 So I'd like to call a meeting of the select board of November 6, 2017 at 6pm to order here in the Amherst Regional Middle School Band Room. Tonight is the first night of town special town meeting this fall of fall of 2017 and the official time of the start of the meeting is 6.02. Opening of our agenda review and announcements. We'll be along in a moment. We have a couple items to deal with tonight. We're going to hear from Ms. Aldrich about the first quarter budget. We'll talk about a few things. We're all up to town meeting. Is there anything else that you have to share with us? Anybody else have anything? Okay. And we have an appointment. Okay. So I think without further ado, Ms. Aldrich would like to take us into the first quarter budget report. Walk us through that. First quarter report. We really don't have a lot to report in the first quarter. Other than some anomalies for 25% through our revenues are collected at 23.3%. Investment income shows a negative 9.5% collected and that's timing issues with the year and the curl that we do every fiscal year end. It's an audit adjustment and that gets cleared as we get through the year. Motor vehicle excise doesn't start coming in. We collect the bulk of it in February. Our hotel, motel and meals tax is collected at $172,766. $58,830 of that is for the hotel, motel and $113,936 is for meals tax and that details on the pages in the back, the detail breaking it out. And this is for the period of June through August of 2017. Other departmental revenues show a higher percentage collected. This is due to the Medicare fee reimbursement. We received $69,508 so far. That's not budgeted so it increases percentage. Pilots, the bulk of these come in as a transfer as well as special assessments which I didn't put on here and I apologize for that which are indirect costs. Those are done through an inter-front transfer and that usually happens in October or November. State aid and property tax are where they should be. Now on the expenditure side we've expended overall 20 and the general fund 24.25.4 percent. If you were to take out the incoherences it would only be 24.5 percent. Legal services is at 5.7 percent. This is just timing when the invoices come in and come down to approval for payment. IT, the usual 43.9 percent. They pay their software licensing up front for the year or the incoherences to pay their regular monthly bills. Employee benefits, it's the retirement, the usual retirement assessment that's paid up front that inflates that. Enterprise funds they're all within reasonable range. I just noted that the transportation fund is 23.6 which is almost where it should be. Solid waste expenses are a little higher. There's some large incoherences for two movies and infiltration and monitoring. That's good in some ways. Does the work question for Solowage? 25 percent of the year starts the whole last report on next, you know, three months we'll have a lot more to report on. So just to clarify, if I could, you're saying in solid waste, in you're saying there's some part of the reason it's at 41 percent is there's some charges early in the year essentially around monitoring much the same way the IT department has a lot of things that come to right at the beginning of the fiscal year. Same kind of idea with that? Yes. Okay. Do my colleagues have any other questions from Solowage regarding the first quarter? Thank you very much in touch with that. So next on our agenda is um logistical issues related to November 6th, 2017 special town meeting. Um and first in that regard is uh Vote and Assign Opposition or ARPA 14 designed for Northamerson Library. So I guess the first question is I'm guessing we maybe have some people here to speak to us about that? All right, we'll start with um our own work first and then we'll perhaps seek out some comment as well. Thank you. So it was my understanding that the reason we were doing this was not necessarily all over the questions as you indicated was not to hear from the petitioners a second time. It was to um consider that the library trustees themselves were going to be meeting today and we wanted to find out what their position was say for example could involve a referral or something to see if we could support that. So I'm just wondering if that's where we actually are at and if we can it was emailed to us but if we can have that report I think that would be the first thing we'll remind us. Yes so this is late this afternoon I got an email from the library director who said that the trustees voted this afternoon against the Northamerson Library article and took no position on the net zero article. Okay so we've heard from the trustees and I think that was the main piece of information we were seeking to to hear about again and so I don't think that there's particularly new information that we haven't heard from so yes. So I can make a motion that would be ready and I am and then we'll see how it goes I'm pre-alluding um unlike we're allowed to do at town meeting so I'm going to move to recommend referral of article 14 to the Jones Library trustees. Second. Mr Steinberg already was going to be speaking on to the article on behalf of the select board town meeting. And we have a second would you like to tell us about your thoughts? So we talked we talked a bit about the JC at a couple of meetings now we've talked a bit about the JCPC process and how important it is that it's within that structure that we look at everything and also that it is a little difficult for people who aren't necessarily sponsored quote unquote by either staff or one of the bodies that's represented on JCPC to know how to get into that process and we know that JCPC our representatives on JCPC indicated they would talk about that when they started meeting this season but