Hey Lisa. Your hair is longer, it looks good. Thank you. Lisa and Chris, how are you? Your hair is not longer. Right, it's never going to be again. I think we are being recorded, so I'm ready to be called this meeting of GOL to order on September 2nd. It is, according to my watch, exactly 1030. And pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 order 2020 suspending certain provisions, open meeting law, this meeting of GOL is being conducted by remote participation, and it is being recorded. And if indeed. In the attendee room, do you want to admit him? No, actually, I'm trying to keep this. We can talk about this later if we want. But I already taken some arbitrary decisions as chair that I've gotten some grief for rightly so I think. So at this moment, let's hold off on that. Because I want to say a few things before we start. I don't want to go into the agenda up. If that's possible, Mandy, I'd appreciate it. But I just want to go through that quickly with you all. For Lynn's sake, especially since she may need to bow out at a certain point, but also for the sake of those of you who are visiting today as panelists to understand what we're going to be doing. And make sure that it's also agreeable to my colleagues. The only thing I need to do before I even do that is make sure everybody can be heard and I can hear them. And I think that's true, but normally that's what we do. And so I'm going to start with Andy Steinberg. Yes, I'm here. Thank you. So if you are muted, you can unmute when I ask you and then just mute again. Mandy Joe. Yes, I'm here. Great Lauren Goldberg. I'm here. Great. Lauren. Thank you, Lynn. Lisa Clausen. Yep. Thank you, Lisa. Great. Pat D'Angeles here. And Chris Therese present. Great. I think is that everybody at my screens a little truncated, but I think that's everybody. So everyone can be heard and is present. Otherwise, I'd like you for the moment to mute yourselves. Since we have so many people on background noise. So I'm going to turn off the telephone sometimes, which I think I've disconnected. Yes, I have. So hopefully that won't come in. If you look at the agenda quickly, we're going to begin with the discussion of wage theft bylaw. And then we're going to turn to goals. And I'm imagining this first part will take no more than an hour. Hopefully not that much, but that's what I budget for it. The second half of the meeting will focus on goals to give Lynn some idea. We do have a couple of sets of minutes to look at the August 19 minutes are not in your packet. And that is the fault of your chair, not the fault of the clerk or of the minutes taker. I had them in time. And I thought I put them in, but I did not. So we only have the July 29 August five minutes, but I do hope we can get to those today briefly and get them out the door. August 19 will have to wait until next time. Briefly, way I want to handle this and my committee members are welcome to weigh in. I would like to begin with Lauren and questions that this committee has for her of the based on the memo that KP law sent to us. And asking her to respond to those questions and have a back and forth with the committee. When that is finished, I would ever point that is finished. Then I would turn to the committee members and ask them if they have any questions for our two guests panelists. At that point, they're, you know, based on whatever questions they're asked, they're free to respond, but I would ask that we not have a back and forth between the attorneys. I would ask that there not be any statements made our focus today. Since this is GOL is really not on specifically the merits or demerits of this bylaw but on its legal repercussions and we have invited Lauren here as our town attorney to advise us on that specific issue. And that's the focus of this first hour. So, once we're done with questions for Lauren and Lauren has answered them to the best for ability. I will turn back to the committee and ask them if they have any questions for our visiting panelists. I invited Chris series at a request by Lisa, I think I explained that to an email. I realized I may have exceeded my authority, but I felt that if I waited, we would have had yet another two week delay. And since your questions for Lisa, as my understanding was your questions for her are on the issue of legal matters. It seemed appropriate and useful for her to invite Chris, who is, I think someone who's particularly versed in that. So, any comments or concerns about what I've just laid out. Okay, I hear none I see you can raise your hand or you can just physically raise your hand. I'll respond to either.  Thank you. I'm just wondering about letting in attendees because this meeting is posted as a public meeting right. I just don't want to run into any issues so I think people that are attendees I don't believe can speak without permission in any event, but at least get to listen. Right, so our customers been in the past to bring attendees into the meeting during public comment, or when the committee request that they be brought in as part of the discussion. And so I've made to I made Lisa and Chris panelists, because I had been asked by the committee to invite them. Perhaps it would have been wiser for me to keep them as attendees and then invite them into the meeting at the appropriate point. Anyway, that's perhaps my mistake, but go ahead. Thank you. I wasn't concerned about about them being on the panel that's completely fine. I just want to make sure that the attendees were actually allowed because I know that the council president had mentioned that there are people in the waiting room. So I just didn't want to have us running. There are, there are no people in a waiting room at this point at all that I can tell. Right. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Sorry. The 10D is Paul Bachleman. Right. And Margaret. Who's he? I'm sorry, Paul, who? All right. That's my end of the humor for today. Any other questions, comments. I was wondering about bringing the time manager into the room. I will certainly do so if we wish. Is that what people would like? He has said that he would just to soon listen and not be brought in. He's only right. That's okay. And also we see Kathy Shane is here as a panelist. Good morning, Kathy. She also was invited to this meeting. And so she is. Well, she's welcome to come anytime, but she's a panelist. It's also one of the sponsors. Thank you. Exactly. Thank you, Pat. All right. I don't see the need to put the memo up on the screen, though we could if we want to. That's really up to the committee members. You've all had a chance to read it. I think one of the questions that certainly I have, but I'm going to, well, we'll wait for my questions. Let's turn to my colleagues. And again, I just want to make sure that we have a little bit of time. I just want to address to Lauren. Your questions or concerns about that memo. Again, you can just raise your hand or use the raise hand function. Hopefully I can see both. I can see both. I think I think I'd like to hear Lauren's reasoning behind. I don't have a memo in front of me. Put it on the screen. I don't have a memo in front of me. I'm sorry. I apologize. I thought I had printed it out. I'm concerned about your reaction. Or the statement that bylaws should be aspirational. That doesn't make sense to me since we're a legislative body and we're creating bylaws. That people are going to be following in our town. I'm kind of, I'd like some clarification on the problems that you see. I think we're going to have to talk a little bit more about what we're talking about. About the number of African-Americans. The divert women, veterans, et cetera. Because we're saying that if a contractor does. Tries to get that compliment of people or those percentages and can't that they're not punished or kept from bidding. And, and if that's the case, they're not going to be looking to fill positions. So I just want some clarification there. And also about aspirational bylaws. Mr. chair, if I may. Please go right ahead. Thank you. So I guess I should start this off by saying, and I, if we can just back up a tiny bit, I think it would be useful. Obviously the town's legislative body has the ability to promulgate bylaws, essentially ordinances, without any review by the attorney general. And one of the things that we find that happens with respect to the cities is that there are bylaws adopted that probably can't be enforced, even though they're a really good idea. And so to that end, when you look at a composition, when you're mandating composition of committees or your, you know, establishing committee requirements, it is often the case that we would refer to that as aspirational rather than mandatory. So essentially it's a guide for the legislative body or the appointing authority with respect to who, you know, should be included. And, and so that's, that was kind of the, that's the aspirational versus mandatory issue that I was discussing with respect to these bylaws. There are obviously responsible contractor and tip, tip wage theft bylaws in many cities. And what we've discovered when we look at them as they're all, there, there are some similarities and there's some differences. But I think the biggest issue is the idea of trying to regulate something that is significantly regulated by state law. And so when those two things coincide or in conflict, you know, what, what is the result there? So, you know, I've had the opportunity to take a look at a number of bylaws. And I would say, so, you know, under state law generally municipalities, and this is just for an example, can assess fines under the non criminal disposition process up to $300 a day. And if you want to assess a fine under non criminal disposition, you have to say what that amount is. So first violation, second violation, third violation. And I think you guys, you know, are familiar with that process. In addition, a court can enforce something and they can enforce it. And they also have the right to do up to $300 a day for violations of municipal bylaws and ordinances. And so the difference is that the higher numbers that are referenced, for example, the $1,000 or $500, those are typically amounts that are found in a statutory scheme that allows for enforcement by different entities. So for example, in our view, there is a little bit of kind of confusion about what the state, what role the state would have in these things and what role the town would have in these, you know, just as an example in Boston, their living wage law ordinance applies to only those projects that aren't subject to the prevailing wage law. And the idea there is that prevailing wage law is covering a significant amount of information. Bottom line from my perspective is this is an important issue. Obviously we know there are more and more communities looking at this and adopting bylaws in this context. I think there's some towns are heading that way as well. And the AG will have an opportunity to look at those. But I think the idea of how would we implement, how would we enforce what kind of resources we're going to assign and then that bigger question about the way these two things interact, the state law and the local law. So again, I mean, obviously the draft that you prepared is well done and thoughtful. I would expect nothing less from Amherst. And, you know, it's not our job to say you can't do that. We wouldn't say that. I do think there are just things to be aware of where there may be difficulty enforcing and where, you know, the difference between state and local law may create an issue. Good. Thank you. Did you have a follow up, Pat? I'm just looking at the letter from crack out source and Landry and they're talking about. That yes, we need to follow state law, but we also a municipality. I think that's a great point and yes, that is true is as everybody knows, like for example, under the wetlands protection act, there are certain minimum standards, but a municipality may make those standards more significant. So they can create a larger buffer zone or an additional local enforcement. And again, I think the same issue. Applies here. My concern isn't that it's automatically inconsistent with state law. It's that there may be instances where making a more stringent or more restrictive local law may undermine or be in conflict with the state law requirements. So for example, prevailing wage is what prevailing wage is. It applies the way that applies to state law. And so if we are adding to that or changing the standards, you know, that could, that could raise an issue. Again, my, my analysis of these issues is not intended to preclude or to suggest that, you know, we're saying, you can't do this. Of course, you have the ability as a legislative body to come together with the state law requirements. So for example, prevailing wage is what prevailing wage is. It applies the way that applies under state law. It applies the way that the legislative body to come up with a scheme that, that you believe is appropriate. The question really comes from my perspective and enforcement and administration and how we make sure that there aren't conflicts with state law and doing so. Mandy, please. Sorry, as host, I can't actually use the raise hand button. So I'm going to have to just. Either is fine. So I guess I have. One topic, one question of clarification. And one sort of new question that relates the question of clarification is we have two bylaws and most of what you addressed in the. Email and most recently was related to the. Tiff and contracting bylaw. But you just said one thing that would relate to the wage and tip theft, which is the criminal enforcement block includes a thousand dollars right now. And so I guess my clarification is, is that legal to have it at a thousand or do we, in order to have this sort of generally be legal, must we reduce that as a GOL because we're looking at actionability here to 300 dollars. And we have per grieved party. Could we do that per grieved party per day? And so that would increase sort of the thing, because you mentioned a per day. So those are my questions related to that. So I guess I'm going to go back to the, I think I'm going to go back to the, I think I'm going to go back to the, I think it's just like in your email, you had no other concerns with that particular bylaw, the wage and tip theft. And so I'd want to confirm that. And as to the contracting bylaw. What. I know you're going to say it depends because that's the favorite answer of attorneys. But I am curious what your thoughts are on. The potential for. The potential for the wage and tip theft bylaw. I do think generally that there are some issues with it.  