asked her and she said, it's really well respected. People typically just use it for 15 minutes and she said it is really busy. So, you know, she could see that another one would be used respectfully. So those are the three recommendations at this time. And as we go over that to move forward, there need to be a public carry on some of these. I did notice that my name was next to the sign, but I was happy to defer to Mr. Molloy. Did you want to offer any additional? Well, actually, I think it's a good summary. The downtown parking and working group, and there's six of us out of the seven slots. There's one they can see. These were all things that we felt pretty solid on. We discussed them a bunch, but they weren't debated the way some of our other issues that have not resolved yet. So I guess we saw these as easy ones. I just wanted to add for the 13 parking spaces that are up against that chain link fence after the Ann Whalen lot. It's being used by some of the construction crews for the New Sandy Health Center, Bank Center renovations, but that is starting to a conclusion, and it's pretty close to a good part of the downtown and seemed like it would be appropriate to meter for access to the Bank Center, to the Health Center, into other venues in that general area. Right now, it has the sign that says you can't park there at all, even though after hours, it's empty in the evening. So that was one I've been particularly interested in addressing. The other ones are maybe second and third order of business, but we wanted to get this to select board so that we could proceed along, and if we could make those changes for the 13 parking spaces, that would help alleviate some of the supply issues in that area downtown. So I have one question regarding the taxi spots that are described in Pleasant Street. I know that there had been discussion at one point about Uber drivers doing things that were not in the best interest of anybody, including using the fire station driveway. There's a spot to stop until they got a call. Are the Uber or Lyft drivers using the taxi spots for those purposes, or are they really vacant, do we know? I've heard that they're not using them just because they're, you know, that half of the walk away or across the intersection. So, you know, I know some in Pleasant Boston, you know, has reserved spaces for, you know, for riot sharing pickup, but, you know, it seems like they're not using them now, so even though they're available. To add to that, we did talk about it a couple different times, and we have a recommendation in that I believe has been now funded for a parking consultant to help us improve the parking management system. And one of the things that is on our laundry list of tasks for that person is to figure out the best way to handle riot sharing. And the information we had at this point was they want to go to the pickup place where the person has called them from and not queue in those taxi spots. So we looked at that. It didn't seem to be the right solution for right now, but we know over time riot sharing is growing and growing. And so we want to look at that, but we didn't have enough information expertise to really jump into that issue. Agree, Mr. Malone? No, I agree. Yeah, of course you're saying it's a kind of evolving field, you know, how they use riot sharing and what they do. So, you know, we, you know, we, the other members have said that they really don't want to, it's just too far the way they, the way they work is not, they wouldn't use those spaces, but. So they're, yes, Mr. Malone. What's our belief on these three issues as to which or all are subject to an actual hearing if we decide that we are interested in holding such a hearing? Because I mean, in theory, anything we do to change parking is. Reading the bylaw, it seems like all of these would be changing, whether it's a time limit or something, so they would all be subject to. Okay, yeah. So my follow up question then being that that's what I believed as well is what's the next step being proposed by downtown parking working group or staff in terms of what would be appropriate timing for this, given town meeting, summer, all that good stuff. Well there's, there needs to be two weeks notification notification, the newspaper, downtown parking working group had a meeting today, we weren't sure if there's gonna be something coming out of that or not. So we could do it in June. So my question is not just when we can do it, although I appreciate the reminder two weeks notice that's here in the copy of bylaw, I appreciate us having you in the back. I'm asking when's a good time to do this, given when it's a good time of year to change signage, when it's a good time to expect people to show up, and given our schedule. So we could do it as soon as, because two weeks notice because there isn't something new. That's, I believe you just indicated, coming out of downtown parking working group today that would also be subject to a hearing. So what I'm asking is, I'm not saying there's one answer, I'm asking given all the things that we juggling, given the agenda setting, things you just looked at, I believe, yesterday, when this seems like a good time to put it. I would say, and to be honest, the downtown parking working group did not discuss the hearing date issue. Different members are here or away, the ones who are here would come. I would say as soon as possible, because not only is there the notice period for the advertising, but there's I think is it four to six weeks for getting meters. So if we're looking to have this happen during the slower time in preparation, you know, parking already has eased up and will continue to ease up over the summer. So doing signs, doing meters, changes is coming up. So we'd want to kind of get it underway. Clearly the later we go into the summer, the harder it is to have people come to a hearing. I imagine the business community has some interest, although these were not the ones that drew the crowd. The one that remains unresolved is where more