eer confusion on the shift to choosing two from this column and choosing three wasn't easy. And Alyssa's comment on what Minnesota, they are using the multiple slots but they don't have as many multiple slot instances as we do. I feel like we are definitely talking not 2021 but 2023 if we're gonna do a run. So that's a question on the timing but then I had a question as I understood the equipment that there's an option that is more viable because it comes with the hardware plus the software. Does that mean that we are locked into one vendor going forward? So we have a monopoly or if others aren't going this way or do you expect in the future others would offer this? And if it turns out to be a disaster so I think you already said that that vendors machines would work for a normal election also. I mean, normal meaning just so it wouldn't be that we couldn't go backwards but are we locked in then to that one because we're getting, I think it used to be Microsoft had a monopoly in a lot of places because all businesses use their software and you just couldn't break in or does that lock us in? I'll pitch in and answer that question. The short answer is no. In part you're locked into a specific machine once you've bought it obviously. However, both machines export the election results into a common format. You might consider it like an Excel document or the generic version of that. And then any software that's able to or wants to read that can do that. The two options we consider are the results tally and reporting software by Dominion that's paired with the machine and that pairing I would say comes with benefit of security because once the results leave the precinct tabulators they are encrypted and will only be read by that software. However, if for whatever reason in the future you decided we don't wanna use this software to run the election maybe it doesn't have the features we want maybe we wanna go in a different direction that software will just push out the files in the format that you want and you can run them on whatever software you deem appropriate. And just to reiterate, these machines are used all over the country and Massachusetts in general elections just for the normal quote type of election and will work just fine for that. Okay. Steve, you have your hand up. Yeah, so thank you so much. So I have, I guess two questions. So your average survey monkey, you can set it up so that it graze out if you've done it wrong. So like your average online survey prevents the kind of mistakes that we're talking about. So what is it that doesn't allow us to, you say a touchscreen voting and I think I know what the answer is but why not use it? So different places that I voted have used and other states have used touchscreen with a receipt with a paper receipt to have the paper trail to it. So to prevent exactly what everyone's talking about the other question is that if I hear a lot of questions about how can we possibly meet this charter requirement is there such a thing of who would we ask for an exemption for our own charter? Is that the state legislature that can also grant that kind of exemption or do we just pretend that it's not there? Like what if we really literally cannot meet this requirement of the charter? Thank you. So on the first question, it's a machine question again. It's around touch screens. Sure, it's partially legal question. So Paul may have input into this as well but Massachusetts state law basically requires optical scanners. You can't use digital input. It's for many reasons safer. You have a paper trail. You have an actual physical ballot that you can use. It means we can use it with our auto mark systems. And just to address a concern from earlier in the conversation, the specifications don't necessarily say but the manufacturer of auto mark has said that it works with rank choice voting and I know that Minneapolis uses auto mark with their rank choice voting ballots. So those existing pieces of hardware will still function but yeah, because we're dealing with paper ballots we can't have somebody run over and gray out the option once they've already voted, so to speak. And the exemption from our own charter who wants to take it on?  Yeah, I just wanna reiterate that if you go to section 1010 of the charter you know, the RCV commission had to report to us by September one and then because of pandemic and emergency it was extended to December one. But the next sentence is the town council shall adopt the proposed measure with or without amendments within 90 days of receipt. But when you read the, it doesn't say for use in X election. And when you read the special act that the commission provided us through our town attorney it actually has a section at the very end that says to be used at the earliest on what, I don't know what the language is because I don't have that one up but it actually had a section that dictated which election it would start in if the special act passes. So, you know, my logical brain says we have to act within 90 days but that act can be forwarding a special act that says that that adopts it and says it will start in election 2023 instead of 2021. That's my logical brain. We'd need a town attorney to agree to that but given the things we've been presented I don't necessarily see a problem with we need to act now but with a problem with saying but the timing given pandemic, given all of this 2023 is the municipal election it would start in. Are there any other questions at this time? All right, so we have various choices before us. One is that we think further about this if there's some unanswered questions that we'd like to discuss with the commission we ask them to come back to our meeting on the 21st. That's one option. The second option is we actually go ahead and accept the report. At some point the commission gets dissolved and but we hope that they will continue to be their excellent resource that they are and have become and will continue to be part of our active discussions. The third, another option is that we decide that we're going to refer this to a committee or committees of the council. Let's start with, is there a desire to have further discussion on the 21st? I'd like to just hear some thoughts on that. Nobody seem, yeah. Pat. I would honestly like a little more time to play with the mathematics and really feel like I have really taken in the content of the report. I think my questions would, if I have them then would be richer than they are tonight. So that's kind of where I am. Melissa. So while I can appreciate that and this is really complex and there were things as I said at length I have some frustrations with, I don't think it makes any difference if I process it any more than I already have. I don't think it makes any difference if I think it was a good example or a bad example or not the best policy choice given that one set of wording, right? There's like you pointed out there's not a lot of specifics in the charter but it does say that one part about not affecting the higher ranked people. KP Law, to what you said Mandy Jo, KP Law certainly did leave that blank at the end of the special act. So that certainly does make one think that we could say 2023 or they would have handed it to us and said, yeah, I have no choice. You have to put 2021. So unless there's a policy within this like the thing I brought up that we want to change that we want to amend their recommendation I don't think it makes any difference what we might talk about at TSO or GOL or any place else or two weeks from now the reality is moving forward. I wonder if there's a way to make it clear in a motion for acting tonight because I know we have different motions available to us that we could ask the question that was brought up what feels like hours ago about the idea of going ahead and saying we need special legislation we're gonna send it in the way it is we assume we can amend it because it'll get referred to committee, yada yada yada. If there is something that we all come up with a brilliant idea of a different way to do something but I think we've had the hard work or the ranked choice voting commission to figure out these are the best choices we have given the choices we have we have to do ranked choice voting therefore let's just go ahead and move on. Nathie? I'm Dion. Alyssa, I think I totally agree I wouldn't refer to a committee I don't think we have any committee that could all by itself add very much. Tonight's discussion has made me I made notes as I went through but I didn't get all the way through the legislation I think there's some places where we're being given options with a recommendation and I'd like to at least have one more round of discussion where we're all focuses on that and when we all say, okay, we agree with the options we're adopting the commission report in full or saying, I think I like option two better than option one where you've given me a couple of choices you know, there was, you know as I read through the randomly do this versus the guys put whose name is going to escape me from Australia who developed something but the modified weighted version of his methodology which is where we came down with it gets a new acronym, you know there was logic that ran through but I'd like to just make sure we totally understand it so I don't know whether we all have the tolerance for if the three or four places where we're asked to between options to just be get to a comfort level that we're gonna go with the recommended one or whether we have a couple more questions that's so for me one more meeting or I could just send in my questions I didn't write them up as I went through because I needed to read it through once before I could read it through again. Evan. Yeah, I understand Alyssa's position I guess where I'm falling right now is this is going to be a pretty radical change to the way that this town runs elections people who have been voting whether they registered for the first time for this election or have been voting for decades are now going to be faced with something very new and there's likely a number of people who have no idea that this is happening because most of the public doesn't recall all the fine details of the charter I noticed that the Gazette put on their website an article about us receiving the report at 3.30 today so people are about to find out about this given what a massive change this is I don't personally feel comfortable moving on this tonight and I think that at the very least we need to have a second reading of it on the 21st because I think that gives it more time to sort of percolate in the public because it's a big change I actually would be amenable to sending it to a committee even though I often speak against sending things to committees because I do think that it's complicated because I think we heard a lot of concerns tonight and because there are options I think that having a focus group of people looking at some of those options and thinking through some of these concerns especially around timing and outreach could be useful I think the TSO is the committee to do that since their running of elections is a town service but I do understand people's reticence to send it to committee and I think that if it was to go to committee that would be the one and I say that recognizing that it would then be on my plate again but at the very least I don't think we should move on this tonight. Lynn, can I make a comment? I don't have a hand raise. This is Jesse Crafts-Vinch. Yes, Jesse. I just hear a couple of comments from the council members which is based on assumption I think is false which is we present options in our report but that does not necessarily mean the council needs to make choices in the special act. Most of the choices we present are implementation choices and we've purposely left the act vague in implementation while restricting it in ways to make sure that people don't mess it up but we understand and recognize that as the town implements ranked choice voting they may run into situations that we cannot appreciate looking at it from the past and so in terms of the method to redistribute the excess votes afterwards we purposefully did not include, I actually don't know, Tanya maybe we did include Wiggum for now to be amended later but choices in the machines and stuff like that that's not really the count we didn't wanna make that choice we wanted to leave that up to the town to determine what is appropriate at that time and then if they try it and it doesn't work to be able to change it on the fly without for the most part having to go and do another special act. That was