 Please turn your camera on to let us know that you're back. I'm going to continue on with the meeting and please let me know if you are having any difficulty with your mic in hearing and or speaking. Okay, we are actually have, in addition to the specific public comment periods we had tonight, we also have general public comment. This is on items that we've not spoken to or even whatever it is you would like to speak to. Please raise your hand if you'd like to make a general public comment. Linus, this is our last public comment of the night. It is. Just to let people know that. Clarification. Is there any other public comment at this time? All right, seeing none, then we are going to move on to the consent agenda. And the following items were selected because they were considered to be routine and it was reasonable to expect they would pass within their controversy. To remove an item, please let me know. To remove an item does not require a second. The motion is as follows and I'll be looking for a second to move the following items and the printed motions they're under and approve those items as a single unit. Suspend town council rules of procedure rule 8.4 for the following agenda item. 8C, amendment to town manager public safety goal. 8A, referral of regional school budget to finance committee and 11A approval of minutes from March 22nd, 2021 regular town council meeting and March 22nd, 2021 special town council meeting minutes public forum. Is there a second? Well, second. Okay, thank you. Are there any items that anybody wishes to remove? Seeing no hands, I'm going to go ahead and begin the vote with Alyssa Brewer. Hi. Pat DeAngeles. Hi. Darcy DeMont. Yes. Lynn Griesmer is an aye. Mandy Johannike. Aye. Berthie Pam. Aye. Evan Ross. Aye. George Ryan. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Steve Schreiber. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Great. Sarah Schwartz. Aye. Melanie Balmille. Yes. The consent agenda passes 13-0-0 and no absence. We have no resolutions. We have no presentation. And so we are going to move immediately to the Jones Library appropriation. Let me begin this by saying because of a potential appearance of favoritism or influence as defined by Mass General Law, Chapter 280, 268A, paragraph 23B3 to the Jones Library item we will now discuss. I ask two counselors to individually contact the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission and discuss their perceived conflict. Counselors Dorothy Pam and Andy Steinberg have done exactly that. And if filed a statement with our town clerk, I am now going to call on Counselor Pam and then Counselor Steinberg and have each of them read their statements and ask that they be appended to the minutes of tonight's meeting. Dorothy. As an Amherst town counselor and member of its finance committee, I consider and vote on many issues, including those with respect to the Jones Library. My husband, Robert Pam, is an elected member of the Board of Trustees and treasurer of that library. The town council acts on the annual budget of the Jones Library and will decide on whether to contact with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the renovation slash expansion of the library or to limit the town to its repair. My husband has no financial interest in the library nor is he paid for his services. As treasurer of the Jones Library, he reports on the financial status of the library. I will continue to make my decisions based on the presentations and materials that are being provided to all council members and have concluded that I can be fair and objective when I perform my official duties. Dorothy S. Pam, Emerson, Massachusetts, town counselor, district three. Thank you, Dorothy. Please unmute Andy. Sorry. Let me try it again. I've said, I need to look at the, the disclosure that I found with the ethics commission after consulting with commission staff, notes that my wife is a part-time hourly employee in the library working approximately six hours per week. And additionally, as needed, and though it is generally limited to the six hours, I've noted in the, and I'm going to read this section that public employees may not participate in their public position in matters in which they or any member of the immediate family have a personal financial interest. I consulted with the ethics commission and determined that neither I nor a member of my family will have any financial benefit or loss as a result of the council decisions on the matters that are coming for the council tonight. Thank you, Andy. And we will make sure that both of those statements are appended to the minutes. Andy, we're going to move on to a finance committee report with regard to the Jones library appropriation. Well, I'm going to really rely on the written report and more importantly, a lengthy document of questions that came from not just members of the finance committee, but members of the council and from the public at large, that we responded to over the course of two different meetings. And as a finance committee spent considerable time reviewing that information, asking additional questions, which is why it actually stretched over in part why it stretched over to meetings and that has been provided to you in the packet and this alongside the votes really a very brief report. The finance committee voted that the information is a thank you and maybe I should see if I can quick. Well, I'm not going to because you have the motion as passed in the finance committee report, but we have great appreciation for all of the staff, town staff, library staff, volunteers to the library, library trustees who provided information. We had great confidence in the information presented after the amount of time that was spent talking with the committee. And we found that the presentation is a financially that we had confidence in the information presented in the last thing that I'll just note is that we've had made a determination early on that our goal is not to make a specific recommendation to you but to just review information and report that information back to you and validate the information but not to make a recommendation. So I think that's the report. Thank you, Andy. So let me just explain. We have three potential motions before the council. I'm going to start each section by reading the motion and asking for a second and then we'll have council discussion and then if there's any further discussion we'll take the vote on that motion and move on to the next motion. The first motion is regarding the CPA funds. The second motion is regarding the overall bond bonding. Should we decide that we are accepting the grant from the mass board of library commissioners? And the third motion is that we do not need to authorize the town manager to accept the grant. So there is no motion for that. MBLC is very clear that as long as we pass the bond then the town manager is authorized. However, the third motion then is to authorize the town manager to enter into the MOU with Jones Library Inc. So I'm going to begin the first by reading the motion and then I'm looking for a second. In accordance with charter section 5.6 having been published on the town bulletin board for a minimum of 10 days on March 25th, 2021 a public form held on April 5th, 2021 and having been reviewed by the finance committee report of April 5th, 2021 who adopted council order FY22-08A in order appropriating and authorizing debt for special collections facilities of the Jones Library under historic preservation as presented. Is there a second? Ryan, second. Thank you. Council discussion, please raise your hand. Kathy Shane. Yeah, I have a few questions about this. So one is the CPA request for support. Initially came as a surprise to me because the library has put it under the column of private fundraising and its taxpayer dollars. So a question I had raised at the very beginning of when the library had said the town taxpayer share would be 15.751 million, whether the CPA was part of that 15 or is it an additional one million? If we vote on this now, are we saying could it still be part or are we saying it is over and above the second ask which is from the general revenue? So that's a question. If we vote on this motion the way it is stated now and been made and seconded, this million dollars would go toward the fundraising of the library. So voting against it wouldn't be, if you vote against it, it's not necessarily that you don't wanna spend the money but you want it to be counted in a different way. That would be one option. Another option would be to try to amend the motion. Okay, then can I ask the second question? I don't think we've been told, but what is the assumption on how long be long-term debt for the CPA fund, CPA resources? Do we know what kind of interest rate and what in addition to the million dollars we'll be drawing on? Again, I'm gonna keep calling this taxpayer money because it's a surcharge on a taxes. Do we have that amount? Do we know how much that is? Garmin Gano has raised his hand to answer that question. So our financial advisor did model the debt for this project or for this portion of the project. And so he modeled it using a 10-year repayment schedule. And I think the debt payments ranged around 110,000 per year. It fluctuated based on the way he structured the debt. But it was between like 107, I think he may have got as high as 115 in a given year. If people wanna see the exact debt schedule, it'll take me a little bit to find it, but I could bring it up if it's, people wanna see the specific schedule. That's enough for me, thank you. All right, are there other questions on this motion? Okay, then seeing no other questions, we're going to move to a vote. I start with Pat DeAngelis. Aye. Darcy DeMont. No. Rhysmer, Lynn Rhysmer is an aye. Mandy Johanke. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Aye. Evan Ross. Aye. George Ryan. Yes. Kathy Chain. No. Steve Schreiber. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Thera Schwartz. No. Shalini Balmium. Yes. Alyssa Brewer. Aye. Motion passes 10, four, three against no abstentions and no absence. So the motion passes, it did require a two thirds vote. Okay, the second motion is in accordance with Charter section 5.6, having been published on the town bulletin board for a minimum of 10 days on March 25th, 2021, a public forum held on April 5th, 2021, and having been reviewed by the finance committee report of April 5th, 2021 to adopt council order FY21-06C, an order approving and authorizing borrowing to fund the expansion and restoration of the Jones Library, bond authorizations as presented. Is there a second? Yeah, I think so. Brian, a second. Okay. Is there, are there questions? Kathy Chain. It's a question, but I also think for the benefit of the public, they should know what the content of the financial order is. And so one of the things I wanted to raise in my comments is that we are being asked, there is a grant of 30, the total project is 36.3 million and the library has said it will raise an amount that will help shrink the gap between that and the grant and that the town will then pay 15.75 million. But we're being asked to take on the full debt, the full difference, because the library has not raised that amount of money so that this is in fact a pretty, in my opinion, a high financial risk. Because as you can see from the financial order, it's more in the neighborhood of 20, 22 million that the town will be taking on and then part of it will be an interest-free loan that will be repaid by the trustees when they, if they can get the pledges. So we have to hope that that will happen and we have a memorandum of understanding that we can tap into the endowment fund or potentially put a lien on the building, but we don't really have this secured. The library is not putting up money. So that's the financial order also portrays what I think what has always concerned me. I love the library and I want it to be renovated. I think it needs repairs, but I think we're at high cost risk. And no matter how many questions I've asked, I still have uncertainty that we will actually keep our share to what is when I add CPA and the ask 16.8 million dollars. It's a lot more, two and a half million dollars more than the repair estimate, but it could be still more if we don't get that paid back. So I just, Lynn, the way it's worded is just it's a financial order, but the financial order lays out what the town is committing to in terms of bond. I'm going to, for the purposes of this discussion, have Athena put the financial order up on the screen. And then I'm going to ask if other comments, if other counselors have comments, they would like to make. Manjo Haniki. Thank you. It's the first time we've really had to have a chance to comment on this whole project. So I wanted to say a century ago that Jones Library trustees had a vision of a library. It would be more than just a warehouse for books. The building would look