 Good evening and welcome to the select board meeting of May 21st, 2018. And I'm calling the meeting to order at 6.02 p.m. We'll start first with opening remarks, announcement, agenda review. Are there anything in that category of stuff that we need to mention at this point? I don't think we do. I certainly don't. We're not taking public comment this evening, so we'll get right into our actual discussion items. Our first item is a liquor license change and manager for pan-in prices doing businesses pan to east at 103 North Pleasant Street. So I assume that's why you all are here. Yes, yes. Christie Boating, I'm the attorney for the applicant. This is Lee Chen-Chang. He's the proposed new manager. And really the reason for this change is kind of a nice one. He has been waiting on American citizenship and he finally got it. So you have to be a citizen to be a liquor license manager in Massachusetts. So that's why we're filing the change of manager application. Congratulations. Does the board have any questions? So I guess just say my usual thing. But first of all, congratulations to and you've been the owner for a while. So you're familiar with some of the problems that we had several years ago. And we really appreciate that with your current manager, things have changed. I was curious just to hear a little bit from you about the plans you have for continuing with the management to make sure that all state and local laws and expectations are adhered to and your own training and how things that you've observed that you think are working well or whatever you can share. But language and nervousness are a different here. He's the whole restaurant went through extensive training as did he in terms of tips and they changed their ID processing and so forth with after the incident. And he's been with 30 years actually. So he's very involved with the day-to-day operations all along and will be maintaining the existing systems which seems to be working pretty well. You're using electronic checking. They're using the state-of-the-art ID checking software that scans the IDs and runs a national check-in. And I guess the last question along those lines is if there's anything you can say or any of you can say about staff supervision and training. Not his training but his training. He's making sure and he made sure because he's really been he's been really the main owner all along so it's been his responsibility all along to implement the changes that happened before to make sure that everybody's kept up to speed. They're good. That's what we're going to hear. I think I'll pursue that a little bit having sat through the series of incidents. It seemed that at that time there was kind of word out on the street with some younger people but that was the place to go and try your identification and I'm wondering if there's been a shift that that crowd has maybe gone elsewhere or different than the clientele or at least an assumption that that that word has that message has been changed. I think one of the things that they did during the time of the previous suspension was really make sure that they shifted focus more on to the food and less on to the alcohol. They've done a really good job and they've taken a really nice margin with their authentic Chinese menu. They have a lot of Asian students and Asian families coming in to eat off of that menu and they also took some of the more tempting cocktails off the menu. So the drinks that they have now are a little bit more not quite as interesting to them. So that has shifted the clientele. Yeah and they've been much more you know much more of an emphasis on you you don't come here to drink you come here to eat this is a restaurant. So right now the the if the customer order the liquor is not maybe only five percent four percent only just for the food right now we just check check everything we order the the machine wide check every day every every time we just check the customer the idea. Excellent. There's just another thought. So with the machine how much and how many try to try to you catch with the machine. I told you every you know every way that I just cut them coming to take the idea to but the machine we order about four hundred seventy every year upgrade about six hundred fifty dollars. But how many how many ideas how many fake ideas do you catch. Oh right now I told everybody no more fake idea right now. But do they ever go into the machine does the machine find any. Yeah machine just go to the inside. Okay fine go. But how many bad ones come do you know do people still try how many people you try to right now but last year have a lot for this year. People kept trying so people everybody know right. So if you'd like to make a motion. Yeah I'm very personal I think that was the one I moved to approve the application for a change in manager for liquor license zero two eight six six RS zero zero two four Panda Enterprises Incorporated Doing Businesses Panda East 103 North Pleasant Street each sharing manager a second second right it's a further discussion is there an extra for a in the motion sheet but I don't think Mr. Timberg read it but it says before move are you on the revised motion sheet oh there's one with the yellow one yeah there was just yeah there has to be in there or not sirs are too far for a noted is it it is in okay anyway okay you don't you do see it or not do you know yeah yeah it's supposed is it for a supposed to be in there yes yes before the it's okay this goes to comma to there there shouldn't be a comma for the number I don't think it should be for a bit maybe mr. Buck I'm gonna work it out for us yeah all right well I just wanted to okay fine I think that's where anyway not your problem not your problem this is the Scribner thing so is there for the discussion other than the for a part no here anything else you want to mention no it's just looking at the application very quickly because the number checking the number but I can wait it's not on the it's not in the correspondence from the application yep the very first page right here yeah the question and we just asked mr. Rockman in the printed motion sheet on this where is the second line I think it carried over from before a it came as part of it's not part of