interest lies, and we're not ready to make a recommendation. So as far as our own schedule, I think when we get into June, I think June's a nice month to do this. Because I think once we get into July, we get into people's vacations, and we get into an evaluation process, and that's where it might be best to keep ahead sooner rather than later. And I don't know if anyone wants to make any specific motion suggestions, but... So as the agenda said last week, there are a number of parking-related issues that are going to come up in June, depending on how long town meeting goes, like I want to be at Place Fisher Street. The number, there are numbers sort of that same genre of things that we could package this all into. Parking night, I have to select one. I will second what Connie said. This has been on the agenda a few times, and other businesses in property owners from the downtown have gotten there, and they have not really brought up an opinion on these. I mean, they seem fine with it. They don't, you know, they all agreed that the 13 spaces wouldn't be a detriment, about the 15-minute freeze, but it wasn't any, really any negative. What's the plan with Olympia Place and Fisher? And at Fisher, we were hoping to have a follow-up since we said it would expire June 1st. And obviously we haven't had a chance to do that yet, but is that also a hearing? I mean, we can talk about the packages and things. I'm just trying to understand which things are subject to hearing and which things aren't. I mean, if we want to change something, then we think it would be subject to hearing as opposed to, I think at one point, we assumed we'd just hear an update on what happened at Fisher, and then we would later have a hearing if we needed to do something about Fisher. I mean, so when they talk about an agenda saying, they said, let's do this in June. Let's get through town meeting Fisher Street and Olympia Place. Some of these things might have more people who want to attend. Let's not try to squeeze in, right? People are town meeting, so once town meeting, that's why choosing a June date would be fun. Yeah, we'll give you a quick meeting during the fourth, assuming the town meeting can be in May. Yeah, I think some of it's driven by the notification of 15 days until we put the pieces together. We've not heard anything that would suggest change at Fisher Street or Olympia Place. We just would be getting an update on where they are. It's like we need a motion per se to schedule it, but I think it would be, as soon as we can, relative to the appropriate notice to the public, but the idea being we put all of those parking-related things, both hearing-related and non-hearing-related, together on one night. So that all will be together, yes. Thank you. That's helpful. It's just trying to understand if we, I guess it might make the most sense to advertise Olympia Place and Fisher as hearings, just from the standpoint of giving ourselves maximum flexibility if we decide to do something different associated with, particularly with Olympia Place, with the meter. That was more concrete. Fisher was more a matter of employment of resources, as to whether or not that would work. And obviously, we're not going to cut them off on June 1st, if we don't have the hearing until the 1st or the 11th, because that's just not how we do things. Along those lines, would that also be the night that we could then discuss whether or not we are planning to continue the charge of the downtown parking working group, which is currently set to expire at the end of June, rather than talking about it in, you know, August. Right, right. Well, unless they're under the holdover rules, they're not because they have a time limited charge, but they have the charge set. Okay, I mean, I don't want to stop, but I hear what you're saying. Which, which thing? The charge says they're done. So I think, yeah, given the, you know, the idea of maximum flexibility, you can certainly notice the public hearing sort of all those topics. Which might get more people interested if their worry is going to change in some way. But nonetheless, I think that's all right. Is there anything else on the working group recommendations? I mean, I think the idea was to preview it with this group to see if there were any particular concerns to be answered before we got into a more public, you know, hearing kind of situation. Okay, yes. Yeah, that was my assumption that we wouldn't go ahead and advertise hearings without it having to be highlighted. It's almost like first law. First, nobody looked already good. So that's really helpful. And then, yeah, if we could just add to the list a little bit. At least a discussion, if not a decision on the continuation of downtown parking working group, or if it's being brought into tact, or, I mean, we had theories a while back as to what was going to work. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what we think now. Well, it's good because they can come, if members are in town, then they can come for both of those decisions. Exactly, maximize all parking all the time. So, I'm just not sure if I might, I wasn't sort of listening, but June 11th or 25th, are you looking at it, or are you also looking at the June 4th? Somehow some soon. Yeah, June 4th seems quickly to get a notice ready. It might be the quickest, I mean, that's the earliest in June is all. I doubt it's that quick. So I'm kind of highlighting the 11th through the 25th is the more likely, but mainly, you have to move really fast to get to the Gazette in time. I mean, you'd know better than any of us would. And now we've added other categories, so. Yeah, I can, I think that if we think the 4th is going to be too quick for official notice and stuff, then the next logical is the 11th. So we'll make a note of that. So I think we can move on to our next item of business, which is the authorized stop sign at Intersection Kerry Lane and Bay Road. And we have a memo from Mr. Seales in our packet and checklist. And I think we even got tonight, we