So I mean that's, that's kind of where that comes down. I know that there has been legislation pending state wide every single year. I think since 2015, it might be since 2014 on wage and theft. theft and so I do think there are issues if they didn't need to do a state law. I think there would be more examples of local bylaws that are doing that. Again as I said I've noticed there are several in cities and again my comment was that the Attorney General wouldn't have reviewed those and that's okay. I mean you know it's okay to push the boundaries and it's okay to establish priorities and under the Home Rule Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution every city in town is given the ability to adopt bylaws and ordinances that are not in conflict with state law. So if we were to be challenged you know after passage of this then that's what we would be arguing. We'd be arguing that we have the ability on a local level to do anything that's not inconsistent with state law and we would lay out the reasons why we believe it is not. Again I think it would be more on a case-by-case basis that we might see a challenge. So for example if someone's a losing better that they would you know be able to raise that and say well that unfairly affected my proposal. Now as was pointed out and also said in the bylaw that those that the inability to get different members I'm sorry to hire different folks wouldn't be negatively held against someone or wouldn't be held against someone but the fact that it's there suggests that it's a priority which could then affect the way that the town's you know procurement process would unfold. I know I mean and I don't want to overstate there are many towns that have bylaws like this the responsible contractor bylaws and it is it is the case that they have been approved by the Attorney General. So again I think the the real issue is to try and review what you have drafted and see where the potential the more significant potential risks are and tweak for that and you know again knowing this is an important issue in the town and so you know as I said earlier I think there's always value in kind of looking at these things from the side of what leaves us subject to challenge and Mandy Jo I know you know you said that the lawyer in me was going to want to respond it depends and that's true the reason being is that as the town's lawyer my job is to essentially point out all the risks and then facilitate you getting done what you want to get done so you know I didn't go through word by word by word and provide you with a revised draft I'm certainly happy to do so at a future point and especially after I see you know especially after I hear your feedback it'd be helpful for me to understand exactly why you made the choices that you did but on the other hand you know and again I don't think it's illegal to have a wage and tip theft bylaw and I don't think it's illegal to have a responsible contractor bylaw so bottom line is it's a policy decision about what to include in those bylaws um and again the conservative side of me says let's think about how we would implement this what kind of local infrastructure we need and how would we fund it and how would it operate and what would the the actual practical challenges on the ground be rather than just the words in the document so yeah I see let me go to Lynn first then Kathy Lynn uh why don't you go to Kathy as a cosponsor and then come back to me all right Lynn passes Kathy you're on thank you Lynn um thank you Lauren um I I have a follow-up question to the same issues that we initially focused on the thousand dollars and the five hundred dollars does state law currently have a penalty for retaliation because the thousand dollars is attached to retaliation so that's just a pure question and it shows that I do not know what the state law does now so we went high on that to be really just don't do this you know discouraging people from even filing or making threats and then our process violation the other one that's at 500 it's Mandy's question if we were at the 300 level will that preserve be more protective of us so then my last comment is we already have an employer responsible employer on the books the main change that we've done is we've expanded it's what pat flag we've expanded um make a good faith effort on women and minorities um and we know that uh the state is doing that in their contracting as is message is mass so we looked and said there are other places that are doing this so even on undue burden to a contractor if they're a big contractor they're used to bidding with having to provide this kind of information so um I didn't know whether you thought that was problematic or not but we purposely did it knowing that it was already in other bylaws um and I guess that was one main change we made with the responsible employer and then we brought in tiff that we can um if if and we only have one time we've done this in Amherst but if we've given tax relief we put your tax relief money at risk if you violate you know so that's just a separate so so otherwise the responsible employer piece was expanded rather than brand new to Amherst so so I just wanted to get your thinking on the retaliation issue and the process issue on 500 versus 300 thank you um so let me first say that under state law unless there is another particular section or a particular fine that's allowed it to be enforced locally or criminally then the actual limit is 300 dollars per violation per day um and that's the highest amount a court can go unless something in a statute says otherwise so for example let's just take the wage and theft um bylaw for a second um the wage theft bylaw um if there is a criminal um a criminal action brought then a judge would have the ability to issue a violation up to the amount allowed by statute but a town in my experience doesn't get to just adopt that into their own bylaws or ordinances it's the state statute that's the enforcement mechanism available and that's how they can enforce so when we're talking about um inconsistencies with state law that's a kind of thing we're talking about if the law said local official I mean local this can be addressed by local bylaw and enforced in the same way well now we have you know a higher um a higher uh non criminal or non criminal um number to pursue uh penalty to pursue but other than that you're stuck with this 300 a day and there's very few exceptions although there are some in there for um you know the types of things that you might imagine like um hazardous waste and that kind of stuff um which mandi joe is a very legal term you know stuff um so I guess my you know I come back to if something's a violation of state law it's a violation of state law and the town doesn't need to to or or or the town doesn't have the authority to prosecute those those violations under state law attorney general the division of fair labor standards um they have authority under state law to um to enforce wage and theft issues and um uh prevailing wage the town bylaw a violation of a town bylaw um you know there there are things that that the town can do that aren't essentially adopting the state law into the town bylaws and saying a violation of this is also a violation so um do I think you can have for example a um you know the the licensing board um you know investigate investigate violations of course I do absolutely um do you do I think that you could have a um you know a coordinator who basically keeps track of wage and theft violation counts or claims um could you require that they be filing those with with the town when it's filed with the state I think you could um but the state law is enforced by the state and the town's bylaw would be a different type of enforcement mechanism so just to try to make my first question does the state law already have the penalty for retaliation yes there um adverse action civil penalty of up to $15,000 per violation payment of one and two months wait payment of between one and two months wages and a fine of not more than 25,000 are imprisonment for not more than one year for first defense so the state has laws that address that and have criminal penalties um for violating the law okay thank you uh Lynn thanks so I'm somebody who likes to have some real examples and so to the extent um I didn't mean to spring this on you but you know let give me a real example and what could go wrong of course uh workers right outside the window just gonna mute you for one second and excuse me I apologize um so I mean I think this let's think about it in the prevailing wage context the prevailing wage law says that um you know any uh construction public works contract has to uh comply with prevailing wage um and so the town layers on requirements that are different or in addition to um and that is found to be a violation um by the licensing board or or whatever and they try to enforce um under the bylaw and the person says I've already complied with prevailing wage so how can I have violated you know anything locally um I complied with state law in this regard um and again I think that's why Boston's prevailing well it's like healthy living wage law exempts anything um that would already be subject to prevailing wage because that's a statutory scheme that's out there so the contractor comes back they say I've abided by state law but they didn't abide by local what is our recourse I think the question becomes Lynn that uh does the town have the ability to require uh action action that's more than what's required under the prevailing wage law with respect to wages and does that then disadvantage the contractor because they're complying with state law um and you know their their compliance is uh jeopardized or their their contract is jeopardized by not meeting local local requirements that are so under that scenario we could start down the road with a contractor they could have a um suit brought against them for violation of the local law and would this cause them to stop work well I think that's the question right how do we enforce a violation of the local law um and again these aren't these aren't um issues that arise just in this context and um the the question of whether the quote unquote field has been occupied by state law is um one that is uh debated roundly uh by the attorney general almost every time they look at bylaws um and it is um one of the subject matters that winds up being litigated so for example that conservation commission example I gave you earlier um was actually decided um by a court so um you know again I think it's trying to think through some of the ways that the practical side of this plays out and to um you know essentially gird against uh there being repercussions that would at least give a um uh dissatisfied contractor some leverage are we more at risk if over the issue of the amounts or over the issue of the condition that was violated um that is a good question to the extent that the amounts are not authorized by state law the town could not enforce against a company that chose not to comply because if it says there's going to be a five thousand dollar violation but there's no law that says it can be five thousand dollars the town can't enforce that so the condition is much more likely to be the the place where the town has the ability to um craft a bylaw that is not inconsistent with state law um rather than than the amount that that five thousand dollar amount and unless anybody knows of a provision of law that says that um violation of a town bylaw even one on this subject can be enforced through criminal complaint to five thousand dollars and just I don't think the law is there to support that um but you know I uh I think we're all learning as we go especially with the wage and theft bylaw wage theft bylaw that um or wage theft laws that um are as I said earlier they're becoming more and more uh common um in cities especially and I do know of at least one town and then in addition to that um there is some legislation pending with a report out date of October 20th um and I'm happy to forward that to you guys if you don't already have it if we if you were going to review and revise anything in this bylaw would it be more around the fees or would it be anything related to the conditions for violation um so the the amounts I would definitely address um because you know as I said I I think there's an issue there um and unless I mean again I think you know my job is not to stand in the way of you doing something that you want to do but it's to have you be able to do it in a way that doesn't expose you to risk um and at that point or the amount of risk that you might be willing to take on is completely up to you and I don't want my comments to be interpreted in a different way um at ultimately I think the question of how this law would be enforced is something that um we could take a closer look at and see and again I'm talking about the tip and wage theft um and see where because even if you just look at it quickly it lists all the state laws that are at issue and so um kind of bringing that state law right into the bylaw and then providing for a different resolution I think we could craft something that's a little bit separate um from the state law um but that um you know so that there's not a uh you know a law being enforced at the state level and also possibly at the local level thank you uh pan I see your hand actually I'm sorry Andy has his hand up and then I'll go to pan Andy hi uh good morning uh Lauren so I was thinking of um three different things uh that I have to say that uh the one of the things that causes me to at least um pause for a moment and even though I'm really a most supporter of what we're trying to accomplish here um is the cost of enforcement and um how what kinds of experiences other cities have had that have these kinds of bylaws regarding the amount of staff time and um frankly city attorney time that gets involved in the enforcement process um I think the council at least ought to be aware of what the expense might be and I don't know if you have any comments on that so that's topic one I don't know if you want me to handle them separately I had three things so I'll pause I'm happy to respond to that in the city of Boston and again just as an example in addition to their wage and theft I mean their their healthy living um a healthy wage um bylaw they have about 15 pages of regulations about how to implement it it seems to me like there's a lot of um resources that are directed at that um again you know the the level to which the town chooses to enforce as you know the town has a lot of bylaws and we don't go around um enforcing each of them every day there's a certain amount and this is kind of back pat to what I was saying about aspirational there's a certain amount of um purpose with the laws that just to say this is what we're looking for and we expect you to meet that um we don't have the resources to go and enforce everyone and in fact if you look at you know where cities and towns um incur a lot of legal expenses it is with respect to enforce uh enforcement actions um land use enforcement actions um bylaw enforcement actions because you know they're they're uh they're not um cut and dry it's one person's opinion compared to another person's opinion so the more um you know the more uh that there is left to discretion the more the easier it is to challenge again I don't think that means you can't have a bylaw and I don't think it means that you can't have one that wouldn't lead to a significant amount of liability I think it's worth thinking about at this stage or potential liability um what is the town's willingness to invest in um in this process and you know I I read all the articles I know that there's a significant interest in moving forward with this and I and I think that's great um you know again it's more of a what's the 360 view from a practical side and how do we best limit potential liability um and I'm sure you know I I don't want to um I don't want to uh um undermine the or I I I I guess I should point out that it is always possible to make good arguments um for and against something and lawyers often do that um but at the same time you know there's there's kind of some things that are very um that are kind of just plain plain truths and so the plain truth is if having a six foot fence is a violate or six foot if there's a six foot fence limitation and someone puts a six foot eight fence up well we can look at that and we can say it's a violation and if we had to go to court and we said we told this person to take down the fence they didn't have any other you know grandfathering or I know that's not a term we're using right now they didn't have any prior prior allowable use and so that fence needs to come down well that's easy because it's obviously a violation it's a six foot eight fence instead of a six foot fence um it becomes harder when we're being asked to kind of involve ourselves in the um kind of internal operations of private businesses and businesses that yes are contracting