the motion so that's I think we read it I read it correctly so I'm crossing it out okay all right any further discussion hearing none all those in favor please say aye all right next our agenda is uh short term borrowing authorization of ban I don't think this requires any action other than we need to sign it but if you want to um share with us anything about that real quick I'm not sure if you want to sign it an hour later but this is a short term borrowing bond notes for two million six hundred twenty five thousand dollars for Amherstwood sewer project water meetering equipment purchase of the keres property portion of the wildwood school boiler and a portion of the fort river feasibility study you see six quotes and the lowest bid which is what we want is the greenfield cooperative which was one point seven nine percent interest it's a one-year bond registration okay thank you and so at the end or at some point for you to sign yeah we'll sign so I think are there any questions for manager on this on those borrowings I think they're fairly straightforward they're all projects we know about and we've heard about them so let's carry on to our next item um why don't we skip down I think would be best to go to the um item 4f which is the authorized regulatory grant for an affordable housing at bc nor square at the mill district mr. Roy is here to share with us some I think so probably so microphone big shop I think is probably best so just because mr. Berber came in a little bit late the materials that were right there have yet another version of the of the document so I think there are some slight changes if you want to take us through this whole thing the plan with the town you know just last week we learned that the department of housing and community development were not about the town to be part of the regulatory agreement between the state and beacon you know the way this project is being funded it's not a local action development it's a local housing tax credit so they hold that distinction pretty clear the exceptional alternative is this local regulatory agreement between the town and bc north square and you know it'll be approved by the htd the version that was sent on friday you know there's one on saturday the changes have been really minor you just clarifying things uh you know for instance beacon is not on the property they're the developer so typically we say an owner so that's been clarified um there's you know there was something that came around where one of the investors is named in the agreement and they wanted to be on the notification page so that if they there's only happened they're the major investor they would be notified but in terms of you know how this functions the mechanics it it'll be you know recorded first at the registry so it's you know in the positions so everything's important to it so that way if there's a default this restriction is in place so it gives the town the ability to enforce this in perpetuity and that's what we wanted and it seems like all parties agree to that so uh you know right now this is something that you know beacon needs to satisfy the constraints of permits so we have said that this would be a you know development that's affordable perpetuity the town would be part of the regulatory agreement to enforce that affordability and with bc not allowing the town to be part of the local housing tax credit paperwork we have a separate agreement and so this needs to you know this is a requirement that they need to satisfy before they can close on the on the financing and although it's the last minute you know they're hoping that the town would the support would you know agree to it and then they can hopefully close this week. Questions? That's good. One just I think I understand what you're asking us to do um but just my question the last paragraph of the first last paragraph of your memo to us it says um yet the town will be in a lead position at the registry so that all financing and other documents are subject to the restriction and that keeps the affordability in place in perpetuity provides the town the authority to enforce the affordability provisions and or should the low-income housing tax credit regulatory would expire be terminated but it's not first position in front of the low-income housing tax credit agreement that's first position in terms of financing like how do we get first position in the whole deal I don't understand. I that's I'm told it's ahead of the low-income housing tax credit agreement affordable restriction agreement so that this is this will be the primary restriction because otherwise you know the low-income housing tax credit is for a term it's only 31 years and then this is in place when that is yes but so it's first position for the regular term agreement but for financing as well because usually there's like who gets the money for a second third it I mean I got the twice and they said it would be in first position I agree I thought the lending the financing case would be you know the investors would not be subject to it you know not want to be but I've been told that they would be so um okay that's why okay so you had the question I had the question right I mean you know the it is that the comprehensive permit you know the 40B permit the underlying zoning as long as that doesn't allow the developments in place that would always you know facts would have to be an affordable development so I don't know if I'd see the zoning changing to allow that development to be something that'd be allowed by right you know it could happen in the in the future but not in the near term and then this agreement is another layer that would be the town the ability to enforce the provisions this is the loan how the tax program and everything went away this gives the town the leverage to you know to monitor the development and make sure it's affordable first position so it's better than second position yeah I'm not sure you know I've been told twice but just to follow but we don't have money in the deal except for the tax incentive so even if there were a string of loans for a second third it really wouldn't affect us anyway because we're not looking to get money back right right yeah we don't make you know