just my comment. Yeah, I wanna clarify something I don't feel we should act to actually take the report take the recommendation and send it off to the legislature tonight. I think that is highly premature and does not give the public an opportunity to weigh in on this. So that was not my suggestion I was trying to get a sense of the council though. Mandy Jo, you have your hand up? I support referral to TSO and I still don't know whether GOL should get it we have to send all bylaws to GOL this is a special act it's not a bylaw but in some sense it seems it would seem odd to me not to send it to GOL too but I'm not sure GOL needs it. The special act has some choices in it as Alyssa referred to as Jesse just referred to including implementation date for election. That was left blank. We can't vote on something until we fill some of that stuff in and to me TSO makes the most sense to have that conversation make sure it's there and filled in but there were also some other things in the report that were suggested that we don't have which is mainly the supporting letter accompanying the special act and that needs to come from the council and it's probably best written in committee instead of trying to do it at the council level and do all that wording at the council level and so that's one of the reasons I support sending it to committee is to get a draft letter hashed out in a committee that supports that accompanies the special act when we send it off to the general court. There were a lot of other things that the report talked about too that may have council input that may not some of the stuff about tabulation machines I'm not sure that council gets involved in at all that's probably just the town clerk the board of registrars the procurement office all of that not us picking the specific machine but they did say we would have a better shot at the special act if some of those decisions are made and talked to the election divisions for and so while we have to vote right away within 90 days we have some time and maybe we can get some of those decisions hashed out by the executive side of our government so that they can be included in the supporting letter accompanying the special act when we send it off to give us as best a shot as ability as able to get this passed. So I'm for referral. George. And I'm not for referral or at least I'm not sure it has to be a town committee a town council committee. Maybe it has to be but someone needs to help me understand why an implementation group a working group called what you will but it doesn't have to be town counselors or be composed of just counselors that doesn't have to be a council committee it seems to me we've got enough work on our plate we're also talking about something that it sounds to me is going to be implemented in 2023. So there is the issue of the letter Mandy's correct and Andy's made the point that we probably should do it sooner rather than later but other than that I don't really see what value added it is to send it to GOL or TSO we already have more than enough to do. I would consider creating some kind of implementation group or working group and give them that task. So I'm not too keen on on referral to a town council committee. We'll see you have your hand up. And so the only final comment I wanted to make associated with this beyond the fact that I was going to recommend that Mandy Joe sit down with the right choice voting commission and write that letter because I think she would be best positioned to do that to work with Sue and the right choice voting commission is that one of the, you know I'm always about managing expectations. I appreciate what you said Lynn about the public not knowing enough about this even though of course it's been in our packet it was in the charter, blah, blah, blah I know nobody reads the charter but it's been out there as much as anything else we do has been out there and we're not asking the public to weigh in on right choice voting the only thing we want to hear from them is so on page 21 when we're given options between C and D even though the right choice voting commission spent weeks and weeks trying to sort out which option they preferred do you the public having read this for the first time for five minutes think that there's a better way of doing that thing because otherwise what I'm afraid the public's hearing from this conversation is you need to tell us whether or not you like right choice voting it doesn't matter if they like it it's a matter of if we're going to say we want to hear more public input if we're going to directly suggest that then we need to give them like what are the things we want your input on because there's not a lot of choices here then I'm open to emotion simple motion to just accept the report and there have been a couple of counselors who have said they would like another round of council discussion before referral or before deciding what to do if we just accept the report and we put this on the agenda two weeks from now we accommodate that and then we can do referral Dorothy I was wondering you have a committee filled with experts who are whatever that they started out are now experts in this there was a mention made about people in the town who would have to implement it and I know that Sue is on that committee but in terms of buying the equipment and if choosing software what if there's an interim step where some people that Paul figures out what people from town that his staff should be working with this committee to explore some of those questions and then come back to us with that Maybe John Sorry, I had to find my unmute button I don't think we should vote tonight on forward in a special act it's not it doesn't have everything filled in so are we gonna sit here and try and do that so you know it's a first reading to vote for anything but accepting a report and I'm not sure we need to vote to accept a report you'd have to waive 8.4 and I'm certainly not in favor of that and I also wanna mention about special committees and all and that's what I was trying to find Paul can probably better say this because he's the one that asked the amendment or maybe Tanya Ken as chair of RCV didn't we write this charge so that once the report was submitted to us the RCV commission was done we should check that I don't know whether we have to automatically dissolve it or not but I think as of the date of the report they don't exist anymore and so that you know I can someone can work with someone to write a letter we need maybe what we need to vote on is who's writing the letter or who's going to do that but otherwise I don't support voting or waiving 8.4 to vote tonight to forward anything I would at this point suggest we just carry this discussion onto the 21st and with a very distinct set of issues we either need to do or not do at that point letter whatever the case may be and we don't wanna dissolve the committee because we still wanna pick your brains further suggestions at this point all right we're gonna carry this over into the 21st and have a further discussion please make sure that everybody gets ready for that discussion and we'll come up with some I thoughts about how we write the letter Mandy Jo might get drafted after all okay Alyssa you have your hand up if the sense could be that you as president would talk to whether if Kathy expresses interest not putting you on the spot Kathy or Mandy Jo wanna work on that letter but I don't think we should be talking about it again on the 21st without having the letter and the dates filled in at the bottom on the special because you've actually helped me write one of these letters in the past Alyssa that that's often something I either do or I do in serious consultation Mandy Jo I was gonna say similar things to Alyssa which is we shouldn't put it on the next agenda without knowing what we're talking about on the next agenda and who's getting it done we had a good conversation tonight if we're not gonna have a letter or anything I think that's what we could decide tonight is who's drafted a letter and when that letter is gonna come back to the council for review if we're not if there's no and I'm hearing from the council there's no desire to send it off to a committee to draft a letter then someone's gotta decide who's drafting the letter I'm more than glad to take responsibility for drafting the letter in consultation with whomever would like to help me How's that Mandy Jo you're recruited Okay, do you accept George? Ranked choice voting however still in existence is that correct? It is. Good. Mandy Jo did you have a comment? I think we need to check the charge to see whether it actually exists as a committee still Don't we have to accept their report or no just they just have to submit their report depends on what the charge says that they have to submit the report we gave them an extension to December 1st they met that extension in the past we have not ever voted to accept any other reports Comments Paul and Jo both of you seem to be reading the charge If the charge says that their term extends until December one they're already here as a courtesy All right we will return next week with a letter to the count two weeks from now with a letter to the council you'll have it in advance so you have plenty of opportunity to look at it in the meantime if there are additional questions we'll take them up at that time Okay, so Tanya, Jesse, John, Ellen and Peggy and Sue, thank you an unbelievable job you've done amazing work and you've left us with a lot to think about a lot to do Please do leave town All right, we're going to move on to the use of the public way in the consent agenda we voted on the first of these two issues it was asked that we pull the second one which is the public information and these the signs and so Kathy you were the person that asked pull that out and could you please go ahead Yeah it was I think a simple change the actual wording of the motions as a permanent change in all the documents we got supporting this talks about a one-year pilot so I just wanted to change the wording to be a one-year pilot that we're accepting a one-year pilot and then it would with public use rather than permanent use a one-year pilot to use because I think we do need to come back after a year with a series of issues on what might be the cost for the town how useful was this some other issues that came up with advertising so I just want to change the word the permanent is what caught my eye versus a one-year pilot was what I thought we would be voting on tonight you want the motion to approve a one-year use of the public way to install public information and emergency communication signs and solar charging stations known as the SOFA solar information and communication signs project at the following locations as recommended by the town council by the town council town services outreach and outreach committee TSO report of December 4th 2020 these locations are subject to adjust adjustments in the field by the town engineer as necessary and then it lists the six locations for the signs is there a second yeah so I think the wording needs to have an end by date not just one year because is it a year from when they're installed a year from now I'm not familiar enough with the TSO thing but I wouldn't just say one year I would say until ex-date if you're going to go for a date I totally agree you know from the starting from whatever they first installed so we can you know so maybe needs a little bit words so I didn't want to hold it up but I just thought permanent is very different from what came out of TSO as a one year pilot so the one year pilot starting date is January 1st and so we're talking about the ending date is December 31st 2021 you know I'm fine with whatever the date would take one year after the next question I had and this is for TSO about one year versus permanent is we're going to own the solar chargers aren't we doing them permanently and it was just the three signs that you guys were concerned about with the one year pilot I would like to actually call on TSO at this point Evan are you the person from TSO is Darcy Darcy should speak to that Darcy why don't you give us a summary of your discussion and your report you have the report in your in the packet which is very extensive the answers to all the questions about the super signs they the the motion that we passed was as Kathy said to recommend approval of a one one year pilot program so yes they are permanent structures but they can be removed easily according to Brianna who I think is here so if we decided that we did not want the program apparently