with the town and so um you know we do have the ability to limit some or to impose some conditions but ultimately that you know to the extent that something requires um you know a weighing of one person's word against another and one person's documents against another you start down a road that is potentially litigious because whoever doesn't win is going to have um you know uh in theory would have a reason to challenge um and I think that's for any new bylaw and I don't want to suggest that it's just a wage and tip bylaw or just the responsible contractor bylaw um these are the kinds of things that we deal with on a regular basis um and you know bottom line is if this is what's important to you and you choose to do it um then you know the council will I'm not not the town council but town attorney um will defend your actions to the best ability of their um based on the facts and the law and there will always be good arguments to make about why um it is consistent with law and why there um why it is clear cut and not a gray area um but again I think at this point you're kind of looking towards the future and saying is this is this something we're willing to invest in is this something that we think the town can enforce and what kind of resources do we have to to put to that um and to kind of dedicate to um enforcing this this bylaw thank you um to go on to the second of my three questions and that has to do with um the definition that we've given to tax relief and that's really something I um posed for the sponsors to to um tax relief as it's defined in the bylaws then talks about the TIF program we actually have a very important additional tax relief program that we established which is kind of unique to Amherst having to do with uh the affordable housing and allowing the town to grant tax incentives for affordable housing units and in fact that was granted by the select board for North Square and North Square has actually been one of the um projects that has been cited as a reason why we should be pursuing this um and so I was uh wondering um whether the definition of tax relief could be written in a way that doesn't just um deal with TIF but also deals with the additional um provision that I just referred to um so and yeah I have to look at the the definition um because I didn't look at it with this question in mind so I'll certainly do that um again I think you're gonna find that the area of taxation is one that is highly regulated by the state um there are certain abilities to um to thank you and Jo very helpful um there are certain um abilities uh to provide relief and those are essentially all outlined by state law so tax relief um you're talking about you know what what kind of relief can be granted by a town under a tax incentive financing agreement well that is regulated by state law or pursuant to any other provision of law or regulation authorizing the town to grant tax relief if there is a law that authorizes the town to um to seek to provide tax relief then that is absolutely fine um regulation it doesn't say whether it's state or local um again I would say if there's a regulation that relates to a provision of law providing tax relief then the town can go ahead and do that um so you know I don't know that this this um definition is problematic in any way it's just important to remember that the the process of local taxation is um you know highly regulated by the state okay uh thank you I I don't think we're going to resolve it now but I think it'd be uh important to be clear because it says um also um or to any other provision of law or regulation authorizing the town to grant tax relief and I believe we had special legislative authority that was granted to allow us to um enact the bylaw that I was referring to and andy that's exactly what I'm talking about that you have to find that authority in a law um whether it's a general law or a special law typically in order to grant tax relief there has to be a law that authorizes it okay I'm going to leave that and the other thing Mandy while I have it up here um I was going to refer to section uh c2h um so you're pretty close to where it was and um it's the section that has um if you got a little bit further and uh gives percentages obviously this has been highly litigated on a federal level of late not to my happiness at all but um supreme court is going in the direction that it goes are we taking on any undue risks with that particular subsection um well I mean my immediate response to that was you know when you head down a road where you're requiring a potential proposer to um you know to employ minimum numbers of hours to people of color to women or to veterans to any minority there is a question about whether that is consistent with the standards for um processing procurement for procurement processes um that are addressed by state law um I mean I think you know and I think it was Lynn who said earlier that um you know there or maybe it was Pat that said in the event the contractor cannot find qualified workers they shall submit documentation to the town so it is not a um it's they're able to explain why they haven't been able to meet those standards but again so what happens who is making the decision about whether those efforts to meet the requirements were sufficient or not sufficient is there a decision to be made there and how does that impact um the contractor's overall proposal thank you um George those are my few questions so okay thank you Andy um Pat your hand is raised thank you um I just wanted to mention um to Lauren that we've already discussed implementation with the staff and made changes that they found acceptable uh with the town staff and we part of that discussion involved the procurement officer who saw no difficulty with these issues so I'm just going to say that the other thing is um I guess if I don't want to make a back and forth between lawyers but at the same time I'd like to hear from Lisa Clausen and also Christopher Soros about their um experiences with these issues or reflections on the kinds of issues because I know Christopher was nodding he said in agreement with Lauren at one point I don't have in my notes exactly where so I'm just curious about what your reflections are and whether you can share them Pat if I if I could just before we go um I obviously had a highest respect for the opinions of other attorneys for me this isn't about being right or wrong it's about providing advice that um is appropriately kind of conservative but again recognizing that this is a very important issue for the town and it's not my job to stand in the way um and I wouldn't do that so I'm as interested as you and their responses and you know I think the kind of collaborative um way of dealing with this is is great um and to that extent as well I'm glad that staff was involved I think that's fantastic I hadn't been aware of that so I think that's really good um so you know again I think anytime you kind of go down a road where something's regulated by state law it's useful to um track down or or identify what the problems could be and then make sure that your document um essentially hedges against those to the extent possible so um thank you for including me on this conversation. We appreciate that very much Lauren. Yeah um Annie. I know we're getting close to the time you wanted to do so I I think I just have one question and I'm hoping Lauren can answer this um you initially reviewed both of these bylaws and it sounds like from the conversation that I've heard today that the only item that you found in direct conflict with a state law was the fine levels um the thousand dollars for criminal I think our latest draft actually says 300 for non-criminal um but that was the only item you found in direct conflict um that would need changed in order to do this and everything else was more of a um it may or may not depending on what and then an enforcement issue is is that a correct um did I hear that correctly and interpret all your things correctly? So um thank you Mandy Jo. I um in my view the drafts could take another kind of like a senate bills and third reading review um and I I know you made some amendments or some recommendations and I've seen that they've been worked on um you know I I um typically even if I have concerns about a bylaw or not concerns but if I see issues that I want to raise I know that ultimately the attorney general is going to say yes you can or no you can't in a town and so um there are there are certainly times when I might raise issues like this um and say you know but let's wait and see what happens um with the attorney general and I think here um it's worthwhile and I mean obviously you've invested this much time in it um that's you know part of what you're doing it's worthwhile to just kind of take that as I said that 360 look and um also um think about you know unintended consequences or enforcement issues um so in theory um I did not do a red line I know I mean in reality I did not do a red line um because I didn't see that as what I have been asked to do um and I'm happy to kind of make some um suggestions for you all to think about um if that's what you want um but and again I you know I recall pat nodding your head like no no we don't need that um and that's fine um I think it's I think it's important for you to just understand what the issues are um and to make that policy decision about what you want to do about it um and again uh there is there is still a final say on how some things dealt with and that that's a court and um you know so it's not like we're never going to know if it's a problem if people choose to um to kind of um challenge it well we'll know right away and then you know we have an opportunity to either continue down the road enforcing the way that we have or to amend the bylaw um you know these are not the kinds of things it's not a charter which is set in stone essentially unless there's um you know a local vote of the legislative body and a valid question this is a bylaw and bylaws can and are um tweet uh as as they are implemented to address you know practical issues so again you know I don't see this as kind of the the end of of a discussion if it turns out that there are issues in terms of implementation well we'll know and we can change them um if there are not then you'll all remember back to this day and say my god she was worried about nothing this was not an issue at all and that's that's okay um again my job is not to stand in the way and I wouldn't do that my job is to help you do what it is you want to do and that is you know what I would plan on doing in whatever manner that was requested so you know I'm here as a resource obviously you have other resources and that's great um and um you know that input from interested parties always results in a better outcome because we're you know we're all kind of thinking about what the issues are so um you know I I feel badly that the way that uh that this kind of started is with with um this concept that I'm I don't agree with any of the other terms that's not at all my um you know again I saw my responsibility here as raising issues and um just bringing them to your attention I'm an interject here um for two quick points actually three the first is time but I think it's important that we uh we have said it's that I time and we need to for questions to um to Lisa and to Chris um but I think as a committee we also face the question that I'm not asking us to resolve at this moment I think I want to go to um questions for our two guests and Lauren you're welcome to stay I hope you will stay but that's totally up to you um but I guess I just feel I have to say this I I thought that when we sent this to KP law we were going to get a basically a red line uh response and maybe I'm learning and we're learning as a committee to be more specific but I think I can speak I'll speak for myself um I was more than taken aback by what we got um so which wasn't what I expected um so maybe at some point through Paul uh I and perhaps the committee needs to have a conversation about what happens when we send something to you especially a new bylaw um I certainly expected something other than what we got and the question well let me just finish yes of course um thank you um the question for this committee is whether we um and this is just for us putting back for our minds I'm sure it's in the forefront of everyone's mind right now whether we do in fact as a matter of due diligence as a matter of the fact that this committee is concerned with actionability and this it did expect something other than what God whether we need just to do our job to send this back to Lauren and ask her to do what I thought originally we had asked that's something we need to think about and decide on today not right this moment but we need to be clear as a committee and then make that clear to Lauren what we're going to do next um Lauren I'm going to give you a moment to respond to my comment but what I'd like to do next then is turn to the committee and if they have specific questions or maybe they just want to ask for um a response I don't know you do decide I my idea was specific questions to Lisa and to Chris but I do want to make time for that I also would like to point out to everyone that we are almost at the hour point I'm not going to stop this obviously but we do have a very important issue to deal with in terms of goals so I hope everyone will be brief as brief as they possibly can be um because at some point I may just have to put a stop to this uh so we can get to some other matters that we do have to get to um so again Lauren if you want to respond to my comment earlier please go ahead and then I'd like to go to questions to Chris and to Lisa certainly thank you and I apologize for any misunderstanding and what was provided um my uh approach here was this seemed like it had been uh that we were down a road and um I wasn't certain whether what you wanted back was essentially that that red line review or just my impression so I apologize for any misunderstanding um typically I will do a red line um that there are uh issues that might affect how much red lighting I will do and I have to say that this conversation um you know helps me to understand better where you're coming from and so uh you know I think I'd be in a better position now to look through it with helpful um feedback than then I would have before um but again you know my goal is to make your job easier not to make it harder and uh to the extent that I did not do that I am of course apologetic so thank you for for letting me speak to that so I'm open to questions specific or maybe the committee would simply prefer to allow Chris and or Lisa to um present Mandy you have your hand raised so please go ahead I guess my question specific would be whether Chris and Lisa can directly address for this committee um in their experience because I know they've worked with other cities and towns to get these types of bylaws enacted um once they've been enacted do they have any experience with any cities or towns that have been sued um for by a contractor or whatever under this bylaw um either for enforcement or non-enforcement or anything like that do they know of any cities that have been sued for the bylaws they've been enacted well I can speak to that in um in some specific terms I guess um as somebody noted these responsible contractor ordinances have been around for a long time uh and uh they're they've been adopted by many cities and towns and in the commonwealth the first one that was adopted um and and I should state as as Lauren noted in the first instance with respect to the responsible contractor ordinance the dispute initially goes to the attorney general in the form of a bid protest and when the city of Cambridge adopted the first REO that I'm aware of back in the early 90s I think uh