this seems to be the right thing to do to me in terms of putting it on the list referring doesn't mean you have to act on something it's just this is something that we think is within the Europe review that you might want to talk about and then bring forward to JCPC if they choose not to hopefully there will be another path around that time identified for people to do that but um I still don't think it's time to do to support this article outside the process of JCPC I wouldn't be able to give support to it without knowing how it compared with everything else we're doing did you um were you thinking that the select board would make that motion to refer that is an excellent question and I had not thought that through because I thought of this before I found out what their position was so I totally open to discussion um as the board what do we think about that notion because we'll probably ask our opinion really early in the process right that's a good point so we'll logistically we'll be up shortly after the petitioners themselves um I'm just you know we're doing this in the moment um I think that might be a good thing to do because then we can explain our own thinking and we're detailed about the JCPC PC process and um looking at how a project like this would get in view and why we're making that notion instead of waiting for somebody else to do it and hoping to have the right opportunity to speak to it right since we have to be all right Mr. Wall yes the same thing um and as I said last time we're all sympathetic to this because we know the library needs lots of work and it's got concrete issues of access and effective use of space but you know we've been consistent in numerous cases in saying we think things should go through the process and not come from uh outside of it and it's a little bit unusual anyone for a private group to ask the town to do something with a building in that sense uh the other complicating factor of course is the intersection there we've acquired that property we don't know what's going to happen there so there are a lot of moving pieces and it seems that JCPC is the proper place but again we I think as brewer said I think we want to emphasize this is a positive step because we're sympathetic to the end gesture and we just want to make sure it gets thought through in the largest possible context so it's a thing that's more effective than pulling against it it's a it's an encouraging step all right I think a little bit of public comment we don't have so um this will come I appreciate one and um so my comment would be that 27 years after the passage of the ADA the um claiming the protection of the processes is not really um a valid reason uh but this should be referred back I think um there should have been um this building should have been made accessible a long time ago should have been uh a list of I was on the town hall committee that was one of our 1990s that was one of our primary things is to make that building accessible um and so I think we're you know referring to the process is not going to really fly the building has seven steps to the front steps it doesn't have a bathroom that can be used by the public it's just you know many years too late to talk about the process the second issue is if the board is planning to refer it to the library trustees is it one the building has been owned by the town of Amherst um I think since the library was constructed in 18 something and um so one it's it's it's not a it's not like the Jones Library which is the owned by the library trustees so they really have quite frankly no role in making the building accessible they may and the motion under the article will provide them an opportunity to say what things they might want to see accomplished inside the building but in terms of getting the public into the building I think that that responsibility rests with the the the town of Amherst not the Jones Library trustees and um and in fact they they made it pretty clear throughout their entire process related to the Jones Library itself that um that they had you know no plans or interest or involvement in the North Amherst Library and people who were concerned that if the library were closed that the North Amherst Library wouldn't be accessible um they said this is not our problem this is not our building we operate a program in the building but it's not our building so I would just say that that's the wrong place to send it and I don't think it should be sent there it's you know many years too late to talk about the process but this is a very small amount of money to do the design work certainly when the design is done then you can talk about some kind of process for actually executing the design but I think at this point to say we're not even going to design the you know a thing to make this building accessible I think it's just you know sort of in the terms in the number of years sort of anti-adulubian it's just I think it's not appropriate for their comment relative to that or just most on the floor yes but well it I would be at least into discussing amongst us if referring back to the select board might make sense since it is a town building in me both of the facilities director and can make sure that this is represented in the capital plan whatever year it is in I think that just looking at accessibility without looking at the whole building and its surroundings is short-sighted so I think there's more pieces to this that have to be washed out before we spend money we might just have to be spent over again so I think there's a planning process and it may be the trustees they seem to have their hands full with the building that they do own and it is our building when we would be able to work collaboratively with the trustees so I'm open to at least