they're easily removed and that included the charging stations as I understood it I mean if we ran into any issues with them they they plunked themselves down and you that was one of the attraction about it that we're not making a permanent decision on these we're doing a pilot so I just was surprised to see the word permanent I didn't want to make a big issue about this because I think trying this for a year made sense yeah Brianna you have your hand up can everyone hear me yes if you could speak a little louder that would be useful sure so the the solar signs we are proposing the one year pilot program we would evaluate towards the end of that pilot year or at any time within that year that we were unhappy with the signs the solar charging stations which I think counselor panicky was referencing earlier we will own outright as part of this project however they are movable removable in that sense but we will own those okay Evan thank you Brianna yeah I guess I was going to echo what Mandy said I think my assumption was that the pilot for the one year pilot was always meant for the Sufa signs not for the charging stations certainly even TSO when we discussed it we talked about the pilot when we talked about our concerns they were wholly about the signs and so I guess I'm wondering if if we're if we're going to put an end date on this approval if we actually want to separate out the motion and have one pilot program and one for the permanent charging stations we do keep lumping them together but they are two actually very different things and what we're actually doing within is also very different so maybe this should actually be the motion the only issue is that so there is one charging station with each sign correct no completely different locations alright so here and we don't and the motion we have before us is for the signs not it's for three signs and three charging stations okay Alyssa you have your hand up so yeah I should have caught this sooner and I apologize for that that I did not catch this sooner yeah I think we need to break it into two like Evan said and so the first motion for example could well I could just give it is to approve the permanent wait for it to approve the permanent use of the public ways to install solar charging stations as recommended by the town council town services and outreach committee these locations are subject to adjustments and then list just the three charging stations because that's permanent use it's not public information it's not emergency communication it's not it's just solar charging stations right so take just the first bit of that and then put the three charging stations in the first motion and then we can use up the other language in a separate motion on information signs I'll second that motion that Alyssa just described sort of cobbled together we already have a motion on the floor it is permanent use of the public way to install solar charging stations at the following locations as recommended by the town council town services and outreach TSO report of December 20 these locations are subject to adjustments and then it's only the last three bullet points Kathy you're going to withdraw your motion at this time yes thank you what Alyssa did address is my concern because then the second would be the one-year pilot right so the motions been made in second this one is about the solar charging stations only okay is there any question about that motion alright then we're going to vote on that motion and we'll start with Hanna key yes Pam yes Evan Ross yes George Ryan yes Kathy Shane yes Andy Steinberg yes Sarah Schwartz aye Karen Shalany Balmille aye Brewer aye Pat DeAngelis aye DeMond yes and Griezmer is an aye so that's unanimous we're going to go back to the second motion and who would like to try the second motion I think Alyssa I dug myself this whole to do it so here's my question to Kathy do we want to say temporary and Mandy Joe do we want to say one year from installation do we want to say pilot what's the right phrase here I think one year from installation the temporary use for one year from installation we would like it to approve the temporary use of the public way to install public information and emergency communication signs known as the SUFA solar information and communication science project for one year from installation at the following locations as recommended by the town council town services and outreach committee TSO report December 4th 2020 these locations are subject to adjustments in the field by the town engineer is necessary and then that's the first three bullet points is there a second second DeAngelis absolutely okay excellent any further discussion Mr. Bachman Mr. Clarification is it the council's expectation that you would need to act to keep them if we love them you would need to vote to act or is it that and that we would take them out if we fail to bring it back to you or is it the council's interest in saying we want to review it and with the assumption that they would stay unless we take it out where do you want that to fall I would suggest that we review it about you know maybe two months or so before the years up and that we then would either act to extend or have them removed so the question is do you need to act to extend or do you need so the default is they come out in one year that's what your report would be that they would come out in one year but actually what we would like is the town manager to come to us with a report about how it's gone and a discussion sometime maybe two months before the years up and that we would then act to extend or ask to remove so the assumption is that they will be removed unless you act yes Kathy I just want to add to that Paul I think that two months before is probably the right period because one of the questions that was raised during the TSO is that after year one we will be paying for this except that the expectations they can raise some money with advertising and so what the plan is how it would work so there's some implementation issues aside from were they useful I'd like to know whether we found them useful so before we start putting apparatus all over our streets just because they're cool so I think that would be it a report on how they were useful and then looking forward on the advertising plan Andy you have your hand up I just wanted to point out that we use the term we will review but it actually will probably be a new council and so we should be aware that it is likely that we are passing on a responsibility to the next council okay so the motion's been made or made and seconded is there any further discussion Dorothy I would think the public would be asked to comment I'm trying to figure out do you mean when the manager comes back to when the time is coming up and we're deciding whether we're going to take on the responsibility of paying for these ourselves and we have some idea of advertisement these are for the public they're not for us town council members the public like them did they use them or did they find them annoying maybe they love them who knows all of that could be incorporated into the manager's report back to the council okay any further questions on this before we vote this time we're voting a one year from installation for the information signs okay with that I'm going to start with Dorothy Pam yes Evan Ross yes George Ryan yes Kathy Shane yes Steve Schreiber aye Andy Steinberg aye Mary-Belle Moone aye Elizabeth Brewer aye Pat D'Angeles aye Darcy Jamal yes Lynn Griesmer is an aye and Hannah Key aye that passes unanimously Brianna thank you for your patience and thank you for all your work to check them out when we see them okay thank you all have a good night yeah um rather than go through the four memos that I've sent to you first of all I apologize for not getting them all to you until Saturday and that was only after my computer ate one of them it literally did I would like to suggest that each of you look at the memos I will ask you for individual feedback on the memos and including questions additional corrections or whatever and that I bring them back on the 21st or actual sending them off to the various places any discussion does that comply with open meeting law if we're sending our opinions off to you as a do you prefer that you send them to Athena I'm just asking a question because I just don't know Athena do you have a comment I'd say if counselors want to send their feedback to you and then you're removing names before you have a revised draft or they can send them to me and I'll remove names and send comments to you okay so we'll work out something that's consistent with open meeting Alyssa you often have ideas exactly being super cautious about open meeting law somebody just got nailed for this recently for having a staff member compile the information so if you're super if you find a way to do it that no quorum of the council has been exposed to a lot of opinions of individual counselors outside of a posted meeting you'll probably be okay but it's and this is something that a publication recently complained about for us they said well you didn't list out who said it was their priority well that's because that would be an open meeting law violation because they'd be publishing that ahead of time so if you can find a way to do it but I think in an ideal world one would go ahead and do that tonight and then I'll be here but I realize it's late and maybe we can be super careful okay thank you zoning priorities first discussion and each out yes so I think Sean if he hasn't fallen asleep yet just for later hi Sean we've got two slides I'll have them up for you in just a moment yes thank you I will try to make this in some sense as short as I can the CRC and I'll start while Sean's putting that up CRC undertook a review of zoning priorities for the council to recommend to the town manager principally because we had kept getting requests from the planning department for guidance and under our charge we were able to take a look at this and all this started way back in September it started a little earlier than that but in September the council remember that we solicited feedback and priorities from all the councilors we received 10 responses I received 10 responses that I then published in a compiled list and we had a nice meeting that was joined as a town council meeting and from there the CRC talked about a lot of things and the report is fairly extensive and a 4-0 vote with one absent at our last meeting on December 1 resulted in a recommendation that in accordance with the town council policy goal number three economic vitality that the council to encourage the town manager to direct staff to develop zoning amendments to achieve the listed zoning priorities and the three month ones are on the screen they generally fall into two categories improving downtown zoning and unlocking housing development both of which were mentioned by in general terms were mentioned by a number of councillors and so you can see which ones they are there I tried to describe what they were or what was behind them in the report I'm not going to do that tonight these three month ones it's important to note are interim measures in the sense that they're incremental I guess is a better one than interim they're not going to solve unlocking housing development on their own and they're not going to I mean they'll improve downtown zoning but they won't solve a number of the issues that councillors have mentioned and have had concerns about on their own these are not the end of the issues these are the beginning of a process we can go to the next slide for the next recommended priorities these list the six to 12 month priorities again they are the start of a process and they also focus on two general categories unlocking housing development and improving village center zoning moving from the downtown out into the villages to the other centers in our town for them and we focused on these you'll see a plan sort of a trend here housing development unlocking housing and doing stuff with zoning in our village centers and town center we've been working on a comprehensive housing policy so CRC has housing in its brain essentially and so a lot of the things we've heard are things we need to do and seven councillors also mentioned all of that and so this is what we have the other one we had was consultant money and there were only about four items on the list the whole list that the planning department the planning board and the CRC and the town councillors came up with that the planning department thought would need consultant money and of those four or five