there was a bid protest went to the attorney general's office the REO at that time had provisions requiring not just compliance with you know prevailing rate law but it required all contractors to provide health insurance for all the workers that were working on the project and this was long long long before the universal healthcare was adopted in Massachusetts and it required all contractors to be participating in a registered apprenticeship program uh and the attorney general took up the bid protest and dismissed it out of hand as not being inconsistent with the public construction bid laws the procurement laws that we've been addressing and I'm not aware of any other bid protest that's that's followed since then over REOs like this one uh there has been some litigation involving um the provisions that required participation in retirement plans and apprenticeship programs in the federal courts and the federal courts have have in in this area in this region have held that they're unlawful which is why when we've been pushing these promoting these kind of updated and beefed responsible employer ordinances we have not been pushing those provisions because they're legal issues and you know it's sort of worth noting that for the most part the conditions are simply requiring that the contractors comply with existing law and and and other than that it's it's it's the it's the diversity and and local hire requirements that are that are sort of added to those provisions and I think it's worth noting that the attorney general's office addressed a letter to the chair of the council earlier this year in June I believe that's been circulated um you know noting that wage theft um and tax fraud and insurance fraud which kind of go hand in hand with wage theft is a really significant problem in a really top priority for the attorney general's office and the letter is you know basically noting that other cities and towns have adopted these things uh and and I think could be fairly read to be encouraging cities and towns to in fact it actually expressly urges cities and towns to step up and do what they can to address the problem because the attorney general's office doesn't have the resources to address these problems sufficiently I think it's also worth noting that in terms of enforcement of the responsible contractor part of it the city would not be enforcing the ordinance I think the idea and this is sort of a fundamental um concept is that the idea is that these provisions get incorporated in the bid documents uh so that all the contractors who are bidding on the project are aware of them and they typically get incorporated into the ultimate contract document itself so to the extent there are violations um uh there an enforcement it's not a matter of enforcing an ordinance uh it's in a matter of enforcing the contract the terms of the contract so it's a contract enforcement issue not the question of the city enforcing its laws as a as a government but it as a as a buyer of construction services and I think that I don't want to take any more time than necessary but if you have any further questions I'd be happy to answer them thank you Chris um other questions from my colleagues uh Kathy please Kathy yeah yeah yeah I was just uh I'm unmuted now um one of the issues that was raised by Lauren but also by Andy was um town expense in terms of staff time and attorney time um could you um either Lisa or and or Chris talk about once towns I know this has been a concern of attorneys in a couple other towns or cities that went ahead and did these has there been a burden and the other thing I want to make a point that Chris just made is for the most part the action that would be taken would be after the attorney general found there was a violation so there would be evidence that there was a violation but I just the enforcement burden staff time attorney time has it been a lot a little can you talk about different cities and towns uh I can't speak directly to the experience of other cities and towns in terms of in terms of staff time and enforcement time but I think as as Lauren noted um it's it's really at the end of the day you know this whole question is is a question of you know what is the city ready and willing to do and able to do I guess also importantly to address the problem of wage theft and tax and insurance fraud and construction projects and so um uh you know it's important to lay down rules and establish norms for contracting in the city with city contractors and at the end of the day though obviously there are limits to the resources of any city or town and so it's it's really as Lauren noted it's there's cities and towns have discretion in the extent to which they they're able to or want to uh enforce all the various bylaws that exist in in any city or town and that would include this ordinance or the terms that get it baked into a construction contract and so it's it's really uh it it's really at the end of the day up to the city to determine what how much in terms of its own resources it wants to devote to that to that project I would add that um Lauren at one point compared to what Boston is doing and so some what we've found is that some of the bigger communities Boston Worcester Springfield have they have more resources certainly than the town like Amherst and and so have put some of those research had prioritized this issue in recent years and and have hired a compliance officer who will go out and you know check payrolls and check job sites and more assertively approach the issue and do more follow-up with contractors on it other cities and towns that don't have that those resources and capacity have found that it's still useful to have this these requirements there so if wage theft is brought to their attention they can ensure that um there are some repercussions for that contractor or developer that engaged in it in terms of future work with the city um but it's you know it's not something that they're putting in staff enforcement time into having staff go out and do this the sort of um you know searching for wage theft but it's enabling there to be in place repercussions if wage theft is brought to their attention and then I would also add that Lauren talked about the state legislation that's pending around wage theft and that actually tackles wage theft in different different degrees so even where that to pass um the state the the town um bylaws would still be very appropriate and needed and from my perspective because um what the state legislation does is it just puts more resources and more um tools at the attorney general's hands on how she can uh go after this issue and how her staff can go after the issue but doesn't stop a city or town from still looking at its own um municipally funded projects and and how to address the the problem if I may uh through the chair um uh I think Lisa's point is is really a good one I think it's useful to think of this ordinance as establishing ground rules that are important that address an important issue but more importantly giving the town the city the tools to deal with it through these contractual provisions and the contract remedies to the extent it it decides it wants to do that it gives the city the tools to deal with this issue to the extent it wants thank you um unless there are further questions for Lisa or Chris or if Lauren has any further final comments I think this committee um needs to decide what it wants to do at this point um does it feel it has sufficient information um based on our conversation today um to declare this bylaw clear consistent and actionable which I think the emphasis is on actionability here but um or does it feel that there are still questions that we would like Lauren and her firm as our attorney to clarify for us because I think in the end when we go to the council what we need to tell them is not whether they should adopt or not adopt this that's something we will each address individual as counselors but as a committee we need to feel that we have done our due diligence and that we can answer any questions counselors have um in terms of the issues we've been raising today so the question for you all is whether you're satisfied with what you've heard and you think you have enough information or would you rather that Lauren go back and I think we should specify pretty clearly what we're looking for um in terms of degree of exposure degree to which this uh these proposed bylaws are not in agreement with state law um that's I guess my question to my colleagues on this committee um and I need to hear from you and the rest of you are now going to see how sausage is made and it's not a pretty sight. Lynn has her hand thank you Lynn thank you Pat please Lynn go ahead um I would feel so much more comfortable if this had a full legal review and I say that after I've seen three counselors spend such enormous time along with the outside sponsors but I really feel very uncomfortable having something of this magnitude come before the town without a full legal review and I think that's what we wanted in the beginning and we still don't have so um I want to make sure it is consistent with state law at least for the fines but in terms of whether or not we want to try to have additional conditions I'm fine with that whether we enforce them is a whole other issue but you know we do contracts every day for road construction sidewalks etc etc and at some point hopefully we're going to go into um large contracts for new buildings and this it's making me uncomfortable uh to not have a full legal review on such a significant bylaw that's my feelings thank you Lynn other thoughts from my colleagues Pat and Kathy have their hand up thank you um Pat please let Kathy go first and then I'll go all right thank you Kathy please go ahead thank you because I'm not technically in the committee um if the committee decides to go that route the suggestion I was going to suggest instead of going that route just send this to the attorney general and have them read it um you know do that 360 it seems that the key area and I checked our own bylaws while I was online we have a block when we did the revisions that said it'll be up to 300 in general you know as the maximum and then for criminal it says up to 300 unless otherwise provided by statute you know so we have a way of directly revising those two pieces um that we zeroed in on but if there's anything else in this um that the attorney general would find troubling I would like to know that rather than just um an outside legal opinion well just quickly it's not an outside legal opinion it's our it's our attorney's opinion no I'm in our attorney but I just but but they are in the enforcers of the law and they sent us the letter that we understand I don't know how quickly the attorney general moves now we've already put Lauren on notice such as it is and I she's acknowledged it that um but does the attorney general move with great haste when we send them something like this I think there's an obvious understanding that frustration on the part of many of us that this has taken as long as it's had has taken I know I'm frustrated I think I can I think others are frustrated too but um so my concern with attorney general review is I have no idea and maybe there's a simple answer maybe they they get on it within 48 hours I doubt that um but um and Lauren has her hand raised so I'm gonna shut up Lauren Mr. Chair thank you um I'm happy to um talk to them you know I doubt they would give a formal opinion because um the town is a city for purposes of um state law with respect to bylaws but I'm happy to talk it through with them I'm also understanding the delay here um or or the feeling of delay I'm happy to go through and just send you something back as soon as possible um by the end of the week if that works um and again I think the keeping in mind that this is something that the you know that that is of significant importance um to the town let me just say and I just wanted to clarify one thing about the responsible contractor bylaws and um from a from a local perspective I know there are many many um responsible contractor bylaws and I wasn't suggesting I mean the town has one I wasn't suggesting that in and of itself that those types of bylaws would be significantly burdensome to enforce um as the procurement officer seems to have said you know that information goes into the um into the project specs at the proposal um and and is built into the contract really I was more focused on the issue of um local um wage and theft uh kind of structure and and um enforcement of that issue so I just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding on that thank you um Pat um unlike Lynn I am not feeling the need of a full attorney review um I feel like it what we've gotten from uh KP law uh and from listening to Chris and Lisa is that it's clearly around the issues of how much finding we can do whether it can be more than 300 that and that's something that we can uh the sponsors can go back and look at so I don't believe that we need a red line diversion um I feel very much that it's it feels clear to me that this is an issue of enforcing contracts uh not and that is something we have the right to do um and I don't see that there's anything else in the bylaw or um and either set uh that needs changing uh and I so I feel like we've spent over a year and maybe that's normal um working on this I met Lisa I think in June or July last year uh to begin work on this and I I do want to say that well I'm gonna stop but I don't think that we need to send it back to KP law and um no matter how quickly they say they will respond because I think I know what they're gonna say Lynn your hand is raised um actually I'm sorry your hand is unraised I I'm sorry take it down thank you that's okay um uh Mandy so as a sponsor I don't want it to go back because I think we've heard enough um but as a GOL member um I think I would want a limited review and a very limited review um I think it's been clear from this conversation that the by going further than the state law and restricting or adding conditions that are not in conflict with the state law but are in addition to the state law is some risk we take but is not something that makes a bylaw inactionable um and and we've heard from Lisa and Christopher about the potential for the legal actions that would come with that but that's not and but we've heard from our own attorney that that is something that's totally defensible because it's not inactionable to create conditions that are either more strict or not addressed at state law um and so I'm not concerned about anything that might be more strict or um not addressed something we add in um I think what I would want a review on potentially is a declaration because we heard today not from the email we received but from the conversation that the fines were not allowable at the level we put them at at least on the criminal side and so that's something that's in direct conflict with state law and directly inactionable in a sense that would that would um invalidate that portion of the bylaw and so I think a limited review to tell us if there is anything else that is in direct conflict with state law um such that it would potentially be invalidated um or unenforceable because it's in direct conflict not because it goes it extends state law or it goes further but the actual direct conflict where we could be pointed to MGL says this yours says this they don't agree um might be helpful to be able to go to the council and say there is nothing that directly conflicts with state law and therefore this is actionable even though there is some risk to you know there's never any no risk you know so I think that and and it pains me to say this as a sponsor because I know it delays even farther getting this to council um but I think that's the that's probably