thinking maybe we'd be referred back to ourselves and the trustees but I'm still quite committed to referral the thing I think about is is just with regard to programming within the building it's why I think it was potentially suggested that it be referred to to the trustees but I think at the same time you know the things around what was wrong you know the intersection potential rework there given that we own the property that falls more in sort of our Bailiwick in some respect so I could I could see it either way but I think that the critical pieces that both groups are are you know kind of coming into this year's joint capital planning uh you know aware of it and trying to provide some context for it but the follow-up I mean who would be it's sort of I see it as a collaborative effort who would be better situated to carry out the collaboration between the library trustees and the town would it be best placed with the slack border placing with the trustees it kind of puts the burden on them to then coordinate with us and I mean it could go either way but if we take that responsibility I'm pretty confident we would be pulling them into the process yes along with the programming I I find it strange that we would although you mentioned coordination with them unless they decide that in order to provide the number of library hours that they're required to provide by the state they're going to do them at the Jones library instead of the Norfolk Amherst library it's it's it's simply overly simplistic to say that it's our building it is our building but because it has a library program in it it's not like it's our building and we're going to sell it for something else at this point so they are absolutely tied and we've had no discussion whatsoever about not about untying those things and I would want if we were I can't envision supporting maybe I'm back to know that because I can't envision supporting an article that says I want to add an elevator in some bathrooms and that's the extent of the article that's not how we do capital planning for our buildings in this town we don't decide we just need to cut to tack something up maybe we should have done that 27 years ago but we didn't and so given that we didn't given that there is this programming issue with library locations and hours it does not make any sense to me that we would just assume oh for $3,000 oh because it's going to cost X number of dollars and we're just going to put that elevator on the back I'm going to put the bathroom in and we're going to be done no that's not how things work and that's not actually how real life works with town buildings so I just I'm confused I agree Mr. Wall I mean as Mr. Bachman pointed out last time that it's not strictly speaking of violation of the there the ADA is complicated as far as providing access there's a difference between not being compliant and being illegal but and without splitting hairs there I think I mean that's we heard also from petitioners last time that there was talk about using the third you know the upper floor this is the second floor on top and the basement below so it's not just about access you know an elevator in a toilet but it's about again about the program of the building and unfortunately the library can determine the program for the building also it's historic structures so there are complications there and providing access it could be done but there are certain principles one has to observe so it's got to go through so still for the review and it's you know it's just a lot of moving pieces there I think that's the problem with this it's all right other comments so so we have a motion on the table that is to review which is to refer to trustees do you want to do you want to stay with that and it's fine I'm just asking I'm directly losing patience with the whole situation so I don't I can withdraw it if somebody thinks that another motion is possible to refer to two committees we usually avoid referrals it's been an interesting fall all right thank you so on your sheet there are different options on your keys so one of them is to join capital planning committee and whatever the committee that's a made-up thing there's a nice so you choose to broaden the you know if you feel like there's more than one committee that needs to be involved in this I could see requery he's talking about here oh oh no sheet it's a nice little r1 I'm not sure when that ever was doing we have a it's clever though our positions and stuff and it has some codes on it and it has some obtuse ones let's just say well I think it's problematic this gcpc doesn't usually generate right it's a receiving right from the department's right right oh though we talked about this pipeline that doesn't exist but to make this the first case I'd be more comfortable with trustees and or selected than to jcpcs is referring to because it just doesn't function that way do we want to say both what do we have to lose losing the motion you go no anyway um so I think if we're going to change our motion that we have on the floor currently then we would need to take it as a friendly amendment I suppose and then the seconder would need to accept that as well if the maker of the motion so the maker of the motion is more interested in library trustees and select board than just select board but what do people think is that possible we can be creative and doing with it with the seconder entertain that or if we can if we can do it yeah we can do apparently any number of things as long as there's a code for it we'll have to check with the matter here on this theory about that but I'm confident and you know refer it to more than one body but the intention would be what but by not just putting it to the jones library trustees right we're not saying you guys