items there's already some money appropriated and the planning department indicated that that money was for use in downtown and gateway area zoning and they believed that form-based zoning design guidelines for the downtown would satisfy or comply with the appropriated use that has already been for that and so that was one of the reasons we chose that we are recommending that for the use of the consultant money for the town council and the other one is it was one of the highest ones identified by town councillors in terms of I think it was seven of ten town councillors identified some form of form-based zoning or design guidelines they'd like to see implemented in town and so the report has a lot more information I can answer questions if anyone has any I can do my best to do that and I believe Chris Brestrup is also here for extra information on the specific recommendations to be able to explain some of it in better detail if there's some questions about specific recommendations okay Kathy I'm unmuting you know I appreciate the amount of work that went into the memo we received and I know that you received a large amount of input initially and then I was somewhat surprised to see the result that came before us so one of the things that I want to advocate and I tried to write up my comments which usually I don't do so I just wing it but I think we need to have a vision of the amorous we want and then an analysis of what are the barriers and how the different changes could interact with each other each of the changes many of the changes that are in this list are quite major and there I know there's a definition in your report Mandy of each of them but providing the definition of what footnote A is in a dimensional table does not talk about why do we have a footnote A what would happen if we put footnote A under others also removing footnote M it's very opaque so I went and I pulled a zoning map out I went and read through this thing I said why aren't we just fixing the dimensional table so I went through this and I found at the very end the draft housing policy and I thought it had a really great sentence in it that we need to make patiently for developers to come forward with ideas that fit our vision for the town we have to articulate that vision then act to see it implemented I would like to see something come out first that says what is our vision and what do we see as the problems and then why this set of changes what does it do to address it and then I also want to see an analysis of each of the recommendations what would it possibly look like if we did this and I know Steve comes from UMass where I over within the beautiful new building I've seen 3D models of what might happen if you planned and you redid streets so I'd just like to see some what this would look like because some of these are quite significant changes and on just a couple examples with the apartment buildings 24 units but right now there's a requirement there would be a diversity of sizes within the apartment buildings and elsewhere in the document we want a diversity of housing stock why wouldn't you why would you want to release apartment buildings from having this and one of the explanations is because everyone is escaping to mix these buildings but I've been in multiple meetings at the planning board and stuff we said the problem is we have no definition of what a mix if we tighten up on what it could be and when it could be used we wouldn't have this escape so maybe 24 is the wrong number it could be a bigger number but I think we shouldn't rush I don't see that we have an urgent need to rush we've actually been building a lot in Amherst and when we talk about affordability if we're getting apartment buildings up here where I live the two bedroom units cost $33,000 a year if you want to rent them so it's hard to call those affordable and we did put a lot of money into making sure some of them were but there's nowhere in this document that talks about inclusionary zoning which would require any new development that was large to have some of it in it so I think we need to have this vision of what are we trying to do and go slowly through interlocking pieces the way I've seen Northampton and other towns they don't do a big set they do small sets that come together as a kernel and make some sense and then my last comment is there seems to be a sense that if we just free things up and we allow more to cover more pieces of land where it's all developed not coverage anymore but special needs that somehow we'll get to a place that we're generating revenues to do other things we want to do if that were true New York City would not be in the problems it is if that were true we'd have whole urban areas which we're saying we've finally done it the places that have done this well have a vision they talk about balancing it they worry about the environmental impact and some of them do special permits if you put in solar we'll give you a waiver on some dimensions so they use an incentive if you do this we'll give you a waiver and I didn't see that so I think we could be much more creative and I just want this to come out of the planning board too what is the vision and what is the problem with each of these things we're trying to solve and is this the right way to solve it so I just didn't see the analysis I saw the statements but I would have come up I think with a different set and I wasn't on CRC but I wouldn't have wanted my set alone I just would want to know why these three pieces and I've been reading a lot of the smart growth under the layer of form-based zoning they're interlocking pieces where it's worked really well people said let's focus on this area we want green space what kind of housing can we move out of their big houses as senior citizens and something smaller but they want a yard they want a garden we want a family unit where kids can be with a yard so what does it take to get that to give developers both the incentive to want to build it with some of these if you do this we'll do this for you and where would we want it and I just didn't see that it was more free it up here so I think we need a different kind of document coming to us before I would feel comfortable with it with a lot more analysis of consequences so that's it and I do appreciate the amount of work but I just want why this one why not this one why focus here why not fix this dimensional table and I got into the weeds really quickly and stepped up and said what is the vision here and where do we want what and so I think we need to to have a larger discussion about all of this if we're going to make this a priority and I don't see the rush you know I think we need to think about development and we need to look to the future but we need to look to our past and other places experiences to guide it how we develop is really going to matter because you can't turn some of this back once you've started down a road it will it will happen under its own accord so we need to be careful when we make changes that's my thought and I didn't I don't want to go into the specifics but I'd be happy on each of the items to send my thoughts and comments on it it was a long enough draft that I didn't want to talk longer tonight about specifics Dorothy well first let me talk about the town of Amherst comprehensive housing policy which is one of the CRC documents and I read through it and I had a few questions but I liked so much of it and the talking of the aim of more diverse, moderately priced and affordable housing types diverse neighborhoods and again that would also be if there were an apartment building I would think diverse types of people would mean a diversity of sizes of apartments so I was really happy with that and then I got onto the zoning report and I found that I couldn't follow it and I know that that means that if I did more and more work and pulled out all my maps and my files of which I have enough to fill an office I could but adding BL to footnote B I need to find how it works to the housing policy because I like the vision of the housing policy but I couldn't see it I couldn't imagine it and so it was like picking a poke for me and I know that's a lot of work but we in the town council we are the liaison with the people the residents of the town we have to be able to understand this and to be able to explain things to the people who want to know and that we talk to and we communicate with and I can't do that at this point so I know that's asking you to do a lot more work but I really did like the vision in the housing policy but I would need to say if we do this then that would create this other result which we want if I were to explain to people what it is so that is what I'm hoping that you'll be able to do but thank you for what you've done Darcy yes am I unmuted yes I guess I just would also echo thank you for all the work that you've been into this especially Mandy Joe had a very intense week um um I would also um agree with I guess pretty much everything Kathy said I was planning to say a lot of that so I would just say that I agree with um her statement that we really need um analysis um and um I you know I the fact that we got the document on Saturday um I didn't really have time to prepare until today and uh so it wasn't for a document of that size that really just wasn't enough time and I really felt like um a lot of especially what was in the summary on the first page was not reader friendly especially for the public who do not understand the names of all the zones and the um footnotes and uh there were there was reference to the dimensional table but it would have been extremely helpful to actually you know have the dimensional table in the report um uh I think it probably was very difficult for the public to understand it and um it wasn't in the packet as a separate document it was in the it's in the CRC report so anyone who was just looking through the packet for things of interest they would have seen the two slides but they wouldn't have seen the report um so it was sort of uh not um really transparent that it was in our packet this time so I you know I really don't think that we should treat this as a first discussion I'm assuming that we're not planning on voting on anything in our next discussion um we just won't have had enough time to do what we need to do um let's see what else was I going to say here um um um I would have loved to originally see the actual comments that were made by all the individual counselors um we we initially received Evan's um proposal for zoning changes and um his proposal pretty closely tracks the all of the suggestions that are made on the first page of the zoning report I would I would really have liked to see everybody else's rather than just a compilation I would have liked to have seen each individual counselors suggestions so that we could really dive into them and see what everyone said um that's another kind of transparency issue I would like to have seen that and um as Kathy said I would you know I really feel like there should be an impact analysis I know CRC has adopted a community impact review process and um I don't I couldn't see any evidence that that had been reviewed or that you had looked at environmental impacts or financial impacts, neighborhood impacts or anything like that which seems like we have to figure out how we're going to get input and um evidence of impact on uh people in town so um and lastly I really think that uh probably a large number of counselors mentioned that we need to one of our priorities is increasing the availability of moderate priced housing and I didn't see that stated in those words low income and moderate income housing um because that's a big issue in my neighborhood a lot of neighborhoods um there just uh is we're losing moderate income housing to um investors coming in and buying it up and renting it to students so that's a huge issue in town and that I really would like to have covered so I think that's basically what my comments are Alyssa I actually think this is a great first discussion and I really appreciate the way CRC tried to herd cats because like wow this is a lot and in terms of process as I'd already made allusion to in another conversation we could not have published what each person sent in under their name or it would have been an open meeting law violation that would not have been appropriate can't do it that way I know it stinks but that's the way real life is and so that didn't happen but further I'm not convinced that was that would have been useful from the standpoint that let's bear in mind that as the report says only 10 