and feel like a home. It would be welcome and support residents' desire to learn not just from books, but from each other. The building would welcome performers and speakers. It would not be just a building for learning, but it would be a building for community. And 95 years later, that vision is still alive. It's a place where our residents go to learn, to relax, to socialize, and to become part of our community. It is our living room, our office, our library, and our entertainment space. It's a place to find books, a place to learn a new language in a new country. A place where a parent and a child new to town can meet other families. A place where a resident who has no home can spend a day out of the heat or cold. It's a place where people can be less lonely and socialized with others. It's a place where a student can study without distraction. Or where teens can work on group projects without the worry of being judged by the size or condition of their own homes. It's a place where someone without a computer or broadband at home can search for and apply for a job. And it's a place to enrich ourselves culturally without needing to spend money. The Jones is a second home for all of us. And 100 years on, that home needs to be upgraded and expanded to be able to carry out these needs for the next 50 years. Our job as counselors is to serve the residents, a large majority of whom, based on past trustee elections and statements to us support this project. It is also our job to vote in accordance with our policy goals. This year's performance goals and objectives for the town manager include six goals that directly relate to this vote. We told the manager we would evaluate his job performance based on making forward progress on these areas. We ourselves must also act to show we are serious about these goals. A yes vote helps us meet the climate action goals we adopted in 2019 by getting rid of the fossil fuel heating system and dramatically improving the energy efficiency in one of our largest public buildings. A yes vote helps our future economic health and wellbeing by bringing more visitors to town. A yes vote addresses social justice in our society by providing sufficient space for programs that serve the less privileged among us, those that have no home, those that don't speak English, those that don't have a computer or broadband at home and those that have trouble navigating stairs and other impediments. A yes vote is financially prudent with an eye to the longterm. Given the nearly identical costs, the town would incur to repair the building with a fossil fuel heating system and little improvement in energy efficiency. A yes vote ensures that the building will serve our residents over the next 50 years while spending nearly the same money just on repairs does not. As a council, we cannot expect the manager to follow our goals if we ourselves do not. The time is now to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. I urge my fellow councillors to vote yes and I will proudly and enthusiastically vote yes. Thank you, Mandy Jo. Darcy Dumont. I very much respect the amount of time and work that's been put into this project by so many people committed to the Jones, a library that we all love. Despite that, I have many concerns about the proposal for the expansion renovation project. The fact that our own finance committee didn't make an affirmative recommendation was concerning to me. These are my main concerns. First, I believe that the town needs to look at the full picture of our capital and operating budget needs for the next decade and to get input from the residents. Let's look at our critical needs first. For many in town, the library is the lowest priority of the building plans after public safety, public work and schools. And those are just the buildings. That doesn't take into account all of our other capital needs. To me, the library expansion is not a need, it's a want. I'm afraid that a vote to fund this major project will convince folks to vote against the school project when the school override vote comes up. In addition to not looking at the full picture of our standard needs, we need to be factoring in our new goals of racial equity and climate action. The proposed climate action and resilience plan is slated to come before the council in just a few weeks and will include plans for what we need to do to cut emissions by 25% by 2025. There will be short and long-term initiatives that may take priority over other existing spending plans. We should not be committing to a major expenditure before knowing what is being proposed in that plan. Secondly, the library sustainability committee, as great as it was, I very much respect all the people on the committee, didn't look at, wasn't asked to look at emissions for what I believe is the most climate friendly option, renovating and retrofitting the existing building to make it more energy efficient using renewably sourced energy. It only looked at how to make the expansion project sustainable and not providing a comparison to this option is really hard to get past. Also comparing the projected emissions of the expansion project to leaving the building as is is not helpful when leaving the building as is is not one of the options that was on the table. And assuming that the emissions of the as is model would remain the same over a 60 year period is simply not correct because it would need to be retrofitted to take it off fossil fuels under any new climate action plan. And it would be using renewably sourced community choice energy. Additionally, I agree with the suggestions that we should try to design any library expansion or any municipal building so that it also gives our town a climate resilience hub which would provide power during power outages and other climate emergencies and a heating and cooling center for vulnerable residents. North Hampton is planning its first such resilience hub. Lastly, I see the need to preserve more money in the operating budget. Our wonderful staff is way too stretched. Many positions needed to make us the town that we could be are not being filled. I'm also quite concerned that funding the project would impact the operating budgets and services of the other branch libraries. In the era of two global emergencies the climate crisis and the pandemic we need to be planning for new priorities and how we can best provide the basics of our residents in the era of the new normal. Our overall priorities should determine our way forward not the existence of grant money. Thank you, Darcy. Evan Ross, I just wanna point out we are limiting people to their three minutes. Evan. Yes, thank you. So I'm going to speak tonight in support of the project as proposed because I do believe that it represents progress for our community on a number of fronts but specifically I'm going to echo some of the statements about how it aligns with our values of sustainability and social justice. So back in November, 2019 we passed pretty ambitious climate goals that I'm proud of and the Andrian Climate Action Committee is in the progress of developing a climate action plan but climate action goals and a climate action plan are only valuable if they're followed by action. So approving this project would be the most significant action that this council, this sitting council will take on climate. The project will make our library net zero ready eliminate onsite fossil fuels and dramatically decrease energy use. And when, and I mean when not if when we decarbonize our electric grid our library will be able to serve our community without emitting carbon into our atmosphere. And to me, this project helps us take a tangible step towards our climate action goals and sends a strong message to our community that we are serious about achieving those goals whereas forfeiting this opportunity now will only make it more difficult down the road to achieve those attempted goals. I've also said that I believe that the library project is the biggest social justice project facing our council and I do believe that. We've heard in some emails and in forums that quote, the library works fine for me or quote, I like the library the way it is. And for many, I'm sure that's true. For me, a native English speaker who is able bodied, who has a computer at home and who uses the library primarily to check out books especially quite a bit during COVID the library does work just fine as is for me. But for so many in our community, the library is not working for folks using it to access technology for folks using it to learn English or prepare for a citizenship test for folks who have physical disabilities and mobility impairments, the library does not work. So if you are someone who says the library works fine as is if you're someone who sees this project as a want and not a need, consider that that is in part because of your privilege and that maybe this project isn't for you. It might be time right now for us to check our privilege and to consider that for many, the library as is is not working. And if we are committed to social justice for our low income population, for our immigrant population, our disabled populations we should support this project. And I'm voting yes for those populations not for people like me for whom the library already works. And we can do this project and work towards those climate action goals and social justice goals for a cost that is on par with doing basic repairs. We can do it without an override and without raising taxes. We can do it by taking advantage of state funds and significant fundraising including nearly $1.2 million already committed before a project has even been approved. Think of how much more can be raised after our vote tonight. Those state funds and fundraising dollars are not available if we turn this project down. So to me a yes vote is the fiscally prudent vote. I know that the project might not be perfect. Maybe you think it's too big or you don't like the shape of the roof or where the teen room is but we can't let perfect be the enemy of progress. So I'm urging all of my fellow counselors to vote yes on this project. Thank you. Thank you Evan, Dorothy Pam. Thank you. I have two types of comments. The practical and the emotional. Okay. We have talked about this library for a long time and I certainly have been amongst those who have questioned many, many of the assumptions, the plans, the design, the financing. And I feel very proud of the work that many people on this council have done in making us come up with a better plan or helping us to encourage changes in design. And I think that we've come to a place now where it's prudent to go forward. We have many things that we have to think about but at the moment I think the emotional fact is more important to me. We're just coming off knock on wood from an incredible year. I lost two birthdays, a year of staying inside, of seeing no one, of not even seeing my grandchildren for months on end and the town, when you drive out your cotton town there's nobody on the streets. It's quiet as can be. So we are hoping to come together as a civil, social, intellectual, political body again. And the library is going to be, I think the place where we're going to do it. I am hoping positively looking forward to the new reading room on the second floor that's gonna have these little skylights. I think it's gonna be a place that we want to be. We're gonna have the teen room that we've asked for and we heard last meeting that the Civil War stones tablets will be placed in the ground floor meeting room which will be a very meaningful thing. So we have this library. It's right in the heart of downtown and we're hoping for a reawakening of our town, of our society. And at this moment having gone through the budgets and talked all the time at some point you just have to take things on faith and I'm going to make the leap of faith and trust that the work and the numbers that we have been shown are accurate and that we'll be able to do it. And I will also hold the Board of Trustees to their promise that if they have cost overruns they will not come back to the town that they will go and do additional fundraising. I think that's a very important thing and a very important matter that was brought up but that we can come together once again at the library and be together in Amherst. So that is my hope. Thank you. Thank you, Dorothy. Andy. So I wanted to, I guess respond to a couple of things that were said and just generally speak about both in favor of this motion. One comment was made that the finance committee did not make recommendation. Something should be read into that. And I want to make it clear that that is absolutely not the case. We were asked not to make a recommendation because we were looking at this as a finance committee certification on financial information and investigation of financial information but the decision belonged to the council so that the motion that we passed within the