may have even gotten a map, and put them on the desk. Yeah, our best site. We got a map that we're drawing on. So is there anything that you want to introduce? There's something that has been noted by the neighbors and there's some conversation. There's no, in order to install it, the software needs to vote it. Now there's no hearing requirement. And if you use all the criteria, it's determined by the county engineer. So are there any questions about the stop sign? Ms. Brewer? I was just going to say that it was incredibly helpful to have the checklist information. We haven't always been provided that in the past. And it's very informative, and it lets us understand better how those decisions are made. And obviously I'm sure that they intended to put the map in our packet originally, because then we wouldn't have all had to look it up to remind ourselves where that was. But there's no sort of further questions or comments. I would entertain a motion. Someone would like to make it? I'll revise motion sheet. Okay, go ahead. I move to approve the installation of the stop sign and stop bar on Canterbury Lane where it intersects with Bay Road and Southeast Street. They have a license for the stop bar, so a new liberal license. Is there further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. So that's unanimous. Thank you. So next our agenda is review and take positions on April 30th in your 10 meeting articles. I think we do have a couple left. 25, which is free cash, 27, and 34. I think with 34 we took a position, but I think there are some additional options that we may not have formally articulated in our actions, so we may want to augment what we did relative to that particular article. So I'm open to starting with any one of those three. Well, it's one other, and that is we're going to have a formal position and respond to any motion to reconsider a budget that might arise. Perhaps that would be best. So I'm noting on our motion sheet that the article 25, which is free cash, doesn't specify amount, which as of this moment is 75,000, which in general that article is necessary to balance our budgets, which is required to set our tax rate and certify our general position with state. So we may want to take our our motion on that one first thing. That's the easiest one of the bunch. Anyone wants to pop our motion relative to article 25? I have a question. So if there's going to be an amount, there's already an amount. Right. Some years there is no amount. Right. And the amounts just going to be what the finance committee tells us is the right amount. Right. So unless we disagree with them for some reason. Right. I mean we dismissed article 26, which could be the other way to balance the budget, which is so this is really our only opportunity and so we have to come into balance. So I think usually, you know, if there's no need for free cash to balance the budget, then we dismiss it. And otherwise we have we are almost compelled to recommend it. But we do know right now we already need money because of the money that's already added. So unless that gets reconsidered as well, at this point we know that there's additional money that's going to come in free cash as opposed to the years when there's no need and it gets dismissed like 26 does. Right. Well, my question would be when we talked about if there's a motion to recruit considering it adds more money to to the budget that also needs to come out of free cash, then we have a moving target. Right. So if we vote in the amount of $75,000, which is now known, but if something else happens or is that what I was trying to say is whatever amount the finance committee tells us is the right amount. Unless we had a reason to disagree with the finance committee, which seems hard for me to imagine. Or it's a scenario. So the motion that said that right on the mount. Exactly. Because does that make sense? Yes. So I mean that's what other councils do. They recommend the advice of the finance committee, but I was told that we don't do that here. So whatever. We don't. But we don't do that moving targets. Maybe we do now. We could have set a precedent for a future county. Exactly. I mean, it makes sense. I mean, if you really want to get able about this, you could say $75,000 or such amount, because the finance committee may recommend, you know, you could put all the options in. All right. That puts a moment in time as to where we are. Right now. Right. Okay. Or. So was that a motion? I mean, or is it a proposed amendment to the motion? Right. Or whatever. No, it's not. Well, we haven't moved yet. So I don't know. Ms. Currier, I believe, is going to ask me. Sounds good. No, that makes sense. Either $75,000 or the amount recommended by the finance committee. Yeah. So that's a motion. I already circled recommends so clearly. Nobody yet? I did. So we have a motion and a second for the decision. Hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. That's not much. That's unanimous. Getting more like other towns all the time. So we have, so Article 27, we haven't taken any position on at this point. There have been a bit of a question relative to a line in the, actually in the original proposed article. And do you want to report on what we heard from John Council relative to that? Or yeah, there's a question that came up about because this transfer for the purpose of affordable housing to the slot board and then transfer to the municipal affordable housing trust for the purposes of affordable housing. That means the property can only be used for affordable housing unless a future legislative body says it can be used for something else. So in a future legislative body would have to say that anyway, if you think, according to John Council. Now do you think there is vote of that body? Yes. So it doesn't forever bind in a way that prevents action. It just requires them to take an extra step that would hopefully be clear as they were at that point. So I would entertain a motion on this article that we have that clarity and again the motion