of the 13 of us even participated in making this list and I myself much better editor than creator right and so there's stuff on that list that I was like wish I would have thought to put that down and then you could have had eight counselors or 12 counselors say that was a great list so I appreciate that this was a way to do it but I don't want to be on board with that but at the same time you know more people I know marijuana is such a special project to me but maybe one or two people might have cared about it if they'd seen it as an option this was not you know this was not a survey right because there's this huge realm of possibility this was just what occurred to us in the amount of time that we were each willing to spend on this question and then you were trying to funnel down from there but I think you were able to come up with a lot of interest in certain areas even if I might have voted for some more things given the opportunity and so I wonder if the direction that we're looking at isn't to go ahead and say okay well you kind of clumped these things so can we pick fewer things to clump because I got to say the list seems real long to me even for those time periods that seems like a lot of stuff but the planning board doesn't normally generate that amount of work over that amount of time period and so I'm just is there a way to you know get down more to like just something around housing and yes I understand how all things are related but finally I have two other things one is inclusionary zoning doesn't appear as a concept in this priority list and so I think we need to address that one way or another I know that some of you may be in public comment but also in our original counselor comments which I appreciate you having the hyperlink to Mandy Joe thank you so much is but I think we need to address why we're not addressing it and that could be because it's just too long and cumbersome or we're making choices here and the words inclusionary zoning do not appear in that fashion except as they're not on the list and the other part is when we talk about our vision the master plan is our vision that's exactly within our vision we don't need a new vision document we need to pull out the pages of the master plan and say this is what goes in this section now we've actually got something we want to implement that goes with this section we are not creating a new vision this is not up to this town council to come up with some cool vision for downtown we need to turn to the master plan and say what some things we can do to implement and I really appreciate you trying to get us to this point but I wonder if we need to just funnel it down further to the next conversation and say okay well let's start with this because the list you have feels awfully big and in some ways awfully technical I've been waiting for two years to get to this so those of us who aren't in a hurry I'm at the other end we're entering our third year and we're finally actually talking about actual zoning and real changes I agree with each one individually we have to think about the impact but I'm excited by this document I'm impressed by the amount of work and so forth there's a lot here we can narrow it down a little bit perhaps but please let us start doing something related to zoning and we've got a number of excellent suggestions an excellent vision here of a comprehensive overall housing policy this is absolutely correct we have a master plan we have a vision we don't need to start creating new visions we need to start applying some of these specifically to the larger visions inclusionary zoning needs to be part of this I agree but please let's not make this the death of a thousand cuts let's actually start tackling some of these now it's three months priorities and then six to 12 months and then we're our job is done we're finished it's a new council so let's get going I'm going to call on people who haven't spoken Steve Schreiber so it's okay if I speak if I'm on CRC yeah okay yeah so really interesting comments so everyone keep in mind that we have a zoning bylaw that basically works so it's been developed over many many years through the town meeting process so really what the goal of this document is to to tune that up to refine it to make it better so we're not starting from scratch we're really tuning it up so really do keep that in mind so the other thing to note is that the very last zoning bylaw ever passed by town meeting was inclusionary zoning reform so that basically that's the last major content related change to the zoning bylaw was by town meeting and basically close some of the loopholes in the inclusionary zoning so we shouldn't say that we're not addressing inclusionary zoning that in fact was addressed by town meeting then furthermore these pesky footnotes these footnotes are I find them head slapping because the footnote can change everything but the footnote also allows special permits in some cases for certain types of buildings or certain dimensions of buildings by special permit so by special permit means that the inclusionary zoning passed by town meeting triggers so by any of those footnotes we're actually addressing inclusionary zoning so we might not say that specifically but a lot of this is in fact inclusionary zoning based so with that I will stop talking Chris breast repute your hand up and make sure you I just wanted to make a few comments I think you know if we really want to go beyond the master plan and start talking about a specific vision for downtown we need to go the route of hiring a consultant like Northampton did Northampton's been working on their vision for their downtown and their village centers for a few years now it does take a long time and it takes a significant investment of money that's certainly something that Amherst may choose to do but for right now we think we have a pretty good idea of what people want in the downtown just by hearing from people over the years so you know you can either choose to go with what we already know or you can choose to come up with the money to hire a consultant so what I wanted to say is as each item on the list that Mandy Joe put together comes up of course we will talk about the impacts of each thing so for instance applying footnote B to the limited business zoning district we would come up with an analysis of what that means what would that mean for say the property on the corner of Halleck Street and North Pleasant Street and how many units are there so we would be giving examples of those things as we moved along through each one of these items and the last thing I wanted to say is we do care very much about inclusionary zoning and there may be things that we need to do to make inclusionary zoning work better but in my opinion I think that we will need a consultant in order to do that to really reach a consensus about what we want to do and we can say that like some of the communities in eastern Massachusetts we want inclusionary zoning to apply to absolutely every residential development and that works for them because they have such tremendous development pressure on them and people and developers are willing to jump through all kinds of hoops to be able to develop in these places but I don't really feel like Amherst is in that kind of position and we in the planning department are concerned that if we apply inclusionary zoning to every development in town, every residential development that we may end up stifling development. So those are just three comments that occurred to me as I was hearing the comments of the town councillors.  Yeah, I know you said I get one chance not to. I just wanted to correct the way I talked about vision. I do agree we've got a master plan with the vision. What I was trying to do is a vision of why these four the long list, how does each one of these and how do they together get us further along a particular path. So Alice is asking for a shorter list. I also wanted a shorter list with these three need to happen together because together they give you this result and so Chris said we could talk about this. This is what I didn't see there. It was I didn't want to pick a few because some of these you can't dial it back once you make those changes. I don't think whatever we think about the parking overlay district of you don't have to have parking once you've allowed someone to buy a piece of land and that's what they're understanding. You're not going to roll it back. So you do want to be careful as you move forward. So I just want to see much more of that inter connectedness and I agree with Dorothy that when you get back to the housing document you see these these words about diversified sizes and then I go over to the zoning side and I don't see the same thing. So that that was just where I wanted just more clarity and I don't believe that just by opening up the ability to build more houses. I don't want to get affordable. I've just watched it not happen. I mean, and one of the reasons is the generator of big demand on our streets and on our apartment buildings is UMass where they haven't put enough people on campus. So it's almost as fast as we can build it. It can be go for something else. So the building that was originally on Spring Street was going to have to be built. So the reason was that's where the demand is. You know, that's we know there's a market for that. So I think we can't just race that way of what we really want is some family housing and some places where people can give up their house as a senior a big house and move to something smaller. We've got to build the kinds of things that people would be willing to give up their house and move into. So what we're going to do is we're going to build the kind of things that people would be willing to give up their house and move to something smaller. So that's the kind of analysis I want to see in whatever the first the first list is out of us. Yeah, I was wondering if the consultancy for form based zoning and design guidelines if that would speak to a little bit about the kind of town we want to create walkable and environmentally friendly and gathering spaces for performances or and we want open spaces. So those are some things we all kind of agree on other than I do get the performance shell is still a little of an issue, but overall we kind of agree. And so I wonder if hiring a consultant which is working on the design and flow and some of those things would address the vision issues and I think that was helpful to hear from Chris around the impact analysis at what point that's going to show up. I just want to also mention about the speed like the timing issue and I think we heard from several town staff about positioning ourselves to come out of the city like and so as we are thinking about some of these changes we want to keep in mind what thoughtful changes in zoning are going to support and attract people to invest in our town versus let's say we want Hadley to also have grow and whatnot, but we also want to position ourselves as a town which is really, really encountering a lot like as we all know businesses closing and whatnot so what can we do to position ourselves to come out of that.  