the type of review we were really seeking in the beginning um and what we do need to hear from is whether there's anything in direct conflict with state law I'm going to abuse my authority's chair and speak I see Pat's hand raised but Pat has already spoken once and I feel I need to say something here um I'm also willing to let Andy speak if he wishes to speak before me um we've heard now from three of our members of the committee um and I feel I need to say something before we go back to Pat so um we have a just an obligation to do this right and we have to be able to explain to our colleagues um you know what the as Mandy suggested what specific issues uh there exist in this bylaw and we need to be able to explain that and I need to write a report that explains it and um I think I really would need some kind of of advice written account from KP law um I like Mandy's idea of trying to keep it fairly focusing Lauren obviously's been listening very carefully she has a pretty clear understanding what our concerns are and I think she could address those um fairly specifically but I would feel echoing Lynn very uncomfortable with a new bylaw and just going to the council and saying well based on our conversation here's what I think you know and fine but I think we need um and I think it's true of all now we also have another bylaw that that we'll be dealing with next time um wild animal act and not to compare well we'll not make it anyway um we got a review on that which basically said that was it so um I need something from KP law is my feeling um and I like Mandy's idea of keeping it focused I know Lauren's been listening very carefully um degree of exposure where we're in conflict that we can then share with our colleagues and I can use to write a decent report and then I think we've done our job it's frustrating it's taken this long but it has can I just jump in before yeah you know go ahead Pat please I was going to say that I could I could go along with what Mandy was proposing um and I can however I want to set a time limit on the response not only to limit what's looked at but a time limit because we need it and we need it quickly actionability um all of this clarity etc are important to me as well but I also want a time limit very short time limit and he has his hand raised Andy yeah I just in response to Pat I think that a time limit makes me feel uncomfortable because our goal is not just to do it but to do it right and um I think that Mandy's suggestion about how to proceed I'm entirely comfortable with and it's going to take you know we would like to have it as soon as possible but it takes the amount of time it takes but in the end I want to make sure that we've done it right and we've done our job so I support Mandy's uh limit idea of a very focused additional review uh I'm going to recognize Lauren and then a lay enhancer hand raised but Lauren yeah thank you Mr. Chair um I you know obviously I have been listening very closely I know what it is that you're concerned about and what you're looking for feedback on and I also understand that it's been out there for a long time so I'm happy to uh commit to you that I'll get it for you by the end of Friday um the review and then um you know if you want to have another uh conversation I'm happy to come back and explain but hopefully that will give you what you need to to write your report and we'll highlight the exact things that we think you should take a look at um and again even then my perspective is um whether to go forward is a policy decision or how to go forward is a policy decision so um you know I I will point out the conflict with state law with respect to the um the fees um and if there's anything else like that I'll also point that out but other than that um you know again as I said I think it is a policy decision um and how you choose to allocate your resources is completely uh within this the discussion so I will do so and I will do so with speed um I see Lynn's hand up and then I see Mandy's hand up Lynn can I can I assume that if you do the fast turnaround which I absolutely would appreciate and I don't mind the minimal review there would still be time and an opportunity to consult with the attorney general uh yeah mr chair um I will give them a call I work with them on bylaws on a regular basis so I'll give them a call to talk through these issues with them and I will be able to do that before the end of the day on Friday so hopefully I can at least you know again as I said they don't issue formal opinions on matters that are not pending before them but I should at least get kind of the feedback about what their concerns um or issues might be or maybe that they don't have any and I will pass that along to you as well so can I just summarize what I hope we're hearing okay fast focused consistent with state law consultation with the attorney general and now I'm going to add and if you see anything else that we need to pay attention to you will bring it to our attention certainly that not um I'm not all be done by Friday that's all right I'm I'm somewhat kidding but um we meet again on September 16th so that would this body formally meets on September 16th but by Friday would be excellent because that gives me a chance to begin to think about how I'm going to prepare my report also gives us an opportunity if we need to reach out to you again with further questions which would I assume be on September 16th same time same station same everything Mandy I just want to make sure that she that KP law has the most recent versions of the two so because we've had we've gone through so many so um the two that are in the packet today are the most recent ones the red lines are just there to show that the red lines would be accepted in these versions they were there to show some changes based on I don't know whether it was gol or crc or something but assume the red line a full except all is the version of that red line um and and I don't know George whether that would be something you would be able to send to Lauren just to confirm that we're viewing the most recent version yes um Lawrence hand up Lauren um Mr. Chair thank you um I'd also love a copy of the Attorney General's letter because I think that would prepare me to speak with them um and and to try and be focused on what the issues that we have are and um if you could provide them to me in a word format that's very useful because I can then accept the changes and um and kind of start from a blank you know a clean a clean sheet um and kind of one of my colleagues after this meeting is over to help me find that document maybe Lynn somebody anyway we will do that the answer is yes um the chair but it's fingertips but that's just because you're dealing with me Chris um I can provide a copy of the Attorney General's letter I have it Chris thank thank you so you could send that to Lauren directly I'd be happy to do that thank you very much Chris uh is that a hand up there uh Kathy thank you Kathy go ahead so I was just going to say Lauren I think we've heard you loud and clear on the amount of the fines so to not have you have to say a lot you know if we change it to 300 are we okay would be useful to hear from you okay yes absolutely all right I'm ready to uh bring this to a close unless there's anyone else who has something they really really need to say um I'm very grateful to our guests Chris and Lisa and their contributions um very grateful to Lauren and her contribution and I feel like we've actually made some real progress today and we look forward to hearing from Lauren on Friday Chris is going to send her a copy of the Attorney General letter I will make sure she gets a copy of both the bylaws that are in the packet so with nothing further we're going to turn to goals and we have 30 minutes thanks everybody thank you Lauren thank you thank you Chris thank you Lisa thank you for the opportunity thank you thank colleagues and just restent all of you the Attorney General's letter thank you somebody can forward it to Lauren thank you so we have um I think a very well I think fairly daunting our challenging task um and we have 30 minutes and Lynn I think has even less Lynn yeah so I I've thought long and hard about this issue of setting goals that encompass the intent and the infusion of other goals into each other and I would like to suggest that we at least consider um a paragraph in the opening area of the goals that talks about the fact that goals are should be seen in a cross hatched way I have suggested language I'm not saying that language is perfect but I really um want to um suggest that rather than mess in a any great detail of trying to write in race equity and sustainable and environmental sustainability into every goal that we look for an option that allows people to see the goals holistically and in concert with each other and because somebody just did the screen I can't get to my suggested language um to pull it up I don't know why hold on let me see what you can share your screen now Lynn okay um thanks so this is the kind of paragraph I'm talking about and just it was kind of in the vein of what I said the other night I see Andy's hand is raised so I'm going to recognize Andy yeah well I really raised my hand on a different topic so I think it'd be better to stay with this topic and then come back to me after we've done okay fine thoughts on Lynn's suggestion thoughts on the question of trying to interweave one or two specific goals into all 11 goals Mandy I think this is a good um um some sense compromise from what I heard on Monday night between a desire to try and put words into every goal from some other policy goals um whether those words be climate action sustainability resiliency and add them to policy goals two three four five and six and management goals one two three four and five or um for the same with racial equity where you add the words racial equity and social justice and some of these other things into policy goals one two three four and five um and management goals one two three four five six I know there was a desire by a number of counselors to do that and it seems like on Monday there was also a desire from a number of counselors to not do that um because of the one complicatedness that becomes in trying to do that um but also the fact that a number of the counselors that might not have favored that method believe that they are equally important and should all be weaved into every goal um so I think this is a good compromise I I'm not a big fan of the third sentence here I will say when we get to specifics I think the first two sentences are great I guess the third sentence to me is a bit confusing and unclear um I you know I don't know whether the wording could be thus each goal should be viewed as or should be woven or you know I'm not sure I can come up with the wording but um um should be seen as being included in the intent of the other 10 goals or something um that sort of attempts to do that wording of each of of the goals you know is included in all the others so I I have no pride of authorship I'm just trying to get a statement out there I see Pat's hands right hand is raised yes thank you for this Lynn I think it's an interesting compromise but to me it feels like only part of a compromise um I think that I would like to see I don't know whether it's a you'd call it an appendix or an additional page that lists some of the um racial equity goals what they would look like um I think there are ones that the council does agree on um and also therefore um some of the uh energy and climate action goals also being reflected in a short paragraph separately from the actual statement of policy and stuff I don't I think that might help in addressing some of the tension around these issues I think there's I'm going to speak for myself here briefly um I think as I said at the council meeting we have six policy goals that I'm excited about and that I can speak with passion about and that I can share with my constituents and some who might have some reluctance I think I can argue forcefully and strongly for each of them this attempt to try and weave them together does not seem to me to come from the council I think the councilors as a whole um again I may be mistaken but my reading is that um these six policy and particularly I think all the goals but particularly the six policy goals after much discussion and thought and input from a number of different voices reflect I think a general consensus once we move away from this we try to word Smith it try to interweave whatever we get into tricky ground we get into people assuming that there's agreement when there isn't that we get into thinking that um there's sort of some consensus when we really haven't had a discussion about this idea of how we need to interweave things um so I personally support these goals and um look forward to figuring out how we're going to implement them but I think we're getting ahead of ourselves first of all as a council let alone as a community um and I think we should um basically stand fast at what we have and be proud of it um any attempt I think to go beyond this at this point at least in my mind is going to raise questions of whether they're in fact is a consensus and whether in fact we really discuss some of these things in detail because in fact we have it but what the the beauty of what we've done is we've connected each of these goals to a specific action by the council and that to me suggests consensus and agreement and I think they also touch on six really important goals that give paul a clear sense of what we want him to focus on but I think some want to also get to the end result and that I think is a problem because there are many voices yet to be heard from there are many uh difficult issues that need to be thought out and discussed and reported back on etc etc but I don't think these six goals have that problem I think we are united in our commitment to all six so my personal feeling is that what we have is is strong as Mandy pointed out we heard conflicting voices on at the council meeting some arguing that we need to you know do some wordsmithing others felt this is good as it stands for the moment given where we're at as a council given where we're at as a community and then has your hand up I I want to also mention what I think another council who is not here in this group right now said and that is a goals document needs to be viewed as a living document and that we have various conversations for example about the proposal provided to us by the race equity group we have future items to come before the council the much more detailed plan regarding climate action and any number of other things including the town manager's proposal regarding some kind of race equity task force or group or police commission or whatever and with each of those we can always come back and revisit the goals but I'm feeling like we don't have we have not had the conversation as a council where we have focused on for example the sustainability goal plan that is to be brought forward sometime this fall we have not had a time as a council to be able to focus on the race equity task force all of their proposals and we would and what we can always agree to come back and look at the goals in fact when we pass them the motion could even say they should be reviewed every two months or something at a council meeting something that allows us to see this as a living document that's all thanks Andy I think that Lynn's addition makes sense as and I appreciate the word cracking that we quickly did with Mandy's help I don't think that I want to go farther than that I have some word suggestions on another goal which I'll come to later but I don't really want to do any major changes at this point it is we started with the idea that we wanted to establish policy goals that were things that we wanted