that's going to be made is going to be revised from the article that was in the warrant. I move to recommend to the April 30th, 2018 annual town meeting article 27 transfer and authorization East Street School to the Amherst Municipal Affordable Housing Trust. And I'll speak to that. Yeah. And Mr. Mr. My artist was weak. So was that a second? Mr. Wall. All right. These are for the discussion on that. The one thing I would in discussing the transition and and articles that are potentially under the guise of of not being sort of consistent with that or not. I debated about, you know, should I present that broad topic under article 27 or should I wait till later? Because I think I took 27 and 33 so that that topic could be broached into how we got to our positions. Um, and so, you know, if it was a preference to do it 27 or a preference to do it later as far as, you know, talk about how we go about it. Well, wouldn't each one have maybe its own statement, although it's kind of related. Like I was thinking something in general for 27. Like we did, um, the guidance from town attorneys keeping law was that we could act on this, but we did have extensive discussion of our own about that and did find it appropriate. And then whatever, you know, just so that it's been very brief, not diving in. Right. That was kind of the direction I was leaning on. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know, Mr. Wohl. We were saying, you know, I took it that the first article that comes up was the best chance to, I mean, we have no chance right to talk about the chart yet. Right. I'm actually thinking so. Right. Right. Right. Start to frame it a little. Okay. Okay. Okay. So is there further discussion on article 28? Hearing none. All those in favor? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? So that's unanimous. Relative to article 34, I think what we need to move on. Since I was bothering you about it, Mr. Slaughter, I can speak. Please. So the, what we had done at the time, way so many weeks ago when we thought we were actually going to get to decide what article's time meeting was going to have time. Ha-ha on us. So we were right here. We had at that time come up with some language on both article 33 and 34 that said the select word finds that the, that article 34 or the April 30th meeting is not consistent with, whatever, dot, dot, dot, and recommend referral to planning board. And that made sense. But then later as we realized things were playing out differently and we had multiple positions on some things. And of course on article 34, the planning board has multiple positions. It says recommends referral to the planning board because they're willing to take it up. If refer fails, does not recommend. And I guess my question would be if we have, if we have a strong feeling one way or the other, because our other option is to, other than not recommend, is also to recommend dismissal or to move dismissal. So we have multiple choices. But the planning board does go before we do associated with this. And it does not look what they would do is they, it looks like they would recommend referral, but they're not going to move referral. So, you know, it's one of those where we're all trying to feel it out as we go along. So often we just recommend things. We don't make the motion, but sometimes we do make the motion itself. I think when we discussed this, we did. It can be reserved. So you guys can, it is subject to make. I think we, we talked about whether we would actually make the motion to refer, which I think we said we would if that was a case. Now, if that goes down, do we want to make the motion to dismiss if it's not made by the planning board? That's the question. So that would be disproved. So my feeling is yes and yes. Yes, we should make the motion to refer so that that's clearly there to be moved and voted on. And then I think should that motion to refer fail, then I would like us to move to dismiss. Okay. Would you like to craft that into a motion? Do we move to dismiss or we recommend dismiss? Well, once so if, I mean, it all depends on how things play out, right? So assuming the petitioner says they want to do it, they make the motion in terms of except they're going to change their motion and then they're going to speak to their motion and then the planning board is going to say refer to us, but they're not going to say, I recommend, I mean, I move to refer. They're going to say, we recommend referral to us. And then Mr. Slaughter will then say, I move to refer to the planning board. And then we'll fight about that for a while. I'm sorry, I argue, by whatever. To bait. To bait. I'm sure that's the word I was looking for. Yes, very civilly. And then if that fails, I don't know that the moderator will necessarily look to us again, unless we ask him to or if he'll be willing to look to us for a second motion at that point, if that's kind of our initial shot and then it's open to everybody after that. So if referral if referral fails, then he'd say, well, we're back on the petitioner's motion. And then the next person to raise their hand that moves to dismiss then that could happen. But I'm not sure if he'll let us do it or we'll just, it's awkward. Well, he's been pretty willing to recognize what we're doing. So you may not be the first one called after he opens it up for discussion. We'd be likely to be called soon into the discussion and we know we can catch other motions. Is that possible? Do you have a solution? So I think the intent of the select board is clear. We can check with the moderator and see, you know, we know your sequence of actions. You'd like to make two motions. He would recognize you to do that. So when you, when he sees you raise your hand, he knows it's going to be for a motion. We're following. Yeah, the heads up. So there's no surprises for him. So speaking of motions, do we want to take a motion to articulate that point of view? Well, the third question is that if both of those motions are made and failed, and then we're stating