right so we don't have CK dollars or any local funds so we don't need to try to preserve that globally based on the funding it's just on the type of project it is but it's precisely because of that reason that we don't have an investment per se in that that we we meet a separate regulatory agreement then than the original idea which is to have it in common with the DHCD right right so DHCD you know this is you're not part of the financing you're not a subsidizing agency you can't be a part of the you know regulatory agreement right other questions from Mr. Moulin? so there are three copies you know I think last time you should have multiple copies yes they're over there would you like are you are we ready for a motion? I think unless Ms. Brewer and Mr. Steinberg have a question or else of this and we're under a certain level of urgency for for Beacon correct what is what is their deadline to be now that was tomorrow no urgency so those things were always like that um let me read the motion and then if other members have more to say uh I move to accept the affordable housing restriction being granted to the town by BC North Square um LLC and execute the local I'm assuming BC is Beacon community that's the BC is how they do it okay execute the local regulatory and use agreement ensuring the perpetual affordability of 26 residential units to be constructed on property located at 92 and 134 Montague Road Amherst per the terms of the comprehensive permit issued by the zoning Board of Appeals under GL general law chapter 44b is it 40b mgl 40b so we correct that and do we have a date of when that permit was issued to reference it in the motion um February 15th 2017 as amended because I'd like to reference back to the actual permit under mass general law 40b that was a typo so that goes before the word under the date is after zoning Board of Appeals before the word under is that correct right yes yes and uh mr steinberg just seconded yes thank you is there further discussion question it's concerned hearing none all those in favor please say aye post so that's unanimous with one absent thank you and you can text whoever if they ask please let us know tonight i'm sure they'll know and so we have copies to sign thank you very much thank you mr moley so next we have uh I believe review take positions on april 30 2018 and your town media articles we we took a position for free cash so uh suggest was going to speak to that do which one free cash the first one tonight I mean I know that it requires an extensive yeah description so I just couldn't recall I just don't know I'm happy to do it if you or you can do it whoever just so we have the vote down right with right that'll be the the key thing and just to confirm so immediately following 20 whatever it is five or six I can't remember that uh it's 34 correct and so we were going to recommend referral and then if that fails we're going to recommend dismissal is that am I recollecting that correctly is that right 34 that's the north amherstry zoning that is the yes mr canner's heart um I don't know okay I think that that's what we really wanted referral I that that we didn't want to go I think we did referral it's probably because the planning board recommended I have logistics in order here for a planning board for zero one right she says okay and I think that's the motion that there is a patient before zero one that's not accurate one absent but it can't it's not an abstention right we're right I haven't I haven't as an absolute zero no one yeah okay I don't know if that failed we were recommending dismissal and do we have a third position if it's not dismissed that we recommend against I think we implied that with the dismissal one I don't know if we need to take yes mr I'm sorry I lost track of which article we're on down still on the same one 34 there's a series of questions exactly many many alternatives yes because originally we said it was not consistent therefore we recommended referrals planning board um and then what was our second choice dismissal I believe I have that in my notes from the 23rd but I think that I think we took that up I think it was later that we went to that second the moderator suggested that it might not be effective if it if referral doesn't pass then dismissal might not also pass but so can we if dismissal doesn't pass could we not recommend the article that motion that should referral and dismissal not pass I move that you not recommend the article second is there further discussion yes so just to be clear refer into the planning board then dismissal then not recommend okay if there even is a motion to dismissal right we are not making no we're not the motion to refer we are not making the motion to dismiss that's where it also gets complicated we're not making any of those we're not we're taking a position on each of those three options as they come up all right further discussion hearing none all in favor we'll just um as we've talked about before I would encourage the presenter to be quite emphatic about our position on this from our prior discussions absolutely strong stance okay i'm ready to any other hearing none all those in favor please say aye aye opposed so that's unanimous with one absolute any other logistical related things town meeting yes so I had texted mr. weiss the section and I was after I texted you to tell you I wasn't feeling that I texted him to find out if he was still planning to do dismissal for the other article that we 37 that for the other article that we had said was not consistent with the charter but then of course you know we had to do other things after that happened so we had recommended dismissal we were not moving to dismiss our script says that mr. weiss on petitioner's behalf was going to ask that it be dismissed I asked if that was still true and as luck would have it no it's not and so quoting after consultation sorry somehow he was wanting to sign me into the network yes after consultation with Jim Pistrand we decided to make it a non-binding resolution I said select board didn't know that and therefore hasn't discussed that thanks for the update that makes more sense than referral and he said just decided today so I'm not sure how since we don't in fact know