the town manager to work on and work with the council on but that we did not want to micromanage how they get done or what the outcome would of a process would be because we entrust a professional to do that in a professional manner and to try and go beyond where the policy goals are other than the kinds of editing changes we're talking about I think is taking us farther than we ought to go again I have anyone else I don't see any hands raised and my screen shows no hands raised physically I want to come back to these three sentences then and see if we can reach consensus because I am struggling with all three actually I certainly think the last sentence agreeing with Mandy probably should come out and I'm not really sure that these two sentences really say much it seems that they're there simply to appease certain individuals some counselors and perhaps some others and I am no problem well I do have a problem with that because this is a council document and it's an expression of our 13 thoughts and resolve and so I appreciate what Lynn has done I understand why she's done it and I'm perfectly willing to be outvoted and I'm not saying we have to go to a vote but I guess I'll just repeat that I don't think this is needed I don't think it reflects the consensus of the council at least doesn't reflect mine and I think these even the first two sentences really don't really say that much what says something to me is our strong and firm commitment to the issues that we have raised including racial equity and social justice that's what matters to me and that that commitment is real and genuine and we're going to work on it and continue to work on it for this year and we're asking Paul to focus on it we're going to get reports back and and further voices in the conversation so again I would personally prefer that we leave this as it is but that's just one voice out of five and again I appreciate what Lynn has done I know why she did it I appreciate it but I think that this document is a strong and forceful statement of our communal commitment and we don't need to do anything more and I don't think saying that that each goal you know doesn't stand alone and that each should be viewed as a matrix I'm the word matrix always makes me nervous I was never good in math anyway I think immediately math I get nervous I'm requiring that each goal be seen as including every other goal it just I'm sorry it just you know we have a specific goal about mental health homelessness right um so that's my thought um we have Kathy's hand up and we have Pat's Kathy um I somehow turned my picture off and I can't figure out how to start it again so you just hear my voice um I I think one of the issues with the sentence is it talks about 11 we have policy goals and then we have town manager performance goals it's the these six policy goals that are overarching and they inform the town manager goals so so I think you could simplify this the six policy goals are overarching and should be seen as informing the town manager performance goals you know because it's there's one set that says this is what we believe in and this is what we want to hold your accountable for so the old climate goal used to read last year's is everything should be seen through a lens of climate you know so we don't have to say that again so I would just the six policy goals are overarching and should be seen as informing the five areas of town manager performance goals would be you know one way of just completely link separating the two and saying you know there's an umbrella that surrounds all of this and these are where we're going to hold you accountable so this that was my edit thing because in during the meeting people were saying you know when we're doing this when we're doing that we're also thinking about this but it was the policy goals so that was it I'm just going to abuse my authority I like that very much personally I think that that actually says something and it says something to Paul says something to me and I could support that pat your hand is up please pat I'm not hearing you you're muted pat well sorry sorry sorry I think we've done quite a lot of listening and that was why we came back and we worked on creating the racial equity and social justice goal and also expanded community health and policing I forget what it's called exactly right now so I'm proud of that but I also think that we're not really going far enough um in the sense that we had we we acknowledge this overarchingness in our conversations as GOL we had a real sense that it was that we were weaving we accepted that we I know it was verbalized and we talked about it so stating that seems to be an important thing to do but the other thing I wanted to add and and I don't have an answer is I feel like in this moment in time I would like to see us where we do agree acknowledge by adding additional statements at as an appendix or whatever if that makes people in town have more of a sense that we are going to be working on racial equity and social justice and we're going to be working on energy and climate action goals and then I think that's important and I'm thinking last night about some meeting I was in finance committee meeting I think where where Darcy made this statement about um no outreach she made a statement about the community oh community choice aggregation we were talking about that and someone and I can't remember who I'd have to go back and look said well we oh Bernie we could say it we could have it faster if we weren't working on perfection and we could get community choice and for me there's a similarity similarity here we're not going to get this perfect in terms of the community trusting that we're going to implement climate goals or the community trusting that we're going to enter integrate and poor choice of words social justice and racial equity so I think making an additional statement would be important Mandy Joe has her hand up thank you Mandy please sorry I can't actually raise my hand um the second paragraph very last sentence kind of already says what Kathy suggested um maybe we can just modify that these policy goals should decide this should guide decision making at all levels of town government and its provision of core municipal services and are meant to be used by the town manager to set priorities direct work activities and allocate staffing and financial resources maybe all we have to do into that and are to be are meant to be used by the town manager as he fulfills his management goals to you know and as he fulfills his management goals or something or you know we don't have to read yeah are meant to be used by the town manager it's already there um you know what I'm I'm sorry yeah are meant to be used and as he fulfills or works towards something about just putting in management goals into that could we take that sentence and say these policy goals are interrelated and overarching I mean I I have no problem with making a statement that suggests that these are these goals are deeply interconnected and overarching what I object to or I have problems with is trying to wordsmith individual statements of policy along those lines where you're picking out a particular policy and making that something gets repeated over and over again um I have absolutely problem with you know these policy goals are deeply interrelated and I mean we work the language but interrelated and overarching and then the rest of it I don't think you need to mention management goals you're absolutely right Mandy that that then makes the point that they should be there to be used by the town manager in setting priorities directing work activities allocating staff financial resources that's that's that's great that's fine but I think what I'm hearing from some of my colleagues and certainly from some members of the community is they want a sense that certain specific goals be highlighted with all the other goals and that's where I'm resisting not because I don't think those goals are important not that I don't think they're not interrelated or right but they're all interconnected and all overarching and I that so if we could put that language there something if people are happy with that then I have no problem with that and I don't think you need to add management at the end I think it's there and so that I would be happy with but again it's just one voice I need my colleagues to speak up and maybe I'm in the minority I'm perfectly willing to to accept that but I really feel that these these sentences at the bottom here don't really say anything of real substance whereas if you say that we acknowledge that these are deeply interrelated and overarching that at least says something but it doesn't get into the very sticky ground I think of trying to then take a particular goal or set of goals and then draft them into each of the other goals as I've said already I don't think there's consensus on that I don't think there's been strong enough community conversation I don't think it reflects the view of the council as a whole but I do think the council does believe that these are deeply interrelated and that they are overarching maybe there's better language but that's that I can endorse and accept personally Lynn I think that's an elegant solution and it allows us to eliminate the whole thing I have highlighted below other thoughts are my colleagues because I really do need your input here because I'm very proud of this document I'm proud of what we've done I'm proud of what the hard work we've put into this I'm proud of the fact that we have listened um but sometimes I feel as if some people think that listening means doing exactly what they say they want you to do and I'm sorry that's not the way I work I listened I think I've changed some of my views over the last couple weeks and I'm not I'm certainly not apologizing for that but I don't want us to get ahead of where we are I don't want us to get ahead of where the community is I want to bring people along and I can bring people along with these six goals and I can bring people along with the argument that they are deeply interconnected and overarching and I can tell them we're going to do our darn just over the next year to try and and realize all of them and at the end of the year people can look at us and say well you didn't but the specifics we still have a long way to go there so I think this is an excellent policy document if you all agree or do you I mean I really have serious I mean Pat, Mandy, Andy, Lynn um I'm proud of this maybe I'm the only one I I mean I think it's time we move on to we have some specific suggestions regarding the actual goals and I think we might have agreement on this paragraph in this sort of preamble and maybe we need to move on to the specific goals and start getting into specifics and that means using um customer Shane's document I assume I can share that can you just add this little piece to yours already added thank you and then I'm going to stop sharing and before you let anyone else share um Kathy and I did some exchange earlier this morning about her version and so I wanted to know if I could share the screen for a moment to show where we were on one particular goal and it's based off of her original edits and of course to answer a little bit to George that was coming I mean we just a lot of this is time I think well I'm just trying to get Andy to you were trying to say something Lynn and Andy you interrupted her and I believe Lynn's on a deadline okay no that's fine I I was going to just say that I end up and I'm actually I'm going to leave right that's if you do other words smithing on the goals uh as long as we put this little phrase in I'm fine okay thanks so on the screen um is um I think we have the wrong section I need to move up uh make sure that I'm getting to the right section because it had to do with uh you know the four major projects and it was just a matter of trying to get the wording as clear and concise as possible and to also recognize exactly what was said by the council in the October 21st 2019 resolution and if you can see the comment box on the side with my comment and it I think incorporates exactly what that wording was and so that I wanted to um at least put this out there um is something that had come through this work that Kathy and I had been sort of exchanging on earlier this morning and she's still in the column obviously I hope that she will speak up on it too but I'll just let you read it and see if there are questions about it rather than continue to talk I feel it in some sense this is over determining I mean yes we're in a situation where we're going to face some economic challenges but um I would prefer we simply state what our broad goal is here and obviously it's understood that we're going to face revenue and budget challenges but we don't know that yet we don't know what the specifics are um could be worse could be better who knows so I was happy with the way this was written and feel like it's being over determined and in a way that I'm not completely comfortable in terms of consensus Mandy yeah this was confused because I'm sorry Mandy this was one I couldn't agree to the changes that were suggested by councillor Shane um other than maybe the movement of I don't really care what order we put them in but uh the addition of the word potential um could potentially be put into every single one of these four right um that's that's the point of getting a plan and the only thing I would think maybe we could add um to the original wording is that the the council vote that you know we said the council vote that the council is committed because we got sent rid of the word the count the that the sense of the council is that the council is committed so I think we could certainly add the you know on the October 21 2019 council vote that the sense of the council is that the council is committed or something so so add those words back in um but um yeah I I can I've clearly got her wording ready to go for a screen share so that we can start accepting rejecting and all on each of these policy areas but that would be mine um that was the sense of the council um and I think the language that was added to the end of this including the language that was added after the public works headquarters is is not something that council has voted on um or that maybe the council agrees to and gets too specific um I have to agree with Mandy on that before we go the yeah I'm sorry we have Pat's hand up Andy um but Andy I think you let me if you don't mind Pat I'm gonna let Andy go first is that all right I'll try and be just really quick and then so we can get on to Pat and that is that the wording I don't know what shows up now as far as whether you see where my cursor is but the part that says all four buildings in some um the council is committed to a plan to address all four buildings in some fashion I believe that is the language from the October 21st 2019 council resolution and that's why I tried to get to the very specific language as adopted in that resolution I did go back and look at our uh motion I think one of the things you're struggling with is that we have specific changes that have been made um or suggested I'm sorry by a counselor but we're now looking at a different document that has some of those changes and some of your comments so this is rather difficult for me at least to to sort through um I'm kind of sympathetic to Mandy's thought that we should be looking at counselor's chance specific items and in places where you feel that you've got some point you want to make or change that you and she have come up with that you are mutually agreed upon we can talk about it but right now um we've got at least three levels of commentary going um so I'm struggling with just um it's already well past time I I think this is important but um the all of you will decide how much