a position, do we have a position? Is that going to be a separate motion? And our third position is if you, if Tom even chooses to not refer and not dismiss, that we do not recommend this. I'm not recommending. So that's your third. So can we get all the motion? I'll bet, I'll bet the time. Anna check. Yeah. Okay. What do you guys? To recommend to the April 3, 2018 annual county, article 34, positions that I'm bylaw are members of officials running math. To first recommend to move, to refer, to the planning board, if that fails, to move, to dismiss the article, if that fails, then to not recommend the article. So moved. Second. And there's a second. All right. Am I assigned to this one or is? Yes. You are. Lay lay in. Okay. Surprised. All right. Is there further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? So that's your answer. Mr. Slaughter, when you get to working on this, be happy to look and offer ideas. When we, yes, I would probably ask you the technical minutes. Please give me at least 24 hours. Oh, absolutely. Yes. Absolutely. So I think then the fourth thing relative to logistics and and I'm sorry, review and take positions on the meeting have to do with the emotion to potentially reconsider part of the budget. Do you want to introduce? Sure. So the moderator wrote to the select board informing them of the notion that someone might move to reconsider article eight. And he had a sort of scenario if the motion to reconsider passes and hit the scenario that you would like, he would seek to move this to the next town meeting. Whether that's Thursday or Monday, depending on what you move, that might be something you want to talk about tonight as well, whether you want to recommend at the conclusion this time if you want to meet Thursday or Monday. And then to put it, and he would also seek to move the free cash article to Monday towards Thursday and Monday as well. That's brutal. So the thing that I didn't understand about the email is that it seems like it makes sense for the moderator to try and lay out all these options. And then it seems like it should be up to the school committee if they wanted to do it tonight or next Monday night. And if they didn't have a preference, then I think we should state our preference. But I think we would normally support their preference. I'm not particularly interested in the moderator's preference. So looking to the school committee's preference. So do we know what the school committee's preference is? Did he find that out? In terms of the scheduling, I think Mr. Demling has been in contact with moderator. I don't know what their discussion has led to. I think Mr. Demling can talk about if it is considered for reconsideration he wanted to amend the motion by not privy to that conversation between. Whose decision is it? Well, technically, is it the moderator's decision? Yeah. Or does he think it's? Somebody has made a motion. So I would suspect that the moderator will strongly encourage the person making the motion to reconsider have at a date certain be their motion. Whether or not the petitioner so to speak takes that advice. That doesn't mean that they can't make the motion without that. But I mean, like I said, I really appreciate he laid out all the options. But I don't understand why we would push it off unless we had been told that superintendent can't be there. Nobody from the school committee can be there. It would be crazy to have nobody there. I don't think there's any more likelihood anybody's going to be there on Monday than tonight or Thursday for that matter. At this point. So I'm uncomfortable with pushing operating budget out yet further again when we thought we were done with it. Make you sense of my understanding as people are are noticed that this very likely could happen tonight and have made efforts to be here. Yes. Less convent, not less sure about that for Monday and I would think unless the school committee stated that preference that I would recommend these statements. We would like it to come tonight unless the school committee tells everybody else. I don't know if we have any way in in this though. You can state. I feel it's following that tonight is better and less as you said the school committee tells everybody else. Well because following up on that the person who advised the moderator they intend to make the motion did not tell the slough board they intend to make the motion. Did not take advantage of the publicly available Google group to explain to town meeting that they were taking the motion. Did not write to all the town meeting members in various precincts to tell them they were planning to make the motion. So given that there's been no coordinated effort from that end the fact that people are in fact making a point of trying to be here tonight in case this happens in the absence of the school committee just as Ms. Krueger said people are doing the best they can in the utter absence of information from the person making the motion. And so given that it seems incredibly unfair to suggest people come tonight because normally when you make a motion reconsider it it's for the same night and then say oh but actually just kidding we'll actually do it next Monday. That that doesn't seem like that isn't been something town meetings had any opportunity to consider just like they haven't been able to consider the merits of the proposal because no one's brought it forward. Right. So the motion reconsider if I'm understanding correct me I'm just making sure I'm just the motion to reconsider if that passes then the actual reconsideration itself is what would be scheduled to of later date certainly. Do you think that would be a separate motion? Okay. I think that's what the moderators said. Just what he's saying is that if it passes then. We'll take up the topic of reconsideration potentially a time if it's made and we'll vote that once that's voted then we're back you know as he often says to the exact place we were before that was voted and then I presume that can be procedurally