think about it in terms of your jcpc process and programming we're saying select board wants to be part of the conversation because we understand you're in an awkward position because it's your program but not your building great I think that's the idea I think we're saying that we figure out when and how it enters the jcpc process and they need to be a different number than 50 000 because we don't know what that number is in what fashion might we work together representatives from each committee at jcpc itself they probably work together and then figure out what they needed to do to get it in shape you're going to need to post subcommittee meetings it would be posted yeah yeah it would be all right that seems reasonable to people so we've altered the motion yes all right it's to include so it's a recommend referral to the library trust me and select board okay I like that because then we're not wasting it on somebody who isn't isn't here and who didn't ask for isn't inclined actually to do anything about it apparently so right and then what we're here I mean in fact it's a little bit strange that they've stayed out of the process the whole time as if it were a poisoned rat so Jim well okay so refer to the jones library trustees and refers it was their further discussion all right hearing none all those in favor please say aye aye opposed so that's four zero are you unanimous and then mr. wald I said I misspoke earlier it's not mr. steinberg of course it is mr. wald who's speaking to this at town meeting according to our charts actually you were hoping usually not library but so you'll you'll then actually want to let the moderator he can let the moderator know that he'll actually make rather than giving the select board position right we'll make the motion refer right away so we don't get in trouble yes we're doing it out of order okay so are there other um logistical or other issues related to town meeting that we wanted to discuss before we get out of five thank you would you like to share with us well I would like to share first which is that I never was fond of that sentence in the first place but we thought it was recommended to us and we try and go with what town council recommends when we don't have a reason not to but I believe mr. kravitz followed up with council so so the sentence that is being discussed is in the article five the prohibition on public consumption marijuana tetrahydro cannibal cannabinol uh there's a there's a sentence that says whoever is found in violations bylaw shall when requested by an official authorized to enforce this bylaw state their true name and address to such official uh the recommended motion tonight would be to move in terms of the article except to delete that sentence so it it it doesn't require the true name and address necessarily be requested or required I should say um so it it changes the bylaw in that regard yes so the only question I had is I know that that mr. kravitz did speak with the chief living stone about this article originally as it was being crafted and we were using various people's model language associated with this and so I'm unfamiliar with other parts of our bylaw including the sentence but I didn't have a chance to do a deep dive so do we know if it was an outlier or was it because what we were largely trying to do was follow guidance from other people and our public and our open container law and our court of health tobacco regulations and somehow that's not right so yeah so town council had put that in because they're modeling it after another town which I think town of norton which they had that phrase in uh and was using that as a model um again we had a conversation with town council this afternoon the police chief did not want this in after we come he had an explicit conversation about this for his sentence with him and um town council said well you can you don't need to include that if you don't want to and I think it was this was happening when our regular town council was out on medical leave and so there's another attorney who's reviewing this for us okay he doesn't know that you wanted to add regarding this that's right okay so I I'm just um not I'm just being on this issue so um I would before we take it out if one of if we someone could explain what the objection was to it and then I'm kind of baffled like so somebody's seen um with public consumption of a marijuana product in public space and an officer approaches them how do you enforce the law if you don't know who it is and where they live that that that's the part I mean maybe there's a common sense answer I'm just like not up to speed on this I don't know it's my understanding that that's what the police deal with daily try to answer I think I think originally there is some confusion because the sentence says whoever is found in violation of this by-law so if they're already in violation it would just be another crime to state a false name um and I think the major concern was stopping somebody asking for their true name and address before they're found in violation so I think that needs to be clarified um I don't know the answer is part of the other by-laws but I think yeah once someone's found in violation so I think that that's how I talk out some things that it would be legal to do but it's not true for any it's not in any of our other by-laws I mean open container doesn't say that and it's the same diff so like it does there it obviously is not essential for to arrest enforcement because we've been enforcing the other by-laws and we have not had the chief come to us and say I need this and he and he said he didn't need it when it was about it so it's it's somebody else's right he kind of drifted into ours and so why start having this and it's problematic because well I think