for certain what the motion was going to be because it has gone through several different iterations possibly subsequent to the printing of our script or the motion sheet that everyone got I don't know what the exact wording is of this non-binding resolution but it's a non-binding resolution which in fact in some ways surface back to the original issue because originally entire council looked at this cake law did this back in the early days when it was first submitted they said it looked like a resolution it didn't look like a change to a by-law so I don't know what words he's going to actually move as a non-binding resolution but apparently that is going to happen so I wanted to bring it up as a do we have a position on that that's kind of a spur of your work on this than I am it's not about it a few minutes before we get back no not a lot would we want to offer a motion to dismiss because I there's an inclination to do that given that there's many things we don't know and we were under the assumption that a motion to dismiss would be offered and since it will not be I would entertain us doing that if other people wanted to do that the other thing just that I'll mention I was rereading the memo from KP law relative to the warrant and one of the interesting points they made particularly about this is that even if it were a by-law change it might not apply because essentially their grandfathered in by virtue of the way state laws written around that so I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion I'm just reminding somebody yes no that was actually very much in my mind and that was what I was going to say too because I think for me that's a reason for dismissal because we don't know what the impact the ability of the town to do anything that is going to achieve the results that is one regarding this one particular range and with the lack of development it would seem that this is one that would be right for referral if it was a circumstance where we didn't have the change in government coming under the terms of the change in government it seems that it'd be best to just let it be dismissed and come up before the council in its normal course of business. So it looks some of this is what we were trying to establish from the time we signed the warrant when we did not yet have any benefit of council's recommendations as to what we were putting on the warrant as opposed to something somebody said in email today said select board should have just kept things off the warrant if they didn't want them on there well that wasn't really a legal thing we could do so therefore we didn't do it given where we are now given that we were trying to get finished tonight and given that it doesn't matter it truly doesn't matter what happens with this if it passes and people think they're going to somehow do something with it as a by-law it's not going to go anywhere because it does in fact conflict with state law it would apply to new gun ranges but it won't apply to the current one and seems unlikely that we have any in the office so I am more than happy to stay perhaps with a little less tension in my voice on the floor of town meaning that if it was referred to the select board we wouldn't act on it so I before the new council's placed so I'm just not really sure we need to tie ourselves up in too many knots about this I think we could just say we vote no on the non-binding resolution in fact that if dismissal isn't offered by someone else which it appears is not being or could be offered from the floor that's entirely possible or we could offer it but I'm saying rather than what to me feels like we no longer have this nice clear guideline of we're going to do this but not this and this but not that that's gotten much muddier as time has gone on as we saw with supplemental dwellings for example so I feel less concerned about somehow we don't like it when people send a message and so I'm not sure we're sending much of a message by insisting on dismissing it ourselves if the petitioner is not interested in dismissing it it feels like Wi-Fi about it it's not something that to me would be more serious if it was something that was actually going to then negatively impact the town if it passed and it's not going to because it isn't actually a thing we would be feeling the need to protect the town's interests by insisting on dismissal and I think we'll just be seen as fighting for the sake of fighting as opposed to but I certainly understand the thought behind it given all we've talked about over the past month as to how these things should work but I guess I'm uncomfortable I mean I will say whatever you guys want to say but I'm uncomfortable with saying that we should make the motion to dismiss the petitioner. What's so difficult about this is that we're being asked to react to something we haven't seen right and therefore it catches us unable to come to an obvious conclusion that this is a motion that for resolution that would have no binding effect on the town or anybody or including the council to be elected but we don't know that because we haven't seen that and that's why we're kind of in this weird position. Maybe and I hear and I agree about not fighting for the sake of fighting though it is tempting sometimes. If we were to take no position on a mind binding resolution as we have done on many and explain in our your presentation just what you had said that we didn't know we don't know what's in the resolution so we had really supported or not supported our inclination we had been informed up until today that there would be a motion to dismiss we had supported the motion to dismiss absent that we're not prepared to take a position and let other people fight it out should they want to. If there is a motion to dismiss from petitioner or from the floor then we could say our position was to support dismissal and if not not to take a position on the not ever seen resolution and I'm just thinking right off the top of my head does that make sense it does make sense because I don't we didn't get the text I mean I I got a text right but we didn't get the text with the resolution that says this right we still don't know what happened two hours so I think it's all about the statement