committee, the committee, the finance committee was very specific and said the finance committee finds that the information provided in this document and this was referring to the long document is a reasonable projection of the costs and funding plan for the renovation expansion plan and the repair alternatives and recommends that the council rely on this information. So going on to then my own personal assessment of this, I served on the joint capital planning committee for a number of years when we recognized that there were significant repair needs for the library and a deliberate decision was made to not do the repairs because of that we would have an opportunity to do them in the future when we made a decision that we're making tonight. The reality is that the repair costs are going to be pretty much the same as the costs that the town will ultimately have to bear. And finally, knowing that I'm running out of time, I also want to respond to an assertion that was made earlier that we are taking on a huge risk. I don't think that we are taking on a huge risk. I think the memorandum of understanding provides substantial security. It has been carefully drafted to achieve that result. And I'm very impressed that the fundraising has already raised well over a million dollars in donations and that there are a number of people who've indicated that based upon the vote tonight, if it is favorable, that they will make donations. So there's a lot of money yet to come in. I recommend, I am very strongly supportive of this motion. Thank you, Andy. Pat D'Angeloz. Many of you in the community and on the council have talked with me about your objections to the project. And I acknowledge that voting yes is taking risks. Will the trustees meet their fundraising goal? Will project costs be held in check? Will we retain our commitment to sustainability if we face burgeoning costs? Will the project keep us from completing the other capital projects, the firehouse, the DPW, the school project and renovation of Cracker Farm? But not doing this projects takes risks also. Peace meal repairs that will cost almost as much as the renovation expansion, losing state funding and losing credibility with state funders, ongoing impacts to English language learners, low income residents and limited space for community gatherings which in the past have included use by members of the Muslim community, workshops on anti-racism, book groups, political meetings and the usual contentious community meetings. And in the end, I come down on the risks of saying yes. Thank you. Thank you, Pat. Steve Schreiber. My colleagues have really said much better than what I'm going to say, but we've heard a lot about how from the public that they think that we should be prioritizing public safety schools and infrastructure. And I can't think of a project in our community that exemplifies all three of those. So libraries are all about education and more so it's about education of everyone. Libraries are the most democratic buildings, town commons also democratic, the libraries are literally the most democratic institution invented in this country, proud that Massachusetts was a pioneer in this, proud that Amherst had the foresight to invest in a public library 100 years ago. Public safety, we've heard a lot about how education and public safety are linked to each other. So the more education, the less need for policing. And so much about this library is about exactly that finding a safe place for members of our community to become engaged with the community and then infrastructure. So we can define infrastructure the way the Biden administration is, which is pretty much everything or we can think specifically about things like computers. So we got emails from longtime residents of Amherst about how the public library was the first place where they could access the internet. So we don't know what the next infrastructure developments that will happen in the future but we expect that they'll come through the public library. So in my remaining minute, I just wanna make another, I wanna make a, there's been a lot of discussion about the tenant, the greenest building is a one that's already built. There's another tenant which is called cash for clunkers. So cash for clunkers is a real thing that, and in fact, one of our fellow counselors implored the entire town council a year ago, I went back and look at the email but she implored all of us to get rid of our gas using vehicles and trade those in for electric vehicles. And as part of that messaging was the fact that the state and federal government had a discount. So basically there was an incentive for us to get our gas guzzlers off the street. So quite frankly, I see this as a cash for clunkers on steroids is something that serves the entire community. It's all about the social capital as opposed to electric vehicles which are all about the individual. So I strongly support this project. Thank you, Steve, Sarah Schwartz. So the library is incredibly important to me because pre-pandemic, I had visited the library with my children at least five times a week. Four years ago when my family met poverty standards, I still served the library in as many ways as I could including doing story time and taking toys and puppets home to clean them on my own time and bring them back to the library. There's been a lot of talk about equality tonight. I have to ask everyone in this room that's a speeding who is either a town employee or who represents the town as an elected officer. How many of us have missed a paycheck since March 16th, 2019, which was the beginning of the pandemic? I would wagered not too many of us. I guess I'm gonna go out of this council speaking for the middle class, which I don't think anybody has addressed. We've heard from people that there are young rich families who would like to settle here and they can pay these taxes and this is what they want. We all know that the library is the most democratic place and I think it's incredibly important. And we know that it serves people who are poverty level. I come from a district where there's a lot of working class people and people who have told me that they cannot hang out for much longer with the increasing, we just increased sewer, we just increased water. That's gonna be like another $136 for people, people who are working, people who are on a fixed income. Not everybody's fixed income is real high. So for me, we're looking at these projects and I have to say, it seems like we're taking a very expensive one first. People mentioned the school because we've been in a position where we were told we have to do the school the way the school needs to be. And then we're telling DPW on fire, well, you haven't gotten anything for a hundred years, not sure we can do it now. If I'm concerned, I'm concerned about people being able to stay in town. And I do not believe that middle class people in five years will be able to. And I'm gonna vote against the project as much as I love the library. And hopefully those of us who will have to leave town will be somewhere in the CW Mars area so that we could visit the new library. Thank you, Sarah. George. As I was thinking what I wanted to say tonight, I knew that many of my colleagues would hit the major points and they have. I was thinking more historically, I guess. It's been almost a hundred years. It was in the second decade of the 20th century that Samuel Monod Jones presented Amherst with his extraordinary gift. A gift that has become, as we noted many times tonight, one of the jewels of our town. This evening, we have the opportunity to enhance that gift and to pass it on to the generations that will come after us. This proposal will restore and expand as Steve and Sarah have noted our most democratic space and ensure its ability to fulfill its multifaceted and vital mission well into the 21st century. A library today is so much more than a place to house books. It's a key community resource that serves us in so many ways. Much like the Amherst of Samuel Monod Jones' day, we too are emerging from a global pandemic. Like them, we need now more than ever, as Dorothy suggested, to believe in the future and the possibilities of our town. We can't be afraid. We need to provide those who will come after us with the tools they will need to ensure that this town continues to prosper and to flourish. Like Samuel Monod Jones, now is the time for vision and for courage. And Sarah, we do have a financial plan that allows us to undertake three of the four major capital projects without recourse to a debt exclusion. A financial plan will allow us to fund them through the capital budget without increasing our taxes. This proposal is fiscally responsible and it represents all that is the best of our town. What we need tonight is courage and vision to do the right thing. Thank you, George. Shalini? Yeah, I think a lot of things are being said and there are two things that I want to add to the conversation. One is something that Todd Holland who's an engineer stated earlier that most of the arguing can lead to inaction and inaction is the only wrong move today. The other thing that's really important is something that Sarah is talking about and we're hearing from a lot of residents is the high property taxes and the burden this would put. And as George just mentioned that we have a plan and yes, it could go off, but we do have one plan. And the other part is the library is part of that vision. It's part of the solution. It is not going to increase our property taxes. We need to solve for that problem of high property taxes but not by saying no to the library. On the contrary, we need to think about how can we revitalize the economy? How can we draw more people and the right kind of development? Not moratoriums, but the right kind of development. We could be losing $800,000 by stopping any kind of development. I know this is not about the moratorium. It's about the library. But my point is that we are saying no to the library for property taxes is one of the reasons and that they're not related. And we do need to think about that and we should be and I believe the library is gonna add to the economic vitality. And there is the concept of social infrastructure which someone shared with us, one of the residents shared with us and the importance of investing in social infrastructure which is the glue that binds a community together especially in a time of divisiveness especially when there's so little hope and people are just so broken down. We need this hope. We need this new building to come and be right there to bring all of us together from different walks of life. And so I think I am fully in support of this and I also wanna mention that as of today the library without even us passing the vote has raised two million and $188,000. Of course that includes one million from CPA but I am confident. I believe in the residents of Amherst that they will we will raise and the more we raise the money together the more we are investing in our own town. And it's again another reason that we are together proud of our town. So I'm gonna vote for it. Thank you, Shalini. I'm going to use my privilege as a counselor. And while this may come as a surprise to many of you I began the process of reviewing the Jones Library proposal to the Mass Board of Library Commissioners as a skeptic. However, after two years of helping to manage the process of bringing this vote to the town council I have become supportive of accepting the MBLC grant allowing the Jones Library to do a much needed renovation and expansion. I want to thank the library trustees, the director, the staff and the various consultants for working through the many questions that have been asked and the hours that have been spent providing the answers to those questions. In addition to that the trustees have modified their plan to include significant sustainability measures. Though they're not even subject to the net zero energy bylaw. And but I must say and I want you to make sure you hear this message loud and clear. Let me state it without equivocation that as long as I have anything to say about it there will be no more money than what we're voting tonight. This is all you get. And we will not favor you in future operating budgets. The town will not allow cost overruns. Others have spoken eloquently to the benefits of a public library and specifically our public library. So I'm not going to mimic their words but I will state that it does address five of our six policy goals. And one could even argue that for the homeless and those who live in very small home quarters it actually provides somewhat of a home. So finally I'm going to add because this has constantly come up. As many of you are aware I've had significant involvement in looking at a future fire station and a DPW. And during the winter of 2018 before the town council even existed I worked with seven other individuals to propose a revised net zero energy bylaw which passed town meeting with only two negative votes. So for me, one of the key issues is feeling strongly that we have a sound financial plan, not risk sound that will allow us to build a new elementary school and even with present limitations on spending build a new fire and EMS station south of Amherst and place DPW in a seriously upgraded building and implement the zero energy bylaw. These investments are long overdue and the time to do them is now. So for me, this is part of investing not just in our downtown but in our town's entire future. Are there any other comments? Alyssa. Thank you. As I was hoping pretty much everybody covered everything I could possibly think of. So thank you all for all your great thoughts associated with this. I just wanted to say two things. One is actually a direct quote from one of the many emails we received which I thought summarized things extremely well from my perspective which was that to refuse state funds in favor of a patchwork piecemeal and partial renovation makes no sense from a financial, environmental, educational or social justice perspective. And I just wanna add one other thing about the financial risk which I do not believe exists here either. We are not expecting friends of the elementary school friends of the DPW or friends of the fire station to raise a single penny toward any of those facilities. Yet the friends of the Jones library has made a large commitment has already seen quite a bit of results with that commitment, even without our vote. And I truly do believe in our community supporting that for all the reasons everyone else has expressed. Thank you. Are there any other comments? Then we are going to take the vote and we're going to begin with Pat DeAngelo's. Aye. Darcy DuMont. No. Lynn Griezmer is aye. Mandy Johannike. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Evan Ross. Aye. George Ryan. Yes. Kathy Shane. Abstain. Steve Schreiber. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Sarah Schwartz. No. Jalani Balmille. Yes. Alyssa Brewer. Yes. Aye. The vote is 10 in favor to oppose one abstention, no absent. Thank you. We have one more vote and that is to authorize the town manager to enter into the memorandum of agreement by and between the town of Amherst and the Jones library incorporated acting by and through its trustees whereby the Jones library incorporated agrees that it will exercise good faith and diligent efforts to raise the balance of the library share of 5,656,576 dollars who grants gifts for nations and other fundraising efforts and deposit those funds with the town of Amherst in accordance with the memorandum of agreement. Is there a second? Ryan, second. Thank you. Any further discussion or questions? Kathy Shane. Yeah, I raised a couple of concerns about the memorandum of understanding. And so I just wonder during the finance meeting and it's mainly on, I think there are ways it could be stronger and the rest, as Andy wrote in the report the rest of the committee did not agree with me, they thought it was strong enough. But one of the issues in paragraph seven of the rights and remedies is I think it would be possible to put a share of the endowment in an escrow account as good faith money so that the language that says we can compel the library if needed to give us a share, we have an earmark share. And I know you would have to set up an ownership agreement, partial ownership agreement and it's not to liquidate it. So I think having some collateral actually have some good faith money up front would be good. And then the second is on the deed restriction. When I suggested that the deed restriction be in perpetuity, I was told that maybe the library won't be there in the future. We might wanna move it after 30 years. We've been told this is a 50 year investment. So I think we could make the deed restriction for 50 years but at least make the town a party if there's a discussion about moving the library or liquidating it or selling it that we get a return. This is not, we don't own the building. So I think make the deed restriction stronger as well. Those two pieces. Are there any further comments from councilor Dorothy Pam? I don't think putting a share of the endowment in an escrow account would be a wise way to go. I believe that when we discussed deed restriction, there were several options. There was the in perpetuity. I think there was 30 years, there was 50 years. I don't see, I personally have no problem in putting a time limit of 30 or 50 years. If you think that that gives the town a stronger role in making such decisions. I don't think it's necessary but I don't think it would be hurtful. So that is my comment. The language in the agreement says initially 30 years, initially 30 years. The other thing is the reason 30 years was chosen is because we looked at various options. One is MBLC requires 20 years. The loan that we've been talking about has been discussed at 20 years and the CPA requires 30 years. We chose the furthest out and that led us to the initially 30 years. Garcy? Just a question. It appears to me that there's nothing in the MOU that would prevent the library from coming back and making another capital request or going to seek more funding from CPAC. Is that correct? They may not seek after tonight. Once we have passed this bond bill, neither we nor the library can seek money from CPA for the library project because that is at that point considered supplanting. So the answer is no, they cannot. But they could come back and ask for, put a capital request in. They can ask for any number of things whether we give it to them or not is another issue. They, you know, just like everybody else they will continue to have capital requests as part of the joint capital planning committee work. But that's not considered part of the issue here. That's true of any operation. They can always ask. Is there any other questions about the MOU? Just on, they can't come back to CPAC for this project. Could they come back to say we want to do the exterior of the building? It hasn't been pointed up or would it be that still be this project? They'd have to be extremely clear that it was not part of this project to begin with or at any renovation along the way. And even then, I think we'd have to get a serious reading from CPA. Our understanding is once this project is bonded they cannot come back to CPA because that is considered supplanting. That's the read we got from the attorney. Are there any other questions? All right. Then I'm going to begin with Darcy DeMonte. Griezmann is a yes. Haneky. Hi. Dorothy Pam. Hi. Evan Ross. Hi. George Ryan. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes, with trepidation. Steve Schreiber. Yes. Angie Steinberg. Yes. Sarah Schwartz. No. Stanley Paul Milne. Yes. Elizabeth Brewer. Hi. Pat DeAngelis. Hi. The vote is 11-4-2 opposed. No abstentions and nobody absent. I'm going to ask that we do at least one more item and then we will make a decision as to whether or not we're going to go on with the last two items under action. The next item is an amendment to the town manager's public safety goal. And it sounds ominous, but instead of going there I'm just going to ask Paul to speak real quickly. Thank you, Lynn. So the community safety working group continues its work. The deadline for their work that we had to establish previously was March 31st. They've now requested, now that they have a consultant on board, additional time to work with the consultant and may be able to deliver a report to me, which also obviously will be shared with the council. The consultant's scheduled to deliver the report at the end of April. The working group would like a couple extra weeks to finalize their report. And just so you know, like how does this fit in with the whole budget process, which has been a high priority? I'm going to every meeting of the working group. I know where they stand. They're working simultaneously with the consultant. So I think I have a pretty good sense of where they're headed on these things. So they fully understand the deadline of when I have to submit material to the town council. So they're fully cognizant of that. This just brings the council goal and alignment so they're not gonna be six weeks behind on their meeting, their council goal. Okay, Dorothy. Paul, I was shocked when I read the amount of the contract with the consultant. Can you tell me why it's so expensive and what the committee and the town is getting from that? Yes, so the committee put together a bid request. We used the invitation for bid and IFB process, which goes faster than an RFP, and you choose the low bidder. And so this was the low bidder on the project and the amount of work that was being requested, the amount of community outreach, which is very extensive, that's being requested is all very intense work in a relatively short period of time. So I think that might have driven the value of this. And then just so you know, there were three bidders on this, one higher one, and one that was significantly lower and just did not, no one felt like that would actually accomplish the project. How many people are, is the consultant, is it one person or a bunch of people doing the outreach? It's a group, yeah. The group, okay. Let me take another question too, but actually what I'd like to do is stop by putting a motion on the floor and that's to amend the town council performance goals for the town manager, July 1st, 2020. To June 30th, 2020 adopted September 14th, 2020 by changing under policy goals, section two, community health and safety, the date results are presented to the town council from March 30th, 2021 to May 15th, 2021. And to amend the July, 2020 council directive, previously adopted that the approval of the FY 2021 operating budget is made with this explicit understanding with the town manager that two upcoming anticipated vacant positions in the de police department budget not be filed, filled until the town manager in consultation with the town council and residents of Amherst has fully explored alternative options of providing services and presented the results to the town council no later than March 31st, 2021. And it would now read to approve the FY 2021 operating budget is made with the explicit understanding with the town manager that two upcoming anticipated vacant positions in the de police department's budget not be filled until the town manager in consultation with the town council and the residents of Amherst has fully explored alternative options of providing services and presenting results to the town council no later than May 15th, 2021. Is there a second? Second is signed. Okay, thank you. And let me just say the only thing that long motion does is change the date. It sounds like it changed a lot more, but it just changes the date. Kathy. I have, you answered one of the questions Lynn by the motion that we've pushed off what to do about the two frozen positions and unfilled positions are still unfilled. So my question is about timing. You have to get the budget to us by May 1st. You're not coming with a recommendation out of all of this until May 15th, which is after May 1st. And we just heard a discussion earlier tonight on the regional school, whether that, is there any possibility of saying part of one of those police positions becomes money in the school budget, which that decision would have to be made in the context of the school budget and the larger budget. So I just, and then by the charter, we can cut, but we can't move money around. So when can finance or the council have a conversation that will be meaningful about all of this, if we, if you're not gonna get a recommendation to the middle of May, but we're getting a budget on May 1st and we've got issues on, does that position become a mental health position? Could it be something in the school? I think you understand my question. The timing, I don't understand. Yeah, I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. What they're requesting, they will make their decision before I have to submit my budget. They're asking for a couple of weeks to prepare the final report and the written report so they can spend some time gathering the documents, putting together the actual report. So what they will have to make, they have to make a decision before I submit my budget in April. So that the substantive matter will be done, but the actual putting together the writing, the final things, writing the cover, remember all that stuff, they would like a couple extra weeks. I mean, for this committee, they're meeting weekly. They're very diligent. Everyone is showing up at every meeting. So they recognize how much work they have to do in the next six weeks, just to get to a final report. So just to add, so the substance of the matter has to be done prior to May 1st, because I would like to incorporate the guidance that they're giving me, or at least respond to it in the budget that I present to you. Kathy, did you