Yeah I know it's late but I just briefly wanted to talk about timing you know I know I share George's feelings of we've waited a long time to get here let's go, but I also really think that there is a rush to do this and I think part of that is what Shalini just said which is what we've seen with COVID which is the vulnerability of our local economy and the vulnerability of a lot of people in housing and specifically the renter population. I know that Darcy mentioned that words like low income or moderate housing are explicitly mentioned and she's right they weren't and that's perhaps an oversight of the report but when we're talking about things like supplemental dwelling units when we're talking about things like duplexes and triplexes those are ways that have historically been avenues for affordable rentals and affordable home ownership which trust me this town needs avenues for people to be able to buy properties and a lot of folks, myself included cannot afford single family homes in this town and so I know it's easy to say that there's no rush when you don't personally feel there's a rush but I think for a lot of people who are looking at our local economy and looking at its fragility the zoning recommendations that can help bolster that local economy and improve downtown I think there is a rush and I think for many of us who are looking at housing situation and seeing people struggle to stay in and or struggle to move to and or struggle to buy their first home there is a rush and anything we can do in zoning that can help create more affordable housing and I think things like duplexes and triplexes things like allowing smaller lot sizes which allow us to build smaller homes that are more affordable for people who don't have the income to buy a $400,000 home but I think those things are important so I actually think there is a rush year beyond just our personal interest in zoning and I think that COVID has only further exposed the need for this. Darcy Yeah I would just say in response to what Evan just said that I agree with him that we really need to have those types of duplexes and triplexes and accessory making accessory units easier and so on but I guess I am wanting to make sure that they are going to go for to families you know to make more housing available for moderate income families and low income families as opposed to just you know unlocking housing in general in order to house UMass students throughout all of our neighborhoods in downtown so you know the more housing we build if we do not somehow have some kind of ability to control that they won't go to moderate income families that's what we've seen in our neighborhood so like I said I am poor having more of those types of units but not you know I worry about who this is going to end up benefiting and we wanted to benefit our moderate income families so that they will stay here Steve absolutely so neighborhood stability and affordability are critical I live in a neighborhood where probably 50% students 50% that live in 50% what am I trying to say mostly owner occupied multi family houses one or two or three family houses where there's an owner and then there's a source of income either through students or other people renting but that is an incredibly you know quite frankly logical business model in Amherst where there are ways of allowing people to it's a way of achieving affordability but it's a way of addressing that you know on the same piece of property so we should not be dismissing the fact that students want to live off campus but in fact we should be addressing that and I think the proposal to allow duplexes and dryplexes or whatever everywhere as long as their owner occupied is a very wise way of addressing these issues but it's the owner occupancy which is critical that there this is a first time we're going to have this discussion and Mandy Joe I'll touch base with you to see if you're going to come back in two weeks okay we're going to move on to appointments there was one that was asked by Darcy to not be included in the consent agenda and it was regarding the personnel board and so Darcy why don't you give us the TSI report and also there are reasons for wanting it off the consent agenda which you asked well in advance and it was not a unanimous decision yes so as you can see from the TSI report the committee voted four to one to recommend the appointment of the five people put forward by the town manager for the personnel board I was the dissenting boat and nothing whatsoever against Mr. Butterfield but it was based on disagreeing with recommendation for his appointment for a three-year term when he's been on the board since 2006 and so I brought up the length of the term and the fact that the term could have been a one-year instead of three and George brought up the fact that the normal interview procedure wasn't followed and Alyssa noted that this was the town manager's practice not to interview reappointments and my concern actually has grown since that meeting there were other issues that we were arguing about at the meeting but since the meeting I realized we didn't really mention this at the meeting the fact that the appointments weren't the vacancies weren't advertised so there was not interviews but it wasn't advertised so you know we just voted tonight on repairing our relationship with black residents and Amherst and one of the things we really should be doing as a matter of course is at the very least advertising committee vacancies so that if someone somehow with some degree of diversity is available to serve we can take advantage of it and how can we ever do it if we don't advertise the position I feel like our current system sort of is that the charter looked to get away from the kind of old boy system and that's what we want to do so I think our current system is not what was intended by the charter so again I am not saying that Tony Butterfield is not a wonderful personnel board member I'm just saying that we have a new world out here and we should be opening up opportunities to that new world the charter actually requires the town manager to set up policies and procedures to increase diversity in committee membership and I think that our board and committee handbook probably needs to be updated and clarified to deal with this how I personally think that it should require that physicians have to be advertised when they become vacant at least after six years of service and it's unclear to me what type of motion I would potentially make tonight to remedy this situation but if any other council is willing to make a motion or a motion to amend the main motion I would second it so the motion is to approve the following town manager appointments to the personnel board effective immediately as filed with the town clerk on November 17th 2020 and recommended by the town services now each committee report of December 4th 2020 returns to expire June 30th 2023 County Butterfield re-appointment Rep. Woodland re-appointment for term to expire June 30th 2022 Catherine Porter re-appointment for terms to expire June 30th 2021 Christopher Hough Jones library trustee designee re-appointment Charles Sherpa employee designee re-appointment is there a second to the motion second Ryan okay now Pat you have your hand up thank you Darcy is bringing up a concern for me that I really want to ask Paul about because I know when the disability committee had vacancies you did not re-appoint people because they had been on the committee too long and yet here we have an instance where this gentleman has been on the committee for a very long time and I thank him for his service however I feel like it seems to me one it's not transparent and number two you kind of and I guess that's your role by the charter but it may it's making me very uncomfortable that you remove people without explaining why for being on too long and then keep people who have been on too long so I'm left really questioning what happened on the disability advisory committee I'd want to stay to this committee and at some point if we want to raise the question of another committee then we'll come back to it but it's the same issue as the issue but then but let's stick to this committee Mandy so I have a lot of questions and I'm going to just put out there that I'm thinking of making a motion but I need to hear from Paul before I can decide whether or not emotion is appropriate and so I'm hoping Paul you can answer a ton of questions that I have the first one is why was a member who has already been on the board for 14 years recommended for re-appointment for another three and four and the one that's been on for four was not recommended for another three but the one that was on for 14 was similar to that you stated that you advertised in your memo but you didn't put a date and your other memo for tonight's appointment for CDBG had a date that that advertisement went on to the bulletin board so did you advertise and if so what date did you put on and did you receive any applications and or I think you go back three years for applications are there other people who have applied for personnel board that you did not interview this time despite having five positions open and if so why weren't they interviewed I don't know who chooses the employee representative that was very unclear in the memo completely so who does choose it is it you is it someone else is it normally a one-year appointment or is that something that could normally be three years or two years you know I just we don't know this because it wasn't mentioned and I don't even know whether Mr. Sherpa is a I think it said re-appointment on this but that wasn't in your memo that just showed up in our motion so has he been employee representative and if so for how long has he been the employee representative and and please explain to me how you deal with the appointed committee handbook because that says clearly that an executive I mean that was adopted by the executive it's never been adopted by the legislative our side but it has been adopted by the executive that in the appointed committee handbook after two terms there isn't supposed to be a preference for a third according to the handbook and then finally can you explain why all five positions are up for re-appointment right now or appointment at all when it's supposed to be staggered terms how did we get to a point where all five all five members had their terms expire at the same time like that should never happen when they're all supposed to be staggered you're muted so for the terms so the under the bylaw or the charge of the actual bylaw the library trustees have an appointment so I make that a one that's a one-year appointment they can choose who they want every year and employees have an appointment so I go to the employees and say who would you like to have you know represent you and whatever names the library trustees give and the employees give and there's a contact person at the employees that I go to and say would you who do you want to represent you how the employee representative chooses that's you know that's I don't conduct an election or a campaign or anything like that I go to the employees for the other two appointments one person had served one three-year term and so I extended that for another three years and the other had already served four years so I extended her two years yes mr. Butterfield has been on for a very long time the I've always said to this like work that I don't believe in term limits that's that's that's not my policy and you know and you know and that's been the case for the disability access advisory commission there have been people on there for a very long time for for a couple positions to answer this this question the I did not see these as vacancies because I saw these as reappointments and so they did not advertise them the memo should not have said that the I think that's those were the questions Mr. Sherpa has been has been on before so he has been he's the employee representative of the I don't know if I got all the questions I was just going to check with maybe Joe were there additional questions I think you got most of them but the charter in section nine point twelve e requires the advertisement for fourteen days of vacancies or impending vacancies right so I did not interpret this you don't consider the fact that a term is expired as an impending vacancy before you even pull as to whether someone once reappointed is that what you're telling us that's that's how I interpreted yeah this was addressed in the memo and four members of the committee found the explanation by Mr. Bachman to be quite compelling which didn't seem to come out as clearly in the chairs comments earlier so I'll just go over what it's worth Mr. Butterfield has been a member of the personal board since 2006 he brings an unusual set of experience skills and historical knowledge to the board human resource directors have relied on him for advice on important personal issues in addition I have gone to Mr. Butterfield both as a confidant and guide on some particularly thorny issues his council has been important in my role as town manager is also established in excellent rapport and trust with employees and brings instant credibility to complex situations as we bring on a new human resources director I have determined that Mr. Butterfield's continued service on the board is crucial to our continued success any further comment George it's time Dorothy I can see that there are some issues about appointments reappointments that perhaps need to be addressed but as a general rule I really feel extremely uncomfortable in having these process discussions done around real people because I think it will make people really think twice about applying for committees though I do see there's some areas where it's not clear what is the ruling or what is the practice what should it be what should it not be I think that should be addressed I would recommend that we not mix that up with this particular process because we have real people in the being recommended Steve you have