time you want to put to this I think it's important I think we should be working with Kathy's original document and Andy where places are appropriate you can step in and offer further wordsmithing but right now I'm completely lost as to um the original document Kathy's suggested edits and your further comments um so uh Pat had her hand up I think her hand is down now but if Pat and Lynn has her hand up so I'm going to turn to Lynn I'm back um when I say when in my mind when we say the council to provide the council where they plan that means you will take into consideration all of the issues revenue budgets etc etc and I don't feel that we need that specificity that was proposed it's it's inherent in what a good plan is are people okay with my suggestion and I think it's managed to just as well that we put up Kathy's document and that we go through it and um that's what I'd like to do and try to get through that as quickly as we can and then hopefully we can vote or at least agree by consensus that this is what we're going to send to the council for hopefully the last time but I think we owe it to councillor Shane to come to look at her specific comments and respond to them and we certainly um open to Andy's suggestions as well but I think we need one document to look at and I think Mandy is probably trying to make edits as we go and I think also for her sake um that we actually know what we're editing so we have the original document with councillor Shane's suggestions and we've made one change already to the preface which I think we've all agreed to and I think her first change or suggestion is under economic vitality George should we ask whether there's anyone that would want to make any changes to one or two at the time that's perhaps wise yes thank you so we have one or two in front of us on the screen we've gone through it now many times but are there any changes people would like to make from this committee I'm happy with the way they are but anyone else I see Lynn's hand up no I'm saying no Lynn is saying no changes I'm saying no changes Mandy Andy's happy Andy actually let me confirm at this point no I think there was something that Kathy uh councillor Shane put into racial equity that I would potentially want to see moved up but I think we need to discuss it where she had yeah when we get to it please thank you okay so I'm saying one and two are accepted at the moment as written I'm sorry okay item three Mandy Joe has her hand up Mandy please sorry I can't raise it um to give you a clue I'm okay with the change to remove all possible um I do not like the change to number three the adding availability of parking including steps our vote was in the council was the downtown parking working group first sets um we've discussed this cultural and economic vitality versus new growth before um I'm not going to comment on that now because I'm not sure where I stand Lynn I feel like the changes to the uh in the beginning are the first one getting rid of all possible and the second piece about new growth and economic I'm fine with that it takes away a controversial statement uh I really bowed at Mandy Joe in the southern winds and she was much more involved with parking I I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with the introduction of cultural I got nothing against culture but this is called economic vitality and I think that's a very specific right so um I you know I don't I actually do also believe new growth belongs in here because it essentially new growth is essential to our economic vitality um and you can explain this much more eloquently than I can but there's a reason why that term is there um 93 percent of our revenues are based on property taxes and many of the dreams that people have of doing all kinds of wonderful things seem to be premised on a notion that money just will magically appear um basically we either raise taxes or we promote new growth so I think that term actually has a very specific meaning it's a very important meaning but I you know so that's why it's there I also agree parking should be taken out that's not what we agreed to we just to implement actions proposed by the downtown parking group so other thoughts raise your hand so I'm saying keep new growth in yes I'm saying take out cultural yep but I mean I can live with that I mean it's called economic vitality but I could leave it cultural and economic vitality I'm not sure why it's there at all because it's called economic vitality so why is it there so it's promote diverse neighborhoods affordable housing and new growth I mean I just would just have and new growth in downtown and village centers it's a master plan right so I would take out cultural and I can just say new growth and strike the addition to address availability of parking including steps I would strike that anyone else want to weigh in here all right I'm fine item four I think Andy's trying to weigh in and I'm still unclear what our decision on number two was okay whether it was economic vitality to keep or new growth to keep or both to keep no at my point was new growth I think is important for the reason that George stated it is a matter of incorporating a very specific term that exists in state law having to do with proposition to and is very specific to the budgeting process it was there for I think it's there for a very focused and legal reason that is understood by the manager so if that suggestion were accepted I'm manny to answer your question or try to that sentence which would read I think pretty much the way it read originally and new growth in downtown and village centers and I believe that's what it said it did it did right I'd prefer to keep the language as it was and strike all possible did you have any other questions up to that point Mandy in terms of editing you're okay okay um item four four major capital projects now this is I think where Andy came in earlier um do it sentence but line by line first suggestion people happy with that they want to change it Andy not to the first sentence no do people feel this adds something important why why is this being added he said and an elementary school so the this first change here was just moving it from down here in exact same language okay good the question is are we going to move it or not okay from last to first in the list we feel we need to do that to say this is our top priority fine the only thing that you could consider and we were after the word Jones library to take out the word potential and add and the so that it would read expansion renovation expansion of the Jones library and the replacement of the central fire station replacement because in right it's not potential I think that it goes beyond we kind of recognize that they at some point need to be replaced it's a one question not a new question exactly so we've taken care of that line I went back to the very top where we've entered the thing about the school and say it's the replacement of an elementary school thank you thank you and then I'm I'm the person that has the objection to all this other yes you're not the only one line yeah this is not something the council has agreed to and it may very well be true um here you're referring to the the word that is suggested yes yes yeah yeah that's given of a good plan it's editorializing you know I mean it may very well be true but that's you know but that's not we're not in the prediction business I guess I'll speak only in the sense that at my urging we changed the evaluation to take out that language from the evaluation because it was going forward and I wanted to at least to have it considered for part of the going forward document I think that that was kind of where we came out of that conversation on Monday. I'm lost Bandy. Yeah I'm too. Annie help us here. Just back to the fact that when we were doing the edits to the evaluation memo that we took out a section because it was dealing with what was into the future and that was about a goal for what we wanted to see happen in the next year and not about it didn't didn't belong in a report about what he accomplished in FY 20. No Andy granted I just we need to know what specific language you're either taking out or putting in and right now. That's why I was just saying I think that there is an argument why it belongs but I'll leave it at that. Okay so you think okay fair enough you feel this could remain okay. So I have a suggestion. Manny. I suggest we go back to all of the original language from here on out and reject all these changes. There's something I would add to the vote from the council but I can't really do it logically until I have the ability to reject all of this. Once I reject it I lose it so I can't add it back in but maybe up here right after plan to provide the council with a plan for funding a plan in light of changing economic circumstances for the funding of the where we just are acknowledging that there are changing economic circumstances without you know saying what that will do to the plan. I don't see the point of that Mandy Joe because of course we're going to be doing that. It just seems we didn't have a plan really how we were going to fund all of them. Yeah even when things were great. This is where I'm coming from. It's very much where Pat is and I agree it didn't belong in the town manager's evaluation. I don't think it belongs here because responsible and we're doing a plan we're considering all of that and I don't feel like we need to say that. Kathy is your hand up can we uh yes we can Kathy please. I will try to just say why I wanted I didn't mind Mandy's language and eliminating all. I think we made and Paul then because we made very positive kinds of statements about the four buildings in October and November we went out with listening sessions and he had a very upbeat theme. The title of the chart didn't say can we afford with a big question mark you know for you know I talked more about how we can afford or how we might be able so I wanted to do something that signaled that the council realizes where in the fall of 2020 we're in a different world than we were in October of 2019 uh of 2019 so Mandy's wording did it um I don't know but it's not you know people are still in the boy you said everything could happen when you said we have all these reserves you know um rather than because I'm encountering this with people that I said and I said well you know we are not able to put as much into capital this current year we probably won't be next year and our stabilization fund is not going to be added to you know so it's so some way of acknowledging in this that it's not the same world that October 21st 2019 was to be permissive to Paul to not have to be just positive about it he can say we have tough choices we have you know we may have we've got timeline issues we whatever but he'll he picks up on our tone um so that and I'll say this again when we look at this I just feel like we need to send a signal that we are more than aware of what's going on now we're going to hear um from Sean and company soon and Sonya on their best bet on FY 22 um with different scenarios so that's all I want to say you know try to put something that signals the council is aware yes I expect him to come up with a good plan a feasible plan an affordable plan all of those things but um I didn't want to put feasible affordable I just wanted to say in recognition and George I know we can't forecast it but we're not coming out of this in the next six months and that's going to do something to next year's revenue forecast just because of the business situation one cares money disappears there's still issues about our borrowing capacity there's still issues about the MSBA funding um and so I guess I don't share completely your sense of I mean obviously we face difficult challenges but I still think that we're asking for him we're asking a plan from him and I don't want to I don't know what you mean by tone um I'm just Pat has her hand up I'm sorry Pat please we hear our sayings tone can be misinterpreted I think that if you listen to Paul's tone over since COVID he's been very aware of the downturn in income and and potential growth and everything I don't hear him running around being all enthusiastic we're going to do the four projects I also think that the council is very aware of limitations so to me this is adding again unnecessary elements to what needs to be a fairly straightforward document I'm hearing consensus um and Kathy thank you I mean really these are very valuable contributions and they're forcing us to think very hard um but I'm hearing a consensus but I'm willing to be overruled that the way it's stated right now with Mandy's edits pretty much back to the way it was with the moving of one part of one sentence to the top people are happy with that I thought Mandy had I think one addition she wanted to make can I can our people agree that the way this states at the moment they can live with it the addition I wanted to make is this it is the sense of the council because that was in the vote okay and please get rid of the other thing about the school so I can just read it again oh I've already moved it so delete the deleted right thank you so to provide the council with a plan for the funding of the renovation slash expansion or replacement of an elementary school in accordance with Ford River MSBA grant application the repair renovation expansion of the Jones Library placement of the central fire station replacement of the department of public works headquarters consistent with the October October 21 2019 council vote that is the sense of the council oh sorry that's all right that's where we're reading it that it is the sense of the council that it is committed or the council is committed is fine to a plan that will address all four buildings in some fashion we are we're hedging our beds pretty well maybe we can unhedge a little bit but um that's what it stands at the moment any further thoughts any further forward smithing I would I would drop in some fashion quite frankly um you know that was actually part of the voting language oh okay the vote was hedged very much too okay so this this reflects the hedging all right all right makes the fact that we're gonna have to be repairing these buildings until they fall apart and we don't have any other choice right and that I refuse to to yield to that view yet but and that's my tone housing afford so we're set with four okay housing affordability I see no changes or suggestions so unless people have something they want to add or change we're set with with five housing affordability okay six racial equity and social justice um there's been an addition here uh it states this would also include actions to implement a change in community safety staffing using the two frozen vague I mean I have a raw promise this I mean this is sort of like the end result that some might like or might not like I have no idea where we're headed I'm sorry I do not see the reason to add it yes I have problems with I don't either we have not made this kind of decision um the whole point of creating a committee was to really look at and make thoughtful um decisions and to take the time to make thoughtful decisions and this sort of saying this is what we've decided which is quite inaccurate um and we can stand on different spots about this but not right but we have not made this decision as a council or so my feeling is this this paragraph should stand as it was written yes with no changes yes any other thoughts all right management goals first I'm going to make a really inane suggestion just just to break the tension um since these are called management goals I would like to take out management from all the subheaders and just say administration leadership and personnel I would call it finance and you know and just you know because they're all management goals so you know we want to