have a further question? Well, I think that answers it, but we are getting individual, there are probably others, questions about when is making a statement so you heard the high school students weigh in earlier this evening. So Paul, you'll have an answer with the committee that will be incorporated in your budget is what I think you're saying. And then we will know about it as a council on May 1st. Right. So, I'm not saying that I'm going to incorporate everything that committee, the working group recommends. I'm saying they're going to give me their recommendation and I'll have something in the budget that addresses this. I mean, we're anticipating that already. Okay. Alyssa. So yeah, so following up on that. So if I'm understanding that correctly, and we do, we understand all the words that you've been saying here, but we won't have the justification for the decisions you make for the document for May 1st, because we're not going to all the community safety working group meetings, and we won't have their report and we won't have heard all their discussions. So we won't get those until two weeks after we've received what recommendations you may have incorporated into the budget. So you'll just have extra text to write and we'll be able to say, go look at their report because you won't have it yet. But you'll still be able to explain why you're doing what you're doing as you do every year with the budget. It's just, it's unfortunate, but it can be compensated for by other text in the budget. So that's something then we'll know that and we'll just have to think about as everything's all connected. Of course, it's not all siloed is that we can focus on some other parts of the budget potentially in our discussions. And then as we get closer to the time that that report's available, then we'll be able to make more sense of all of it. And as you say, it may well be that you don't actually incorporate everything in this particular year's budget. And then we'll have a lot of questions about why that may or may not be the case. Specifically on the, you know, it feels kind of funny to still be fixing something we did last July and like updating something in the past when it's almost a year later now. But when we talk about filling the vacant positions I believe that the words we keep using here now that we're further along do actually mean that technically you could fill those two positions on May 16th. I don't want you to do that. So how is it that we are clear in our minutes? I just wanna put something in our minutes. I don't have to change the motion but I wanna put something in the minutes that you either commit or don't commit to not filling those positions on May 16th because as Kathy said, we won't have had the conversations we had imagined we might be able to have prior to them. Yeah, you can add to the minutes so we will not be adding those positions May 16th or any time soon thereafter. It takes a long process to go through a hiring process. We have not initiated the hiring process at all. So we're not sitting there waiting with the engines idling. Nothing has begun on any of that on that hiring process for those two positions. So you know from your prior experience that that's a month's long process of the word again. Okay. Thank you. Mandy Ja. Thank you. So I've heard the word you've said, Paul, about going to the meetings, knowing that they have a deadline of May 1 or sometime before that so you can get it into the budget on May 1 but you have to submit a budget on May 1 even if they don't happen to quite be done May before that to get you to the budget. And I don't know how confident we are that that part will be ready even if the report isn't. So I guess what I'm asking for is I believe there's state law language. I know people have mentioned we can't raise a budget ourselves. We can't raise numbers ourselves. We can only reduce. But I think there's state law language that says something about in agreement with the manager about some stuff like that. And so I guess I would ask for a, not necessarily a commitment, but a recognition that if for some reason the community safety working group just is not ready in order in time for you to be able to submit your budget on time on May 1 to be able to get their recommendations or whichever of their recommendations you're intending to put in your budget by May 1 when you submit it that you're willing to relook at and consider sort of that one provision in state law that allows us to raise that budget with your consent based on some of that. So that we're not stuck with something that we just can't go back and do. Yeah, no, so that's true. I mean, a budget isn't just one line item. It's the entire budget with the library and the schools all put together as a package. And so all those things fit together very, we have to have that be balanced when I give that to you. So, the council can certainly provide feedback and obviously any feedback that the council provides I'll give the most serious consideration, but it's important to recognize that it's a bigger budget issue, not just one line item. I think the council has articulated its goals and so I'm trying to build the budget around the goals that the council has articulated. So, yes, obviously I've worked for you and we have this conversation. Okay, are there any other questions on this? Okay, then we're going to vote on the motion that's been made and seconded. We're going to start with Greece Muir and I vote aye. Mandy, Joe Hanna key. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Aye. Evan Ross. Aye. George Ryan. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Steve Schreiber. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Kara Schwartz. Aye. Melanie Balneum. Yes. Alyssa Brewer. Aye. Patty Angelis. Aye. Marcy Dumont. Yes. Passes unanimously, 13-0-0-0. All right, there's no good solution here. We have two other agenda items on the action side. We don't do them tonight, we do them next week. Next week's agenda doesn't look a whole lot better but I'm looking to see what I can eliminate from it. So I would like to at least see if we can discuss the zoning bylaw 10.2 related to associate members of the planning board. I wrote you a memo on this. Basically I outlined three options in that memo. One is to ask CRC to name or to recommend names of residents to be associate members for the planning board. A second is to change the bylaw and get rid of the language that allows for associate members. And the third is don't change the bylaw and don't ask CRC to forward recommended names of residents to be appointed to the planning board. The reason this comes up is because every time we get to the planning board appointments, somebody raises, gee, could we have some associates? Well, guess what? We're getting ready to have planning board appointments again and in discussion with the chair of CRC, it was decided that we should have this discussion before it comes to the council for the planning board appointments. So the floor is open about what if we want associates or don't want associates, et cetera. Dorothy. I would suggest that we do not want to have associates and that all members of the planning board should be equal. Pat. We haven't had associate members on the planning board since I think 2000 or 2001. I don't think they're particularly necessary, but I also like the idea that if at any point the planning board began to think they were necessary, we wouldn't have to go through this process again. So I think we should just leave things alone and not appoint anybody unless the planning board wants them appointed. Evan Ross. Yep, I just wanted to add to this discussion. Not only have we not had associates to the planning board, even though technically there's a permission in our bylaw that allows it, there's never been any expression by the planning board that they feel that they would benefit from associate members or that they need them. There's really only been one time that I can think of where possibly an associate would have been useful, but that was because we as counselors needed to get our butts in gear and fill some vacancies, which we then did pretty quickly. And I also want to mention that this did come up briefly for discussion in a CRC meeting and director planning Chris Brestra indicated that she did not feel as though the planning board needed associate members. And so I think there's, I don't think that we should be appointing associate members because it seems like the only people who ever feel like they are necessary are counselors in the midst of an appointment, specifically when they feel as though their preferred candidate is not being recommended to appointment. That's the only time it's been brought up. And by different people. And so they don't seem necessary. I don't know if I agree with Pat that we should leave the option in but not fill them or if we should say, you know what? We don't, no one seems to think we need unless just get rid of them. I'm sort of agnostic on that, but I'm not agnostic in thinking that I don't think that we should be moving to fill those positions, at least not now. Thank you. Melanie. I would put this to this question to the planning board and see, I did hear from one planning board member naming that they felt that it takes a while to understand zoning and all the issues in planning board and to have somebody. So sometimes we lose experienced people and we bring in new people. And so the idea was that what is gonna strengthen the planning board? And if it means we hold on to people who are experienced and bring in a new person, we don't want to lose the new person because that new person has amazing skills. Also that that would be a way that we can bring in new people and have them integrated. But that's just, I still feel the question, I would be interested in hearing. And yes, Chris did say that she didn't feel there was a need, but I would still like to hear from the planning board if indeed that is something that would be useful, helpful to them. And yeah, that's my position. Mandy Jo, in any of your conversations with the planning board, have you had that conversation? No, because this was, as you mentioned at the beginning of this conversation, this was something that was brought to my attention by a committee member at CRC. And I brought it to yours at the next agenda setting to be discussed and it's on here. So I have not, I guess that would be a fourth option would be to refer the question of, or essentially ask the planning board whether they would like us to recommend associate appointments. Okay, that's absolutely not a fourth option. Kathy? I think what Pat said, I agree with. My feeling is leave, don't change the bylaw, leave it as an option. And as Shalini was saying, the potential is there that it might be useful even if it's not necessarily from the planning staff's point of view, I heard from at least one resident who said they'd be interested in being on the planning board but not going on as a full member. They'd wanna be an understudy for a while so that they had time to watch it in action and learn from it. And that's what has been done with ZPA. So just because we haven't used it doesn't mean we might never wanna use this. So I'm not saying do it this year but I think leaving the option open that it could be useful if you, so this person really did say, I would apply if there was an associate member option. I'm not going to apply if it's a full member option because I don't wanna hit the ground without a year of listening, watching. So having heard that, I thought there is a potential value even if we are not planning on doing it this year. Darcy, there you go. Yeah, I think that we really, I personally wanna see all the options available. Is there folks willing and able to serve as associate members? That seems like a good possibility to be able to let them start to get experience. So I know we haven't done it in the past but I don't see why we would wanna cut off that possibility even though we haven't used that option. And it makes me feel uncomfortable that we are discussing this now when we know some of the applicants for the current planning board openings just feels kind of uncomfortable to be talking about. Steve Schreiber. Yeah, so I don't know any of the applicants for the planning board. So I feel like I'm missing something, but there's a nuance here which is by Mass General Law, associate members of the planning board can only be impaneled for special permit hearings as I understood in the first special permit cases. The planning board really doesn't deal with special permits or they only deal with special permits when they're in association with site plan review. So if more specifically, there is something called special permit planning SPP but it's actually very rarely used but most of the special permits are always in association with site plan review. So in a way it doesn't make any sense because they're heard at the same