the the thing I'm reading is just whoever is found in violation's by-law presumes guilt in a sense before before actually going through you know regretted it's a civil offense in this circumstance I believe it's it's a criminal offense right so it may be that has a different standing but nonetheless um I think it's you know it complicates things unnecessarily I mean I'm finally taking it out I just want to make sure I knew what I was right when it was kicking out or why I would be taking it out let's put this way I don't think we knew we were putting it in so to be really blunt well I don't think we're all right so I just want to get a little sense of this right and so I think on the the I think also in cases where they may not you could be in violation but not necessarily written a ticket for it and so in that circumstance that would be a circumstance where you wouldn't necessarily need to know their name and dress I think that's also part of it too is that in other types of enforcement right right the discretionary that's part of the discretion of the of the officer at the time I think is the idea this this kind of you know they shall when requested so it obligates the officer as well as the person to provide that information against the complication there but so I think as far as this is concerned we probably need to uh we vote of our position essentially because this is modified motion from what we originally took in the vote on so it's it's inclusive but since we don't follow Everett's rules whatever makes sense to our minute taker in terms of how we can fix this we voted originally on the 23rd for to support the warrant article as it stood we could move to we could move to recommend the article with the deletion of the following sentence and that would be tonight's review of the main motion right but the way I would report it at town meeting is we originally voted to support it on the 23rd and we voted tonight to take this and so so moved and is there a second one second so we have a motion to modify our motion yes or is there further discussion hearing none uh all those in favor please say aye aye opposed so that's unanimous seconded gentlemen with a raise of hand elissa said it i moved it right something like that joint effort okay so that does that one are there other that's why we have these meetings before town meetings right so it's adjustments so you have those little things yes i'm sorry to interrupt but i realize you know i am doing three articles tonight and that's laying on my desk so and i don't have it memorized so i think i'm gonna go home and get it all right you still have a form without you okay thank you you're good all right i don't know what we have much left on tonight i don't want to leave any if you want to leave any stuff i'll be in like elissa if you leave it out there okay because i can bring it out so it'll be okay thank you all right are there any other updates or any other topics related to town meeting that anyone knows or can recall um i i will mention that i uh i spoke with uh some of the folks regarding article 15 um regarding our motion to refer it to ourselves um my sense they were not inclined to to to take make that motion themselves it's fully understandable and so i think we'll be uh you know sort of moving ahead with our self-referential our separate self-referential motion on that so i just want to give you a heads up on that um and then i think that's it for that so i think we have a committee and board appointment and that will be the end of what we have for tonight correct all right so what you would like to make a motion um i move to appoint jane wilder spaces as designated by the historic commission to serve on the community preservation act committee through june 30th 2018 i'm going to second that yeah um so is there any discussion i doubt it mr walton do you want to actually have historical commission i think it's one little story you always get the thought that that i would ready the commission's not historic it's not yeah the thing that's talking about are yeah right so it's a circle commission right correction to the to the motion all right um i would just say for people who are watching um there are certain designated um slots on the community preservation act committee under the statute and the sending committee has to take an action and that they have done that and doesn't even then we have to take an action to actually get that person appointed so that's what we're doing excellent thank you so is that a question sure did i just hear that you actually had a meeting and decided to to refer our 15 back to the select board at our last meeting which was october 30th was it yeah october 30th yes yes we did i didn't realize you came yeah we had we actually took two positions the which looked plain tonight but referring to ourselves as is our three minutes of the two uh it's to not recommend if we don't if it's not referred um and we'll explain all about that on wednesday night when when we get there do the presentation all right uh so just to we do do we think about we didn't take about you didn't know all right so all those in favor please say aye aye three and that's uh unanimous three to zero with two absolutely and so boring any other thing on our agenda which i don't see anything else um i will point out to my colleagues that we do have a suggested mean schedule from january through june of 2018 for you to look at um and some other materials i think that were for tonight's meeting it uh relative just for the early articles in that regard so boring any other thing i'll take a motion to adjourn we can't but he's not here oh i'm going to adjourn all right because i second there is all in favor please say aye all right and we're adjourned at 637 thank you very much