your I'm going to go to Steve first and then come back to me and show So I support the town manager's ability to feel the best possible team that's really what his job is you know that's what the charter says that the board of directors in charge of these certain appointments and legislatures in charge of these other appointments I respect his ability to do his job I do however agree with those who have said that when somebody's term ends that's basically a vacancy in my opinion and that should be advertised and I think that otherwise it really doesn't look transparent it doesn't look right so I have not realized how much practice I'm going to take I'm going to send a message we hope the town manager you know here's that concern because I agree with those who have said that that somebody whose term is expiring is basically creating a vacancy they might be the right person to fill that same vacancy but it just doesn't send the right message unless we do that unless he does that Mindy Joe and so that Catherine Porter's term expires on June 30th 2023 Charles Sherpa's term expires on June 30th 2022 and Tony Butterfield's term expires June 30th 2021 I second it Can I speak to it? Emotion Yes so I am very concerned that as a Charter Commissioner we put in the requirement to notice on a bulletin board impending vacancies so that you didn't just reappoint someone from the inside over and over again without ever giving someone who's not in government a chance to even express their interest and so while I don't want to reject every single one of these appointments except Chris Hoffman's and Charlie Sherpa's because those are the two that would in some sense never really get advertised to the outside world I kind of do want to reject all three of them because I'm really disappointed that we're not advertising positions and kind of keeping an old voice network because that was not the point of the Charter at the same time I'm also disappointed that when I asked a question about why Catherine Porter who has served for four years already did not get a three year term but Tony Butterfield who has served 14 years did get a three year term the answer was well she's already served four so we'll give her two but he served 14 so we'll give him three it doesn't make any sense and you can get that continuation of the knowledge that Mr. Butterfield provides for a new HR director with a one year term which is why I propose and I'm seeking to amend this him down to one year because you know he can do fantastic work but if we're not even advertising the positions we don't know who else is in this town that can do just as fantastic of work and that's a big problem so that's why I'm making this motion the motion's been made in a second and so comments should be to the amendment I mean the motion has been original motion has been amended and that amendment was seconded so comments should be to this motion Evan I don't think this motion's appropriate this is not a town council appointment this is a town manager appointment the charter says that we have the ability to approve or reject the town manager's appointments but it does not in any way read to me that we can amend the appointment so if this was a town council appointment I think we could have a lengthy discussion about term limits I think we could amend them but I think this this motion is actually in contradiction to the words of the charter I don't think that we have the ability to amend any town manager appointments only to approve but I don't think that we have the ability to amend and so if people are unhappy with the appointments I think they can vote to reject but I don't believe that we have the ability to amend Evan thank you for raising that question I've had that question frankly myself as well Alyssa thank you I think that's an approach that maybe is you know is this an amicable way we can work out a little bit on this point I want to just make two clarifications one is that TSO did not vote to agree that not advertising expirations in conflict with the charter was a good idea that we were happy about that that conversation didn't happen okay it was that given the totality of the information as George explained we agreed with the reappointments that doesn't mean we don't agree with that but that doesn't when there aren't the postings for the vacancies and so I think that's something we need to discuss as a separate process issue to see if that is something because there have been things that OCA and then TSO said if you aren't going to follow these guidelines we're going to reject your appointments so that may be that kind of conversation but the other part is I can't agree with the amendment of the term I think we're going to have to do with the town manager the employees should be picking a person every single year if they want to pick the same person forever that's their problem but they should not pick that person for two years for three years they should only pick them for one and the same with library trustees just like for community preservation act for example conservation commission should not be sending somebody for three years they should send them for one year and if they want to send them 12 times in a row their other lives they should the employees should be making a choice every year the library trustees should be making a choice every year there's a motion on the floor it's been amended with and there's been a second to the amendment although the question has been raised as to whether the council has the authority to do anything other than accept or reject the town managers recommendation Mandy Joe if it pleases people I will withdraw that one and make a different one if that would potentially solve the issue you need to get your second to agree to that yeah so I'm going to withdraw that motion and make a separate motion that is to a motion to amend to delete quote Tony Butterfield re-appointment from the motion and to add the phrase quote to reject the town manager appointment of Tony Butterfield to the personnel board as filed with the town clerk on November 17, 2020 and to the beginning of the motion. I can read the full motion is how it would be. Is there a second to the motion and then I want to discuss why that's any different than the first in terms of whether we have the authority to just to reject any appointment of the manager under the charter and this amendment would reject Tony Butterfield but approve the rest okay alright Mandy Joe anything further to say on that if the council doesn't believe we have the ability to change the terms of the appointments then I believe we should reject Mr. Butterfield not because he's not qualified but because the personnel boards appointments were not advertised and he is the one that has served the longest in contradicting to other statements the manager has already made about terms and re-appointments Kathy yeah I just I have a question um as I understand it I understand what Mandy just did which she in a box she found a way to adhere to the charter if what we really want would like here is for Paul to look at the terms that he proposed and say oh I can change them in the following way um do we have ability just to ask for that because we could also reject the whole group and just ask come back and this is what you want you to address and that just seems to be a more secretive route to go um so that's just you know I you know I will have to recuse myself on this particular motion because I know Mr. Butterfield quite well um so I wouldn't be in a position to vote on this I would just have to abstain um but I just you know it's you you got moved against the wall on uh changing the terms appointments and so therefore you're picking one one out to reject is the way I understand what just happened um I just think it's very unfortunate so that's my comment on this that we can't just have Paul say huh okay can I respond Lynn quickly yes please so we have to approve or reject today we can't send back to Paul without one or the other or they are pocket approved according to the charter which is why a referral back to TSO won't solve this issue for an amended motion or amended memo um and the other thing is if we seek to reject three of the five the three reappointments that are not library trustees or employee representative um the personnel board wouldn't have a quorum okay right Steve Schreiber so I I definitely don't know the you know Paul's thinking about this but I have confidence that he has thought about all of these terms you know he's basically the general manager right for you know if we're a sports team he's a general manager and he's responsibilities to figure out again the best possible teams and I am not in a position to guess whether or not somebody should get a shorter term or somebody should get a longer term I really trust Paul to make that decision I completely agree with the comments that this could have been advertised this is not a reason to you know basically embarrass really good community members who have been put forth any other comment Shalini we'll go back to that friend I make it a friendly whatever and what manager proposed because I thought that was a much better way to deal with this rather than I mean just because we want to be right I mean I don't know I don't know what I'm saying but I just feel that I don't I think that was a good amicable solution that we offer one year while and then discuss that other process as a separate thing but it's better than just saying no and rejecting because yeah he's yeah I don't know there's a motion there's an amendment to the motion on the floor and it's been made in seconded so that's where we stand at this point um Pat you have your hand up I will not support the motion I don't like the kind of process that Paul you maintain where you have one set of rules for one people and one set of rules for another group of people well someone you like someone you don't like I have no idea I'm hoping it's a better criteria than that I did respect what you said about Mr. Butterfield and I can see why you want to work with him but I feel very strongly while I can't support this right now that you need to come up with a real criteria and say to the council this is the criteria I will use and I will use it consistently because I won't get into the DACA but it's got vacancies because the process wasn't well handled and because there was a removal of a person who had a long-term commitment so you need to come up with a consistent criteria or this kind of thing will happen again and I won't support your decision Steve you still have your hand up and Shalini you have your hand up and Darcy your hand is now up yeah I would just say that a compromise mission might be voting for Mandy Jo's motion but with a message to the town manager that he come back to us with a recommendation for your appointment he did say that he wanted to have a one-year overlap with the new human resources director so that Tony Butterfield could help her in the first year so if we sent that message and also the message that we want him to advertise in the future when it's a type of situation then maybe that would be a compromise are there any other comments at this time okay the motion is on the floor it's now been amended the amendment is to basically accept the full set accept Tony Butterfield okay I'm going to call the question on the amendment you vote in favor of the amendment it's to remove the appointment of Tony Butterfield from the list and if you vote for it it's to keep it there that's not true that's not the motion that she made alright what is your motion Mandy Jo if you vote for the motion the motion on if the if you vote for the motion you want the motion on the floor to let me get it back up to read to reject the town manager appointment of Tony Butterfield to the personnel board as filed with the town clerk on November 17, 2020 and to approve the following town manager appointments to the personnel board effective immediately as filed with the town clerk on November 17, 2020 and recommended by the town services and outreach committee report of December 20 December 4, 2020 for term to expire June 30, 2023 Rebecca Woodland reappointment and then the rest would read the same okay that's what voting for the motion to amend would make the motion read voting against it would take it back to the original motion okay any questions on the motion shall we I'm sorry I haven't understood Paul's reasoning for this I'm sorry could you again try to explain what is your reasoning for doing this you're asking Paul that yes please can I have a point of order I think