that we trying to get it to be this outcome or that outcome are we the other thing I wanted to ask you about associating with this before I knew that is if someone decides they would like to refer it to the select board as came up with an article last time we were telling me I would like to know if I am authorized to say that if it were referred to the select board that we have neither the ban like the time to work on this prior to the seat of the town council and the time the time order will probably say something along the lines that you know just referring it to them doesn't mean they have to act on it but I want to make it clear to people that we I would like the authorization to make it clear to people that we are not going to call a special fall town leader to do this issue we can't if the if town meeting votes to refer something right that's why we like it or not it's referred to us but I think to be clear that if it's referred it goes there to die to make a motion about the opposition and because sometimes we ask because sometimes we do ask for things to be referred to us so that we could work on it a little more and rather than bothering to ask that it not be just say if you do that because we think it's outside of the scope of the transition you devote that position our previous position was taken not on May 7th that says on our chart but actually on May 2nd which was we actually heard from the petition way back on April 2nd before we really knew what we were going to do with any of these things but our chart says five seven it was actually five devoted to recommend dismissal not that we ourselves would necessarily have to be the ones to dismiss it but do we need to vote on a position about referral or you can just say it we just we have consensus I think it's among us we knew that's already so we don't really have any information but I think that's I think the you know by not taking position it's an opposition right so I don't know that we don't formally vote on that we trust our presenter to present so so the motion would be that to affirm that we still as in our May 2nd vote support any decision from anyone dismissal yes not that we're making it but we support dismissal and we continue to do so in the absence of additional information and that if it's not dismissed if it comes to an actual vote on some content of some motion that we have no position I guess the only thing that's that that's not a thing that's not something I'm comfortable with until I read it and we are not adjourning this our meeting until the end of town meeting and I think we do have an opportunity if it looks like it is a substantive thing that we may need to ask the moderator for a few minutes yeah we could do that so I'm not while I understand process-wise what you're talking about I don't understand what they could possibly put in the motion that we would possibly need to say we recommend you to feed this which is why or we enthusiastically support this which would be the alternates to we don't take a position but if we look at the motion for is is is to be stated and we'll try and get it from mr. Weiss before if we see something which we think is unlikely then any of us can ask otherwise position of just we know what we're doing if a red flag goes up in the language that we see we have the opportunity to ask for a pause so we can talk okay so I think that that's it yeah that's all we're saying there may not be a red flag because again we don't know if they can change it in two minutes to nine unless he says something to us now we have a plan do we need a any motion or are we good I think I know that we do unless we feel we do later right right okay we're good we have an understanding we have a course of action so did we just agree that sort of motion by consensus yes okay and I just want to clarify then do we know who speakers are it sounds like Ms. Brewer is identified and that one and I have 34 which will come up after the free cash and then I have 35 slash 36 I have the twins and then I can state the note position on 38 we do have a consent calendar item so if you want to take care of that so we didn't treat a new vote on 37 and on 34 did we take a new vote that we were referring planning where we're recommending yeah recommending real planning we're recommending dismissal and not recommended we voted tonight we voted again tonight yeah for that three-part action I just want to be clear right right any more than dismissal then not recommend yes yes but we have to keep doing different things over it over again yes okay so I move to approve the items listed on the consent calendar for the May 21 2018 agenda as presented second so motion is second is it for the discussion hearing none all those in favor please say aye and this is one absent and we have any items under charter transition that we want to discuss this evening yes the hearing on the charter and the joint committee on ballot laws will be on Wednesday May 30th at 1 p.m. and I guess that the question that needs to be determined but I don't know that we need to do that in this session Mr. Slaughter is the one who is the key decider on this is who is going and who is speaking on behalf of upward in the town and I think we need to let that play out in that fashion rather than have we decided now Ms. Group well I think it's something we can all talk about and since we can't do that unless we're in public session I have thought about how we might want to represent the town and I think certainly Mr. Backelman and I think you said you were available I was thinking of Mr. Steinberg for a number of reasons and then I was also thinking about our council Lauren Goldberg because of a familiarity and I know there's been the special other people who are interested who aren't directly representing the town I think a small focused group for the town of three I named it something I'm comfortable with I understand it's the chair's decision ultimately who represents this board and perhaps if other people I mean it's a known date and if other people who were interested in this wanted to go they could certainly organize themselves to do so and but I don't think I think we have to be really clear that who's going representing the town and I