time. So you can't be an associate for part of the hearing and not for the other part. The other nuance is that the state, the Commonwealth has made it much easier for planning board members who cannot physically be in the room or physically be in Zoom for hearings to participate. So there's both the Mullen rule which allows you to miss a meeting and therefore you're allowed to miss a meeting, make up by watching the video and or you can participate remotely which are these are things that happened over the last, I don't know, 12 years. So I personally don't see the need for associate member because of the fact it's restricted to special permits and also because there's other ways of the sitting planning board members to participate. Okay, Alyssa. So as is my want, I guess I get to say it more bluntly than Steve did. The people who think that this is like a backup plan like zoning board of, look, see how tired I am, like the ZBA associates, they didn't read the memo and the candidates who think that they wanna do that also didn't read the memo because as Steve just pointed out, it's very clear in the memo, which was not clear the last five times we talked about this as a town council that they can't do any of the things that we normally think of associates as doing. They can only do this one tiny thing that we almost never do. So there is zero point in appointing them because they won't be sitting at meetings. They won't be doing anything unless they're delegated exactly the way it says in mass general law. These are nothing like ZBA associates. They don't get to do any of the other things. ZBA associates are exactly like ZBA members. Not at all a fact for planning board. So what I would like to see us do to dispose of this once and for all is to refer to the, and again, we only got this this morning. So let's be fair to ourselves. We've been reading library things for weeks is to refer it over to the planning board and say, do you see a reason to leave it in? Or do you see a reason to just go ahead and combine this with another hearing we're already having to just get rid of it so that we can stop having this conversation where we're talking past each other where people are saying, but I want them to serve like backups when legally they can't be backups. So let's either get rid of it or leave it in there so we can keep having the argument. But let's ask the planning board what they think of that. And like I said, it could be combined with another joint hearing with the CRC about a million other things and just be a shorter topic. Dorothy? We have to remember they're not meeting behind closed rooms, closed doors. I went to planning board meeting after planning board meeting for over a year or so. Anyone can go to the meeting. Anyone can watch the Zoom and you can watch the recorded session. Anyone could get access to the materials. The only thing that I wasn't able to do was to go on a site plan review visit and these people wouldn't be allowed to do that either. So I don't see, if you want to learn what the planning board does, it's easy to do if you're crazy enough to want to put the time in. That's it. For yourself, Dorothy. Sorry, it's late. I'm going to suggest that I contact the chair of the planning board and the chair of CRC and that they have some kind of discussion about this and that for the time being, we do nothing unless I hear a motion from the floor. Dorothy, Darcy? No, that was, yes. Okay, done with that item. Mandy has a hand up. Yeah, Mandy, I'm sorry. I was just going to give some timing of we, there's a possibility that, you know, the hearing on the moratorium will be in late May. I think it's May 19th. So there's a little bit of time to be able to, if the planning board wanted to take action on the zoning bylaw to be able to try and notice it for the same night to save some time. Got it. All right. Do we want to plow through one more? All right. This is a recommendation that came from CRC. I'm going to call on George to talk about the recommendation. I'm now serving on CRC, which I'm really excited about. I'm sorry, G-F-O-R-L. It's, that's okay. I'd love to get out from under G-O-L, but so yes, this came from G-O-L and it looks like you all want to deal with it tonight. I was shaking my head no, but that's all right. I don't want to repeat what's in the report. The report spells out the arguments pro and con. Essentially, I think what would be helpful, Linda, if we're going to talk about it tonight is to put the proposed bylaw up on the screen so people can see it. Would you put the proposed rule of procedure 10 up on the screen? Thank you, rule of procedure is correct. And so this was before G-O-L. And we had dealt with it in two different meetings and it was passed four to one. And as I said, the arguments pro and con are in the report, which hopefully you all read. The only point I would make is that I voted with the majority on this, not because in fact I support it, I really don't know at the moment of a number of minds, but I felt that it was important that it come before the council and that we have a discussion. And so there it is in front of you. And I think it's time for people to speak on what their positions are. I myself have my questions, but I'm going to hold them off for the moment. Again, just repeating that I voted in the majority. It was four to one to send this onto the council, primarily because I felt it's something we need to talk about. And let me just say, this is the first time it's had discussion only. I'm going to limit this discussion to 20 minutes, okay? The clock is 10, 10, 37, Kathy. Oh, you muted Kathy. I totally support that. I'll be really short. And I think it's consistent with what Oka had come up with. And I particularly like the, as long as a member is an active contributing member of the board or committee, that we're not giving tenure to people who just are sitting in a seat, but the notion that each of these positions and the finance people who are residents have actually said it takes them a while to figure out what's going on. So that putting in the time is worth it if you know you can continue, but you would like them to be active. So I think this would be a great addition to our role. Steve Sharper. So I'm exactly the opposite. I'm totally against this, unless we're willing to do a metric that has other qualifications, education, experience, where you live, et cetera. So I'm a believer in affirmative action where everybody gets an equal chance at positions. And I don't believe, I think this is anti-affirmative action. So I think that once your term is expired, then your term is open to anyone. So we can definitely say under experience, you should put down the fact that you have experience on this planning board and this is what you've done, but that experience shouldn't be weighed any more heavily than somebody else, any other community member in Amherst. One other comment is there's confusing language at the very beginning, that if you've completed a first term, we have people that are serving terms of one year or two years. So we should be clear about what that means. But in any case, I think we could definitely develop a score sheets just like we're doing for the OPM, for the elementary school, in which this would be one of them, but absent that, absent our willingness to do that. I don't think we should single out a particular characteristic and give that weight. Evan. So a couple of things. I'm not 100% sure where I fall on this. It largely mimics what was in the adopted OCA internal policy for OCA, which when we talked about that, I made clear was very much a compromise language between sort of two viewpoints that we felt like the language that OCA adopted was a compromise. This isn't exactly the OCA language. OCA's language was taken directly from the town's appointed committee handbook. I think sections 2.3 and 2.6 maybe. I'd have to check for that in my head. So I guess I do have one question about why this language, why the changes that are here, why they are here and why they're different than what's in the appointed committee handbook. So that's point number one. Point number two is that I think the language is a little confusing because when I first read a second or third term for at least six years, I was reading as a second six year term or a third six year term where I think you're really talking about six cumulative years. So I think the language needs to be cleaned up and clarified a bit. I'll say that regardless of whether we adopt this or not, I don't think it belongs in section 10 of rules of procedure. It's not about council committees really. And so it isn't about committees of the town but it just feels a little bit different to me. I'm not quite sure where it goes. And then the last thing I wanted to say is I think that if we're going to delve into appointments like this, we need to also look at other sections of the appointed committee handbook. So for instance, there is a rule in the appointed committee handbook that no one should be appointed to no more than two permanent committees at a time. Do we have that rule as well? And so I'd actually like us to take a pause on this and maybe ask GOL to look at the appointed committee handbook more broadly and see if we want to incorporate more aspects of that into our rules or if this is the only one. Cause to me, it doesn't make sense to just pull this one out when there are actually other things that have also been discussed. I know in OCA when we were looking at appointing to the ZBA and we had someone who already served on board of license commissioners, there was a question of, okay, so that's a second permanent committee. There's been questions about, are we okay with people serving on both planning board and ZBA? There's no rule against that. And so I actually think there's a lot of questions about appointments that I'd like to see GOL delve into a little bit if we're opening this book. Cause I think it's a broader conversation than just this one section of the appointed committee handbook. Darcy. Yeah, I'd agree with Evan. It makes sense to look more broadly, but I do think that the issue about term limits should probably be decided first because of the fact that it's time sensitive with the upcoming appointments. So anyway, the issue came on referral from CRC. And I had our, can you hear me? Yeah, go ahead. It was from GOL. No, Lynn, she's correct. It was actually referred to us. Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'll go ahead, Darcy. Yeah, I argued that it was a full council issue. So I am glad that it's now before the full council. There are really two issues, whether we should have a unified policy regarding term limits for the council regarding reappointment to the three committees instead of allowing each committee to determine its own procedure. The second issue is the policy itself, whether we agree that incumbent members of the planning board, zoning board of appeals and resident members of the finance committee should receive a preference and reappointment based on their having gained expertise and experience for up to six years when the balance would turn in favor of preferring newcomers. With regard to the substance of the proposal, as Evan said, it's in large part the former Ocarul. The Ocarul didn't specifically say six years, but that was something that we had added two, three year terms, meaning six years. Alyssa had suggested that and the committee agreed. But I added the actual word six years. The term limits policy is basically that of Oca, the current GOL and the current GOL policy that is and the historic rule in the town manager handbook. So, and just what we've done historically in Amherst, it set up so that it balances the need for new faces on our committees with the need for experience in the wish to honor the commitment of volunteers who are willing to continue serving. So, I would argue that our committees of the council should not have different policies regarding term limits basically because it doesn't make sense with a unified council procedure. Committees won't be jockeying to change their internal rules in order to accomplish a particular outcome. Our son, my time is up. My time is up, that was three minutes. Yes. Could I please finish since it's my proposal? Sure. In this case, we have three committees that have made appointments since we started. All three came up with different procedures. When the planning board appointments moved from the former outreach communications and appointments committee to the CRC, CRC changed the rule regarding giving preference to incumbents right before a particular planning board member would have been reappointed. There was a major uproar because he was one of a minority of two on the seven member board who had historically opposed unfettered downtown development. Because of the new rule, that member was allowed to be ousted. The issue that you're raising is not the issue on before the