the areas of finance administration leadership and personnel um and whatever you know just go through it through it community engagement long term vision right that's fine so yeah that's fine that's the problem that's the easy one all right so now we're done we can go home no no there's some changes below I know I'm just trying to write so no suggestions for item one that stands again anyone have any further changes they'd like to make so management goal administration leadership and personnel to we're not calling finance hopefully that's exactly what's finance now because you're giving me a headache by bouncing it all around I'm not going to move it again sorry move it when we get down to community engagement okay all right so under the suggestion under item five studying recommending and implementing structures for user fees water fees sewer fees and permit fees that reflect the cost of providing essential services any thoughts mandy so I struggle with the addition of the word essential because some of the services that have fees some people probably don't believe are essential and other people do and so I I think right it seems a bit of editorializing here that judgment that you know I mean we cost of providing services essential or not there's still a fee we should address all the fees right right I I like the paragraph the way it was worded before and again if we start mentioning parking then why no no I agree I I I wonder with that one um yep you know the mention what the such as availability of parking was a sort of was the editorializing but the address policy goals is not necessarily editorializing that's um you know so I would wonder whether we could leave the address policy goals in there because some of these fees if we've set a climate action policy of reducing carbon greenhouse gas emissions maybe we need to start adding fees to things that would help people lower their use of something but without having to do that description of what policy goals we're looking at can I just add I don't think I agree with taking out essential and the cost of providing essential services and our in line we're talking about water fees sewer fees and I don't that are in line with other municipalities so I don't think we need to have the address policy goals in there and I'm I'm even questioning that well that are in line with other municipalities right now our our costs for our fees are lower than many of the municipalities so I'm not sure you need any of those the whole issue here is that we're going to be addressing goals policy goals um I I don't think that definitely needs not to be there and um and I don't even know if we need our in line with other municipalities because that's saying oh they're higher so let's go higher exactly let's raise them up it's it's again it's I think it should end with costs of providing services period I guess the thought was that we wanted to encourage him to do some kind of comparative yeah but he would do that anyway that's like telling him right you know he does that every report we get from him and W has that kind of comparison right so I think the other you know you mentioned water sewer there's also ambulance fees but there's also fees for usage of the pool for lsse fees and stuff like that and those might better be set not just for looking at the cost of providing services but ensuring that they are in line with other municipalities I'm putting out there sort of a uh you know a secondary argument here um because our pool fees we might want lower than the actual cost of providing services potentially so that people use the pool um but potentially because if we put them at the cost of providing services they would be so out of line with other municipalities that that we wouldn't want them there so I I'm not as against looking at whether they're in line we don't want to set our so high they're not in line on the other end simply cover the cost of providing the service then in the other hand I think a lot of the services you know the fees for using the pool and everything and other we need to look at that because not everybody in our community can afford those fees so that's I think a decision that needs to come forward to the council and whether or not that's in line with other municipalities maybe there's something that reflect the cost of providing services where possible or I don't know I have to leave again are there any major changes below the what we're already seeing I think there was one suggestion if you can see under item five yeah I'm fine with that but I've got to leave I leave it to you all thank you okay see you later yep bye can we come to consensus I think Pat makes a good point here so does Mandy unfortunately so no I think we could just reflect the cost of providing services maybe that consider yeah I'll go with that and then maybe in light and in light of I don't know either drop it completely or we certainly don't want our in line with I think Pat I would be okay with changing reflect to consider and then deleting everything else okay after services okay yeah because as long as we're considering it doesn't mean we're going to raise fees or give things away or right fair enough handy any thoughts there you're okay with that yes thank you the grandson I think that's a wonderful sound Andy I'm it's all right yeah don't don't don't mute we could use we could use a touch of humanity right now so we're okay with two three long-term vision that is logical transparent balances competing capital needs and able to be implemented with available resources again it seems like that's you know it could use unavailable resources but good luck with that that's right so I just need it I think it's just right I mean if it could use unavailable resources that'd be wonderful it'd be like a magician can make money appear we should start the town should start buying lottery tickets yep yep so I would strike that as just being obvious in other words just keep it the way it was and then final suggestion here relation to town council item five providing regular communications to the council to and then insert respond to council requests for analysis or supporting documents and to ensure the council receives relevant information advance of meetings or media coverage see if I can get the full comment on yeah and comment is this would include getting information advance and right of course two examples okay she gives examples here right all right um thoughts on this I mean there is I think I'm sorry Manny go ahead um I don't like the order that's that's actually it seems a little petty but um you know number three is responding to communications from the counselors in a timing manner um requests for analysis or supporting documents is a response to counselor communication so I don't really like that that was inserted inserted before to ensure the council receives relevant um information in advance of meetings or media coverage it seems like that insertion is um a combination of number five and number three um and sort of expanding on number three so I wouldn't put that in front of the original wording um and we could add if the concern is that we don't receive enough out analysis or supporting documents we could add a you know sort of the parenthetical at the end of that that is the including analysis um and supporting documents as appropriate where would that get inserted at you could put it under three you know that's why I was trying to figure out whether you can just say including or in particular responding to communications from counselors in a timely manner including or in particular requests for analysis or supporting documents so it either fits in on after the relevant information yeah or up in number three okay how would it read with relevant information providing regular communications to the council to ensure the council receives relevant information including analysis of supporting and and supporting documents is appropriate so you've essentially you've done that here um but striking respond to right it would restrike it would strike this moved it you moved it right essentially yeah right exactly well let's look at it yeah I guess two questions one is where does it go and the second is much more important do people feel that it's it's important to mention it sounds like people are thinking it's worth mentioning I feel like it's worth mentioning we've struggled with it in the past so I think it's something that we can add to this one exactly right right and it's it's helpful to Paul to know that this is something that that we'd like him to to pay more attention to yeah and so then the question becomes put it in three so we have responding communications from counselors in a timely manner which I think simply means you know answer our emails within 20 minutes when we send them to you well how about in less than a week right because that's happened to me where I needed information and didn't get it yeah I mean I I guess I put it under number five and and maybe Kathy can speak to why she wanted it in number five but I think the reason I would put it there is the analysis and supporting documents are part of relevant information we need to make decisions not necessarily getting back to us on a question and I think that's why it might be better in number five yeah yeah now the cat has its tail raised okay I'm sorry I thought the cat had something to say that is down see I can't hear the gesture that's a cat gesture I can only see uh oh no there you are now I've got you more of you yeah okay raise your hand Kathy please so Mandy am I unmuted yeah yes you are okay um yeah many flagged why I put this here there are times where we were getting a presentation and only had partial information so it meant we had to meet a second time um and so that's it wasn't uh you know can you meet with me next week could you get back to me kind of a counselor thing so um it's sometimes it was committees but uh so I think the doing what you've done makes sense now unless there's a new item six here I think we're at the end of the document I think we are and I think we've gone through it line by line section by section thank you again to Kathy for taking the time to do this um and it's forced us to confront a number of issues and make a number of changes um I think we are ready to declare this draft seven version seven is that correct um any further thoughts yes that's number seven I'm let me see I'm I cannot right now be part of a consensus on this um okay I will not block uh consensus but I feel like I would like to have the uh paragraphs about racial equity and energy added as an appendix or whatever but I won't won't block the consensus well Pat that should be noted certainly in the report um is that sufficient I think you can vote no it's okay to vote no and then you can explain I don't usually abstain and but right now I'm thinking I can't say I can't vote in consensus as part of the consensus I have to stand back from that uh and it may be that I'm going to do a no vote but I'm still cogitating I am proud of this document so it's yeah I think that from perspective selfish perspective the chair uh I very much would like to present a five zero vote but there are times when you just can't do that and it's nobody's fault mandate your hand up yes I see Mandy go ahead so I don't think we've voted this document ever in GL I think it's either been consensus or well let's see what they say um what what I was going to suggest is I I've heard what Pat is saying and I know we had some really specific goals from ECAC that they wanted in this document that we haven't that we did not necessarily incorporate specifically so I guess what I would want and I'm not sure I can support it now because I'm really confused at how it would look Pat um with what you're saying I understand you know that you're looking to add something as an appendix but I don't really know what it would look like um and so I guess my suggestion is send this document as is but Pat maybe when we bring you know at that meeting if we can have concrete look of what that would look like whether it's the full document or whether it's some modified version of what we receive so that we can actually see what you're suggesting instead of try to envision it in I I don't think we're all are visioning the same thing I think that would really help um I hear that the conversation the other thing is if the if it were put together and I can work on that um it would need to say that these goals or these documents have not been voted on by the all aspects of these documents have not been voted on by the council or something like that right and I think that's the problem because this is this is a document it's supposed to reflect the council's goals and now it's saying right at the top but these aren't the goals of some counselors and that's why I'm imploring people to try to find a document that while doesn't say everything they want it to say um says what's really important and understand that you may feel bad and perhaps you still do that that this needs to be said and it's really important I think we tried perhaps unsuccessfully in that first paragraph or preamble to acknowledge the interconnectedness and overarching nature of these goals but shied away from what I think would be uh a very difficult and I think very painful and very unproductive attempt to um wordsmith every single one of these again um and again I'll just make my same argument I don't want to do that and like I said I think this is a good document and it does reflect listening on the part of this committee when I said that I won't block consensus that means basically that we can pass it that yeah so we can say that it was passed by consensus um because I'm not blocking it I don't know maybe I should just I'm not blocking the decision and there is okay I'm going to go with it I I am in I agree that this is the document that we should prevent present to the council without additions because right right and we're not taking a vote and I'm basically I'm taking Mandy's perspective which is this is what we came up with and um do you want more and each each of you individually can speak to it and if you have reservations you can speak to them at the council I couldn't you know I would you know sorry no I was just gonna say but Lynn is not here I was just gonna say so you have a 401 absent vote I think if you counting it yeah we have not done a vote before I don't see any reason to do one at this point because who knows this I mean I truly dread this thought but it's conceivable it could come back to us again I'm serious I'm serious I think that would be true I know look how wage theft has come back right so um I would that's why I'm trying to get us to the point where we can at least you know as a group without necessarily voting but just say well anyway I think I have the group behind it behind you it's up to each of you but we agree that this by consensus this is what it's going to be what we're going to send to the council and um I will try to pat I can certainly capture in my report the concern of one counselor that that wished that um these racial and social equity goals and apparently I believe also the environmental goals you can't do one without the other so you want both you know ideally and your your wish would be have those two interwoven into no no not interwoven oh not interwoven I think that we've honestly taken care of that in this in the change of the preamble or whatever you want to call it the opening paragraph I would yes the way I see it being added is that those um documents with a statement about not having been voted on by the council have been suggested by the racial equity task force and or something like that I don't know okay yeah all right any further thoughts from my colleagues thank you all Emily for yeah apologies to Emily I'm sorry but there's no way w