scheduled to a date certainly. I don't want it scheduled for another date then tonight unless the school committee says that. Right. We have any way in yes we vote to reconsider and then we take it up but we take it up tonight unless the school committee doesn't want to. So given that in fact we are going to talk about coming to a position on the proposal we've seen no details about as to whether or not we would support reconsideration which I think in the absence of any information to tell us why we would support it we would not support it and inevitably when people talk about reconsideration if someone brings up the idea of it not being reconsidered tonight that will play into the decision as to whether or not to reconsider it because that has come up on the very few occasions we've ever done reconsiderations prior to this session of town meeting which were that are the people here that need to be here and so then people would say that's a reason for them to vote against reconsideration because those people aren't here and so it kind of all mixes together even though it's really only the question about the reconsideration it's also about why the reconsideration and why or why not we should do it and I think that we should make the statement given that that will happen I think we should make the statement along the lines of what was previously indicated that people made the effort to be here tonight believing that there was going to be such a motion and so if it passes which the select board in my opinion does not recommend that that the motion to reconsider passes it should not be rescheduled for another time it should be done tonight in the order that the moderator suggested can you make that into a motion? sure I'd say that's a motion the select board does not support does not recommend reconsideration of any part of the operating budget ever again and if reconsideration that passes is passed by town meeting then recommends that we proceed with the reconsideration tonight as the award given the other order of items that have been scheduled unless the unless the school committee requests otherwise a different date and like could we say we don't support reconsideration of the school budget because we're tying this to the school committee oh I guess we should say that rather than that any time ever yes that probably would be more proper I suppose it's not going to be yes I was just trying to be clever here exactly and seconded is it for the discussion hearing none all those in favor please say aye aye aye I'll make sure you name us wonder why we have to mute before town meeting maybe single yeah one other piece of business I believe which is the charter transition actually we have one one thing that we need to settle on that last one and that is we need to be clear as to who's speaking to it and what they're going to say I'm perfectly happy to not be the person like that I want to be clear so that the person can be prepared you may not be you either so we'll do it really oh I guess it should be not be me I could do it and do it Ms. Brewer I like that idea I'm so popular right now anyway yes let's go on okay good point Mr. Steinberg yeah I mean I have thought about it and I don't mind saying my thoughts on it real quickly and then we should go on to the other thing is we understand that the maker of the motion may state the reasons for what would be done with an amended motion that's fairly common to do that it may have to and it would appear it has to do with childcare and in not recommending their obvious points that childcare is not a function of the school committee but a pre-K program is not the same as childcare and the pre-K program needs to be developed carefully by the school committee and presented to us with a responsible education plan and budget which they have not had the opportunity to do that their significant capital costs could probably be involved in any such plan and it's further complicated by the fact that two buildings that might be considered are owned by the region and not by the town and those are the kinds of things that I think would be additional points to address. I have a question on that. We've talked it's been said different ways the south campus is actually owned by the town or by the region are we renting it to the region or do they do we transfer it to them? We don't have any records of it in any way so it's essential to go to the school committee to have them close to transfer the school in case they change the transfer of the building to the town in case they happen to own it right when we look through the records I sort of remember this conversation wherever we go and so it's not that's not actually by the region so they're thinking and putting there worried about time okay so we have one other topic which is under chartered transition yes yeah so as you know the charter language you met today after the county the special town being dissolved you've voted to forward the legislation approved by town being and authorized within the charter to the legislature as we were personally sent to them electronically and she handed a hard copy with the raised seal to the House Clerk office on May 4th Friday that legislation we've been told they have all the paperwork they need from the town to move forward on this legislation that our state representative has monitored this and it is now in the house in the joint committee on election law that's where it public hearing has not been scheduled yet but they will be scheduling a public hearing staff there and the leadership there are aware of the time sensitivity of this legislation and that's where it stands so at the agenda setting meeting we thought that there would be reason for the select board to restate its commitment to have this implemented as soon as possible and recommit to our position stating clearly the reasons why in your packet tonight is a motion that I wrote today and I've regret that it's coming up as late as I am because it's about 15 lines long but it would it does exactly