think a small focus group is the best strategy but my opinion I talked to the chair a little bit earlier so I'm comfortable saying so along those same lines yeah I was thinking also about I'm not sure if Mr. Backelman would need to necessarily speak you know I think it's one of those things where you sign up and then decide how much you want to do or if you want to divide it up kind of depending on how it all plays out since you sign up when you get there you want to sign up ahead of time apparently and that and if Mr. Steinberg would speak on our behalf just based on um his experiences thus far and then if do we think we could get K. P. Law there? I'm not at I can yeah it's it does it make sense to you? Yes I think it's makes sense I like that idea a lot and then Mr. Backelman as also as reference there if the question but I would I would recommend that's the group of people I would recommend and then it's also my understanding the former chair of the Charter Commission intends to sign up and speak and so although I would hope that person would not go first um I would hope that the like current elected official would do that rather than the very recent elected official um what would also be there to answer questions associated with that do their choice a bit that's not necessarily our team as such right but it is perhaps a little different than just an interested party from the time of Amherst it's kind of an in between sort of they have they can claim that but it's still not representing the time I don't think. Not in a formal way. Mr. Steinberg are you available on the phone? I am I have helped today okay good I wish I was going to serve so I think that I'm please if you would that'll be easiest from that so that'll make that part easier. I have two other things one is got a note from Ms. K. Moran who is serving on the Charter bylaw review committee she has been accepted to a housing list that she has been on and will be available in town until August but wondered if the select board wanted to consider replacing her earlier than later since she won't be here during the key months of September and October she's willing to serve on until then but that's something for you to think about the second meeting of that group is tomorrow they're still sort of just playing with sort of formats on how they want to do their work they're not actually doing any work at this point but they've lifted Mr. Bob Ritchie to be the chair of the committee. Associated with I mean absolutely hearing this for the first time but my initial reaction is thank goodness she's willing to serve on the initial stages of it that's terrific I'm really appreciate that around saying nope gotta act right now because we're we're actually in some ways hoping against her wishes that she wouldn't get in her house we always want for her best to get in her place that she was going but I think one of the things that may arise out of these meetings is that we may see interested parties show up at the meetings who might make a good member and so I think that we want to make sure we don't lose track of it because we don't want to say oh oops case gone tomorrow and now we only have two members but I think it would be better to wait a little bit and but maybe did we want to put something out that asks for another person it would make nice to have an overlay you know overlap along this I was wondering if we wanted to recruit a person sort of who might be interested in attending some of the meetings maybe they have summer conflicts who could sit in and then be familiar and be ready to step in to the because I think we the charge is three people so there could be somebody who attended yeah or started to attend when they're and then the idea they would potentially be the the next member of the left so it gives us time to plan for that that over that so how we might appropriately effective in that career we need to do some brainstorming okay did you have something else the other thing I said now that we knocked with the chair who's who's been selected might want to consult mr. Richie about this too a different topic just sad news to report that you've already been alerted to that that mr. Ron Bahanna with passed away last week as a facilities manager for the town from the years and I had to bring tumor and passed away from that and his wake is tomorrow and his funeral services actually although he lives in Dearfield he had a close connection to St. Bridges so his funeral masses tomorrow of Wednesday St. Bridges I think you sent it to us but forget the times for the wake 4 to 7 for the wake tomorrow in Deerfield and then the mass is at 10 o'clock on Wednesday right yeah all right so I think we'll go into recess the evening unless there's something else quick make a couple quick announcements sure so on May 29th the governor's commission on the future of transportation is conducting a listening session about autonomous connected vehicles on Tuesday May 29th from one to three in the Cape Cod lounge of the student unit Mass Amherst and so people are very excited that faculty are going to be speaking there as part of this as part of the governor's commission so for all the people who are interested in transportation which we know is a lot of people in our community that's a week from tomorrow from one to three and the other is that we know that town meetings since 2015 has been declaring race amity day the second Sunday in June we wondered the other night if we'd already done this early and we had so that was great and I wanted to let people know again that the actual celebration will be on Sunday June 10th from two to four at the Unitarian Church Hall and that it's usually that time and I believe Mr. Slaughter's gonna read the resolution there so that'll be great and it looks like Mr. Slaughter is also speaking for on our behalf at the Memorial Day ceremony so that will be super for those of you watching at home we assemble at nine o'clock on the common and then go over to War Memorial pool so ceremonies would be at about 10 and certainly we'd wrap it by 11. Thank you. Any other? And move away adjourn? Oh no no no we continue we go into recess sorry. We'll go into recess for a little bit later. But thank you all. Thank you.