council tonight. I think it absolutely is. And I insist on- I'm sorry, but it's not. This is the only issue I was asked to put on the agenda. The issue you're raising is not on the agenda. This is the, this is the actual issue. This is the issue. This is the issue. The minority, Janet McGowan is up for reappointment soon. And the chair of the CRC has made it clear that she wants the- I have a point of order. This, yeah, this is way out of line. This is not out of line. This is exactly what the discussion has been in CRC. I have a point of privilege. Thank you. I'm sorry, Councillor Dumont just referred to me as having an opinion that I have not ever stated. I would ask that, or was going to imply potentially about some sort of statement I've made that I may not have stated and I'd ask her to refrain from doing so. Well, I guess I would just ask that- My understanding was that your opinion that was stated at the GOL meeting was that you argued that you should not be bound by the choices of a former council and you should be able to vote for, vote to replace the members of the planning board with the people that you want on the planning board. And if that's incorrect, I invite you to correct me. And Jo, would you like to make another statement? Yes, I would. I will address that issue only. I have never made a statement regarding any potential appointment to a direct individual or non-individual regarding the upcoming appointments as I've spoke in GOL regarding my opinion on this potential rule. To imply that any opinion on this rule is to be considered as an opinion on any potential applicant to the upcoming planning board or zoning board of appeals appointments CRC will be making is an incorrect implication that I absolutely refute. I'm gonna go back to a point of order as well. This motion or this piece in front of us is strictly about term limits. It is nothing in absolutely nothing was sent to me that dealt with the way in which different committees do the selection of the people they're advancing to the council. So I don't, we are not discussing that item. That item is not on the agenda and therefore it is not on the table for discussion. The only item on the table for discussion is the one on the screen. Evan, do you have your hand up still? Or do you have another comment? That was accidental. Okay. Andy. So I think it's an emotional screen. I feel like Steve's that said earlier that there's a question of making sure that the committees that are doing the screening are looking at bringing forward to the council the best qualified, most diverse candidates possible. And the experience that somebody has from having served previously while appreciated is just one of the criteria. Certainly getting diversity, which is a value that we've talked about many times since Steve mentioned is a value. But there are also unique expertise that could be of great value. If for example, there was nobody who was an architect or had any experience with architecture and there was somebody who came along with that kind of expertise. And it was really felt that by a board that it was needed, whichever board it may be the same thing could be true of finance committee or anything else, then the appointing committee should be able to look at that criteria. And the idea that you're going to say that there's a presumption of reappointment not only stops that from being considered, but it even stops the applicant who has those attributes of diversity or special qualifications from even coming before the committee because there's no reason that they would apply. Alyssa. So we have a fundamental misunderstanding here. This is not a term limit proposal. That's not what these words say. That is not what these words say. That might be what somebody's goal was, but that's not what this is. This is one amongst, as we've been discussing here, of several criteria for whether or not someone's going to get reappointed. There is no hard and fast term limit in here at all. A term limit is a set of words that says, you can't be appointed after X period of time. That's a term limit. Those words don't appear here anywhere. They don't appear in the appointed committee handbook. They don't appear in OCA. They don't appear in any of the committees the town councils worked on. Let's be clear. The appointed committee handbook, the 2011 version please, not the 2005 version, is a standing document. It is not something we threw out because now we're a town council. It is a standing document that applicants look to and the town manager largely follows. Remember that the town manager almost entirely reappoints every single person who asks to be reappointed by and large. We don't question that. We have encouraged him to think of things more our way, but we can have our own separate process that is different than his, which is different than how life used to be. How life used to be is, we all worked from the same set of criteria, which was the appointed committee handbook. I appreciate the attempt that was made here to clarify so that we're not having this argument about people. I really appreciate that we're trying to do it in a hypothetical way. And I think we are at the right stage of the year to be able to do it in a hypothetical way. Unfortunately, we have a lot of other time pressures. And I think that the wording here needs to go back to, as Evan mentioned, the OCA work, which I was satisfied with because it was pretty close to the appointed committee handbook. This wording is sloppy. It says for at least six years. Why would we suddenly start saying, oh yeah, planning board, you don't really know what you're doing until seven, you're seven or eight? Like that's not where we're going with this. So we need to perhaps say up to six years before you start kicking into the idea of the newcomer. And it does need to be part of that other healthy member body criteria. It is not the only consideration. I appreciate what this was attempting to do. It is not a term limit. That's not what this says. If that's the goal, we need different words in it. So maybe the idea is it goes back to GOL. Everybody who's working on appointments has heard this conversation and knows that they're going to have to make a justification when they bring their recommendations forward to the town council. I'm just gonna point out that we only have two minutes left of the 20 minutes we're gonna devote to this. Shalini? I just had a question that I wanted to pose for all of you and I don't think we're the time to discuss it, but in my mind, I'm thinking that, okay, our goal, our intention is to whatever the appointment should enhance and strengthen the planning board. That's the goal, right? And so as others have mentioned, if somebody comes with a unique set of skills, we should not be not taking them, even though this doesn't save, it says it's a preference to reappointment of people, but my question to you all is that why is it that we need to give preference in a committee to people because they've served and we should reappoint them, whereas as counselors, we go out for elections every two years or three years and so there's no preference for us. So why are we suggesting that for committee, they work so hard and we should give a preference to people who've been there for three years? I mean, of course we're grateful for everyone who's working and everything, but, and that's a, and I haven't made it by mind, but this is just my thinking. So I wanted to hear other people's perspective on that, that why are we thinking that because they've worked for three years, we should give them the preference? Okay, we've now spent 20 minutes on this. I'm going to spend more time if people want to continue to speak, but then I don't want people complaining about how long the meeting went. Alyssa, you have your hand up. Is it up because you wanted to say something more? Shalony, same thing. Mandy Jo. Thank you. I will not say everything I would say, but I do want to put a couple of things out there. From all the conversations I've had within CRC, within GOL that I've heard from OCA, it has become clear to me that members of the council understand the word preference differently. And that is a very big problem if you're going to put and adopt a rule that uses the word preference. Because if we understand it differently, then the people reading it that are trying to apply for a position will understand it differently. And this argument will still come up year after year after year, because it will be understood differently. And that is one of the biggest reasons, I can't support this as worded completely. I will, the report indicated some of my things. I will save responses to Councillor Dumont and some of my other opinions for further conversation. Dorothy. I agree with Alyssa. This is not a term limits measure. It was an attempt to maintain the ability of the planning board and the zoning board of appeals to perhaps have more than one view. And so it's probably not possible for us to do that. So I guess I'm gonna go and say with Alyssa, let's go back to that appointments book and just stick with that. Okay, I'm gonna go to Sarah Schwartz. You had your hand up and now you took it down. Yeah, I think a lot of people know how I feel about this. And I would just like to make it very clear that when we first started trying to figure out how to appoint people, we felt like we needed some rules and some procedures. So at least it looked like we had some, thing to stand on when we recommended someone. I think we all remember the first time that we went through this. There was a lot of argument. There were counselors who were saying that we had to respect people's, the time that they had spent and their expertise on a committee. It was even suggested by a planning board member and by several counselors that 12 years might be the recommended amount of time for people to serve. So it didn't come out of nowhere. In discussing this more in many different committees, it's become very clear that planning board and ZBA appointments are political. And it has been expressed by people that, yeah, they're elected officials. They were elected by certain people who had certain goals and it's only natural that an elected official would want to back up the goals of the people who elected them. It was even has been said that, to that point, there shouldn't be any messing around about justification. That's justification enough and that there would be a preference for no rules. So that's really where this is coming from. I think it is some people wanna say, I think that we should make things at least look like we can recommend one person for these reasons, right? So that it seems fair to people who are applying that we have some rules about how we choose people. And if you've been on a committee for a certain amount of time, what you would need to do in order to stay on if you would like to. This is what it comes down to. So maybe we're not ready to decide this tonight, but I think it's rich that a lot of the counselors who were fighting very much to say that originally they, wow, we really need this time served or now saying it doesn't matter. So I'd like to cut the baloney and just say we know the issue on the table, okay? We know it. So maybe we just need to have a separate time when we all are fresh to just discuss whether or not we think there is merit in simply putting it out there that it is political and all of us, if this is true, if everyone does feel like they need to represent who elected them, that's fine. But that's really the issue. I don't wanna pussy foot around what we're trying to say here. This is what we're trying to say. So maybe we just say, let's table this for another day when we can talk about the merits of that. Okay, Steve, Evan and Darcy, each of you have spoken before. We are not voting on this tonight. So I really take exception to what was just stated. I have absolutely no idea who elected me. Nor do I have any idea what the goals are of those people who elected me. I'm to serve the entire town. I don't even serve district four. I was elected by district four to serve the town. And my job is to use my best judgment to advance the help advance the town. I have no, I have no, there's no, I'm not representing any particular group, but I still have a problem with this because essentially what we're saying, well, actually maybe, let me paraphrase this. Really what we're saying is that every appointment to the planning board, zoning board, resident members of the finance committee are six year terms. Why don't we just, we could just say that, which is so, you know, essentially that's, and I know that we all don't agree with what the word preferences, but we could say that everybody gets a six year term. And then after three years, we review to see whether or not we're gonna take you off in a way that's a much clearer message to send than this other way. So I don't think a six year term is a good idea. I think a three