that is to renew its request to the legislature and state the reasons therefore and so I just read the motion and we can discuss it I can do that and I can make it as a motion that nobody seconds it and so be it I move that the select board renew its request that the legislature enact the request of legislation to include a preliminary election for town council and the date of the state primary or election for the following reasons one this provision was adopted by the Amherst Charter Commission after a thorough process that included publication of a draft in hearings during which no comment was offered regarding the proposed date of the I can change that to preliminary election to the Charter was approved by Amherst voters on March 27 by a vote of 3,502 in favor 2,492 against three at a special town meeting held on April 30 the town voted 127 to 72 to make this request to the legislature after rejecting an amendment to change the date of the preliminary election again not to change for college students who testified before the select board and spoke at the town meeting supported the preliminary election date to coincide with the state primary because it would increase student vote in the council election five holding the election another date would reduce participation of all Amherst voters in the council election and six rejecting the September 4 primary in November 6 again preliminary election in November 6 general election dates and Amherst on constitutional grounds would be by the same would by the same logic jeopardize those election dates for the rest of the kind of wealth is there a second? second there is a second so for the discussion on this motion so two things should we send along since when we sent the original request normally you just hand them the legislation and they had the certified copy of the vote but should we send along the KP law information that we all had to show what town meeting had so everybody knows what everybody had because they might be curious about how we came to these conclusions as well as this being a very soft statement so we could send this as a cover so to speak associated with the KP law opinions on that and the other question I had is is it worth working in given how long this already is but is it worth working in somehow where it talks about the publication of the draft and there's technically associated with that but more of my concern is what I'm trying to work in is the fact that the people on the election committee may not be aware that the AGO also is and is required to review the draft and send it back to us and of the charter itself yes and that's not mentioned you mean they may not be particularly familiar with you know unless their towns change their towns change forms of government they may not be aware of that notice so I wonder if we can work that into the first provision where it talks about the publication of a draft that was also reviewed by the AGO and required hearing because some people think of hearings as just meetings and a required hearing something along those lines I would be fine with that being adapted later what we could do just be simple because we're running out of time is add a seventh point but make number two and then renumber after that number two being the charter was reviewed by the Attorney General's office that's right that's what yeah is required yeah it's good two things one in the languages I missed a pretty extensive motion here but the last one number six where you talk about unconstitutional grounds would by the same logic jeopardize you like so it seems a little strange that we're weighing in on a constitutional issue I would at least want to say could by the same logic not would because getting into that legal debate we've already seen much debate about the constitutionality and I don't mind having an opinion but rather than would I might suggest could and the other thing I just want to state is I think whatever actions we can take as a select board and as our staff to move this forward and keep it moving I see this as one of the most important tasks we have in the transition is to have this acted on so whether it's calling on the more experienced members of the larger delegation who offered to help us to help move this forward staff of Senator Rosenberg to help us in addition to our state representative but I just think I know it's up to that that the a joint committee on election law but any help that we can get I think this is the most important thing that we have to do a little frustrated we got to it at seven o'clock but how to really emphasize how important this is and the tiredliness of this is so important what we're trying to do so shall I those changes the language will take his friendly minutes is that all right yes and including the quirk could instead of wood and that last did you want to put the date of the publication of the draft yeah September yeah well actually that was a draft and then the important thing is is that it was published the mailing went until december right it was published in september okay of 07 i've just had of 2000 so what's the date no because it's been available 10 months since 20s right whatever the date but then it was legally what i do so that's what and then mail and go ahead and i'm mailed mailed mailed to as required right to all all of this all of this to resident how is residents of all registered voters yeah just all you know all of your not residents but not all residents but residents of all one to each residents of a registered any registered voter in december 2017 yeah i think that's actually important to include thank you for thinking of that i think that is valuable to mention i know it's about the moment when you said maybe break it up like a paragraph or something or something but okay okay the date is the the world is the world that this is a lot of part of this is there is there for the discussion hearing none all those in favor please say aye aye aye thank you for your interest and now we're going to recess thank you all