the question's been called I think we have to vote oh you asked for discussion or any other questions I'm sorry okay you can't call the question unless if there's a objection unless two thirds say yeah if I may I think I think the president said that she calls a question and then she explained what the motion was and we're about to vote I was basically indicating you move forward shall we as a question her question is to Paul yeah so I think Mr. Ryan councilor Ryan read the major conversation reason for it and the personnel board is basically advisory to the town manager so it's a different kind of board and almost every other board it is an advisory to the town to the executive in my position there aren't many people that I can confide in when I'm talking about other high level department head level people in my in our organization he is some I find his advice and his guidance being extremely important to me as a manager it's an unusual situation I do recognize that and I hear what you're all saying so I respect those points and I hear them and we'll understand the points you're making and I understand why you're making them but for this particular instance because I need someone to be able to talk to who's not a political figure you know but it also understands the town has the respect of the town employees and I talk to them about certain things that I can't talk to my colleagues about there's no one at this level that I can talk to I can talk about political things I can talk about management things with other managers but in terms of our organization he is the person he is my go-to person that's why I find him by and yeah I'm so glad I asked you this question because that really helps to clarify for me and what I'm hearing is that this is a little different from other regular votes at least that's what I got out of it and it's helped me decide how I'm going to vote thank you Paul are there further questions of clarification Dorothy I just want to say that when someone that you respect was doing a difficult job says that I really need this person to help me do it for the best reasons you decide that that's not important that you are actually doing a hostile act to that person and I don't think anyone in this room on this Zoom's board really means to do that so I just think let's have some balance it's all I'm requesting are there any other questions from the council comments okay so the motion okay does everybody understand the amendment okay and I begin the vote with Dorothy Pam no Evan Ross no George Ryan no Kathy Shane Steve Schreiber no Sarah Schwartz no she left okay Shalini Balmille no Alyssa Brewer no no Garcy Jamont yes Lynn Griesmer is a no Hanneke yes the amendment did not pass and we are now back to the original motion the original motion is to approve the following town manager appointments to the personnel board effective immediately is filed with the town clerk on November 17 2020 and recommended by the town services outreach committee report of December 4th 2020 returns to expire June 30th 2023 Tony Butterfield re-appointment Rebecca Woodland re-appointment returns to expire June 30th 2022 Catherine Porter re-appointment returns to expire June 30th 2022 Chris Huffman Jones library trustee designate re-appointment Charles Sherpa employee designate re-appointment motion has been made and seconded any further discussion then this time we begin with Evan Ross yes George Ryan yes Kathy Shane yes Steve Schreiber yes Andy Steinberg yes Shalini Balmille yes Pat D'Angeles yes Darcy DuMont no Lynn Griesmer's yes Mandy Johannike no Dorothy Pam yes the motion passes 10 in favor 2 opposed no extensions any further okay we're moving on we've already done the approval now we're on to committee and liaison reports community resources committee anything else Mandy Jo? I just want to highlight quickly two things actually one thing which is the comprehensive housing policy draft there was a attached draft of the goals and objectives sections draft policy along with some introduction and explanatory sections we are seeking feedback on those sections so any suggestions councillors have on feedback on how to solicit feedback from the public would be welcome please forward that to me if you have feedback on the document that was attached to the report forward it to me I'll include it the next time we're talking about those sections and I'm not sure my report indicated which chair which committees we'd invited the chairs to the chairs from to our next meeting to talk about feedback from committees but I thought I'd indicate which ones they are and they are the planning board the zoning board of appeals the ECAC the housing trust the PPA and the CDBG advisory committees we've invited the chairs to talk to about feedback from their committees specifically in relationship to the housing to the housing policy thank you just clarifying for the public that's all all right Andy for the finance committee I have to be really quick so I don't have to say that our meeting is going to be later today which is going to happen very soon but we are meeting at two o'clock tomorrow and the two items are the draft of the guidelines which we will then be forwarding to the council this is all according to the schedule that was sent to the council in our report of November 9 and the way that we had envisioned that we would send it to the council that if there was significant questions about it we wanted to refer it back to the committee that we would meet then the following day on the 22nd of December and bring it back on January 4 though there's always the hope that it will actually be just adopted at our next meeting on the 21st and the other item that may come back to the council now is that meeting up tomorrow discussion of a proposal of the capital inventory which was something that the council referred to the committee so it may come back after tomorrow's meeting too so that's the report okay thank you GOL George quickly three things first of all we will be doing interviews for the fincom vacancy on December 16 Wednesday the SOIs for the candidates will be publicly available on this Wednesday December 9 we hope to have a recommendation to the town council for our December 21 meeting also note that there is in the GOL report a timeline that we've been working on this is draft number 5 related to town manager evaluation the process of town manager evaluation and the setting of town manager goals and we very much appreciate any comments you have already gotten some comments from one council already which will be incorporated into the new draft but anything you notice typos, confusions and please read carefully the section exerted in the report which comes from the town manager's contract because that paragraph basically governs this document but we very much appreciate your comments if you have any send them to me I have this finalized by our meeting on December 16th as well and finally very quickly I solemnly promise as chair that we will get the bylaws for future consideration to you by March every meeting from now on we will begin with the homework assignments that I've given to all my colleagues on GOL so we are conscious of this we are conscious of the referral and we are working on it Kathy you have your hand up to the next question I just have a quick question I think I know the answer to it but for FINCOM the non-voting resident if we wanted to reopen the question I'm on finance reopen the issue of whether there should just be one year appointments or longer would we have to first go to the charge change the charge do we need to come through GOL how do we do it I just raise it because I think there's a learning curve on funds and I would love to bring some new people in and have them say for two years or for three years with the idea that maybe even some of them might want to run for council some day and getting to know the budget would be a waste so I don't know when to raise that and we just happen to have an opening right now so I just need someone to tell me about the issue and I raise it when we first were elected when we first ran that I thought those should be longer so I just need guidance on how I would re-raise the issue Vendee Jo I was just going to correct that the current charge has two year terms for the non-voting members so it has at least two so originally I was doing I guess we appointed correct because we were trying to stagger them and we're still trying to stagger them so in answer to your question I think it would have to go back for first of all discussion with finance and then and they would say then to GOL we'd like to change the charge if they agree any other thoughts on that alright Kathy nothing on JCPC yet Darcy TSO I guess you know I can't talk let me second I'm not sure I can talk yet I'll tell you later okay thank you we've approved the minutes Paul town managers report I know it's like there's just one thing I want to make sure that you and the audience do that there was the university opened up asymptomatic testing to the community it starts next Monday you can go online sign up for it it's free it really is designed to be in for the Amherst area that the governor explicitly said that today during his press conference we are still exploring symptomatic testing or contact testing because that's not permitted at this location we're working with the city of Northampton to have designated a mobile testing site in the town that our health director could direct people to if there's an outbreak in a restaurant or a business or someplace and they have close contacts they need to get tested there aren't really easy places for them to be tested but good news on the UMass site and appreciate the work of the university and the governor and his staff great thank you any questions on the town manager's report Kathy you have your hand up it's a real quick one on the testing Paul do you happen to know or could you get back to us is it the kind of testing like the quest testing where you get your results back two days later or is it the rapid the 15 minute or it's just today thank you the same thing that they've been offering to students under 10 counselor comments I want to make sure that you are aware that once I receive the black history month and the Martin Luther King Day proclamations I will be automatically referring them to GOL I'm expecting to receive them sometime this week so that they can go to GOL next week so that they can come to the council on the 21st so that we can then hopefully approve them in time for the month of January Darcy do you have a question if I can yes I can talk good I just wanted to say that the comments for the on the north common to to TSO are due I had sent out an email suggesting that they be due at the end of the day this Friday so if you could get them to me that would be great and also I just my comment from earlier that I would like it if we could have the practice of notifying all of us when we get a referral to a committee so that we all know even if the referral could go to all of us including whatever the document is I'd be glad to do that do it that way I'll send it to the chair of the committee and CCB council that would be great no problem good suggestion thank you are there any other comments future agenda items or councilor comments Darcy your hand is still up but I assume it you're done yes Alissa maybe this may be a finance committee referral but somehow we need to find a way to talk about as a town council what we're doing with the marijuana money we're receiving from host community agreements and excise taxes I brought it up before when it finally started showing up on our quarterly reports we need to be making proactive decisions about this not just assuming we're going to get into the general fund and stay that way is it acceptable to you that we start it with finance committee and bring it to the council absolutely Andy got that one yes I do have that one Alissa has brought it up before and we'll look for recommendation also from the town manager I presume okay and if you would like to bring it to the council before making a final recommendation just let me know that okay now if you want to have the council have more of a discussion before the finance committee makes a final recommendation you can certainly bring it to the council we have a conversation goes back to finance you make your recommendation okay yes any other councilor comments agenda items public's not reasonably anticipated there's none Alissa your hand is still up I assume it's going to go down okay then in that case we're actually going to adjourn at 1144 thank you