year term is a good idea. And I think that what I've said before that after those three years, you're reevaluated. So if you have a tough time defining preference then good luck defining active and contributing. So I don't think that we'll agree on what that means either. So I like it not to find, I like it this clean through your terms period. Evan. Yep, real quick, just building on what Mandy and Alyssa said, you know, the word preference is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this in two places. Alyssa made clear that this is not a term limits rule. The idea that it preference is given does not mean that you are done after six years. It just means that there might be preference given to someone else. So I wanna make sure this is mischaracterized as a term limits rule. But the other thing I wanna make sure was not mischaracterized as we did receive an email about this, it said that the GOL voted for what they described as an auto renew or a rule that would auto renew. And I wanna also make clear that this is not an automatic reappointment or an automatic renewal. The word given preference for reappointment does not mean you have to be reappointed. And again, much of this language was listed from the Appointed Committee Handbook. Earlier I said 2.5, I mean 2.6, I found it is 2.5, the reappointment one. And I just wanna add that the sentence that was eliminated from, or it was not carried over that comes after service may be appropriate is a committee member is under no obligation to accept reappointment, nor is the appointing authority obligated to offer reappointment. And so I wanna make it very clear for the public and the media that this is not an auto renewal that a preference for reappointment, we can debate that, but that does not mean that someone gets reappointment. And in fact, in the Appointed Committee Handbook, it makes clear that there is no obligation for reappointment. Thank you. Okay, Darcy. Yeah, I would agree with what Evan just said. One of the advantages to having the preference after the first term is just stability. Taking to the extent possible the politics out of it so that we don't have to have a battle every three years. We can hold it off until the sixth year. And that leads to less chaos, less divisiveness and just more stability in general, as far as not having to, again, have a big battle over every time, every three years. That's not something that we would be looking for. Thank you. Steve, I believe your hand is up. Mandy, Joe, you have another comment. Yeah. I think also Jamon's comments just indicated what the problem with this language is because it is a political appointment and she just indicated that she doesn't wanna battle every three years. But if you add the language to the Appointed Handbook, that a person is not obligated to be offered reappointment, it still is a battle every three years. That's not going to, this language will not end that. And to go to some of the things that have been said about my views on this, I am the counselor that said I would prefer no rules at all because we're elected to make our own best judgment onto who the appointments are. And we were elected maybe without any appointments, without any ideas, or maybe we were. But there could be a time and a place where the planning board or the zoning board of appeals issues a permit or recommends a bylaw or doesn't recommend a bylaw that the town hates. And the counselors run or candidates run on that issue and that issue specifically. And they get elected to either affirm that one or not affirm that one and to replace candidates. I'm not saying any of us were elected to do that. But if that happens in the future and this language is here, you've just, this language takes away each individual counselor's ability to use their own judgment and their own beliefs on what a good board, what a good committee is and whether that counselor believes that this person or that person would be the better person for the job at that time. And that goes to things like whether there are differing opinions on there. And a lot of things has been said about that very first appointment. And a lot of things have been implied about a number of us counselors. I will just remind this council that I voted in favor of the OCA recommendation and back in our very first planning board appointments three years ago, two and a half years ago, despite what many counselors have implied about potentially my vote or other votes. I'm gonna take two more comments and then I'm going to stop. Dorothy Pam, you have your hand up. Clarifying question. Doesn't, and I may be, it's late, I may be totally wrong. Aren't some of the appointments to the planning board one year, two years and three years? They are. Yeah, so nobody, I would like to see this thing changed. I like the idea of three year terms, but one year terms do seem like kind of a waste unless the person really bombs out because it just barely got the know what they're doing then. A point of order on that one. The charter requires three year terms. The state law requires three year terms. The only time it's not three years is if there is an appointment to fill an unexpired term, which the law says must be just for unexpired terms. The only condition, I agree with that. I didn't mean to mislead anybody. Yeah, okay, I just want to clarify that again, I also voted in, as manager said, in favor of the person we're talking about. And I find it offensive that every statement, everything we're doing is political by those down, because we are in politics, but to say out of the way that this is in some way, I mean, maybe you are making political decisions in that way, but I don't think it's fair at all to assume that others are into make those accusations. It's just so divisive and not helpful at all. So let's just focus on what would make this process a good one for everyone and get the best planning board, get the best committees on board. And I know Alyssa will not like it, but what is Northampton doing about this? I want to see what other town, I really don't know what is the best way to choose. In my mind, the best way to choose is based on the pool of candidates and I've always been consistent with that. It's not that I changed flip-flop, that's been my statement all through the different appointments, that let's look at the pool of candidates and who is the best candidate. And I have voted on all sides, just like Mandy Jo did. All right, we're going to move on. You can please take this down. There are no appointments. We're to committee these on reports. Is there anything further Mandy Jo or any questions to Mandy Jo? Just another, you know, just another, to be clear that the planning board and the CRC will hold a joint hearing on May 19th, that the Wednesday at 8 p.m. on the moratorium. Thank you. Kathy Elementary School Building. There's no update on that. The, well, the only update is that the advertisement request for bids is out and today various people who are interested were visiting doing site visits. So that's good news that there is interest in bidding on the OPM. So that doesn't close until the 19th of this month in terms of the final thing. And at which point Steve and the rest of us have a lot of work to do. Andy and besides pointing out that the finance committee's calendar for reviewing the budget is in the packet. Is there anything else? No. Okay. George. Nothing to add to the report. Kathy, anything from JCPC, you put a report but I'm gonna ask that if there's any questions it'd be for next week, not this week. So we did file the committee filed the report. It went to Paul today and very late I put it in the council packet not expecting anyone would read it. And I did a one page set of highlights of some of the more interesting things but that report is now formally filed. It's a recommendation of the committee to Paul and that it's done. Thank you. Town services. Those are great. Okay. We and at our next two meetings which is going to be this Thursday and then the 22nd we'll be looking at the the Pomeroy Village intersection and hopefully making a decision or a, you know finalizing our recommendation possibly on the 22nd. Okay. Any liaison reports? Okay. Town managers report. Any questions of Paul, Dorothy? This was a question to Darcy on TSO. I'm sorry. Are you going to deal with the Guilford's residential park streets and parking issue in any of those next meetings? It's not currently on the agenda. Okay. I just wanna make sure I attend those meetings. So thank you. Mandy, Joe, you have your hand up. Yeah. I just wanted to thank Paul for the in the detail on the board of license commissioners and what they're doing. I thought that was fantastic. And I'm thrilled to see that they're taking on their new role in town government with gusto and enacting a ton of regulations to help them do their job. I'm really good at cutting and pasting. Before our great staff. That's okay. You're getting the news, you're getting the word out. Dorothy, did you have your hand up to ask Paul a question? Please unmute. The section on the town IT and the meetings and information technology. I'm thinking of that and the relationship to the letter I received that we, I guess we all received from Amherst media and wondering if the town's relationship is changing with Amherst media or there seems to be a problem. I'm just wondering where do things stand? So the town's relationship with Amherst media has not changed. Although we are doing a lot more with Zoom, the town IT staff is handling a lot of the work. Amherst media still fulfills the parts of its contract. It's required to broadcast your meetings, finance committee meetings, school committee meetings, planning board meetings, et cetera. There was some confusion, I think, about making sure that they had access to the INET as we were constructing a new INET. When we were doing the INET, it was anticipated that they would by this point have built a new structure, but that's not the case. So we're not gonna, we will make sure that they are always connected so they can do the good work that they're, that they always do. Thank you. Is there any other questions? Okay. Then under the president's report, I've placed in your packet for tonight the memo regarding a hearing and the revote on the North Amherst Common. That will either happen on May 3rd or May 17th. I have to look at those two agendas, which are already heavy. Are there any other questions or future agenda items or councilor comments? Alyssa. I just wanted to add that when it comes to the North Common issue, I don't agree with the town attorney's advice, not mentioning our by-law associated with parking. I appreciate that they were looking at our rules, but they didn't even mention the by-law that we have associated with parking. And so I think that should be checked so that they can say, nope, actually that doesn't apply. And that's why we're not quoting it or actually, yes, that is also part of it. And the other piece was associated with revenues. I believe we received some information in an email and I'd like it to be broken out in terms of revenues that's like paying for parking, but then the revenue that's also tickets for overstaying your welcome or for parking in the wrong spot, et cetera. Because I know we have that broken out because we've talked in the past that we actually depend on giving people tickets. Although we try not to be mean to people, we actually do get substantial income from that. Again, for that hearing, when that's ready, we don't need the answers today. Hi, Kathy. Yeah, Lynn, I just have a very request. So it's whatever, we're April 5th. As soon as you know that we're going to do it, could we put the pictures and the memo that talks about parking up somewhere so people can see them? Because I found a lot of people didn't even know what we were making choices about. There was just not broad knowledge of what we had in front of us as a decision. When we first saw it in November, when it had gone to CPAC, it had one configuration. Then it went to TSO, came out with two other versions, but it wasn't. So I just would like to see it up somewhere. Yeah, and then my other question is, in our the bylaw that Alyssa referred to, it says that all the butters should be formally notified. And I would want to make sure the businesses know this is happening in a formal way. Because I'm not sure that they knew that was up night too, when I went back and looked at who was participating that night. So I know the BID went around and surveyed them, but I would just really like to know that they were aware that there'll be a hearing. So. Is there any other comments? Alyssa, you have your hand up? Okay. Thank you. Any other comments at all? Any future agenda items? Councilor comments? Kathy. I'm just trying to lower my hand. Thank you. Seeing none, and we have no topics, no additional topics, Executive Session. I'm going to call the meeting adjourned at 1120. Thank you.