Yes. Thank you. Good evening. It is August 7th, 2023. This is a regular meeting of the town council. However, it is being held totally on zoom. The open meeting law has been extended. This allows us to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum. The council physically present at a meeting location. While providing the public with adequate alternative access to the meeting. This meeting is successful in real time. By zoom by phone and as a live broadcast on Amherst media channel nine. And their live stream. Given that we have a quorum of the council present, I'm calling the August 7, 2023 town council meeting to order. At 631 PM. I'll call upon each counselor to make sure that they can hear us and we can hear them. And at that point, please remember to then mute again. Okay. Shelly Bonn-Milm. Not yet. Okay. Pat D'Angeles. Present. Anna Devon got here. Anna, something's going on with your. Sorry. Yeah, I'm present. Got it. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. Linda. Lynn grease murder is present. Mandy Joe, Hanneke. Present. Anika lobes. Michelle Miller. Present. Dorothy Pam. I'm here. Yeah. I'm here. Kathy Shane. I'm here. Andy Steinberg. Present. Jennifer. Present. Alicia Walker. Here. And I do recall in an earlier poll. That I don't believe shall any can be with us. There is no chat room for this meeting. If you have technical issues, please let Paul or me know to make a comment or ask a question. Please use the raised hand function. If tech technical difficulties arise as a result of utilizing remote participation. We'll decide how to address the situation. And I'll be monitoring council's counselor connections. And if necessary, we will pause the meeting until you are reconnected. There is no change in the order of the agenda as posted. With all of that said. I want to particularly ask. Both the audience and. Counselors. For your patients tonight. We are holding this meet meeting without the assistant of our assistance of our outstanding clerk to the town council. Kelly. Who is planning to be with us to take minutes. Paul will be posting the motions within 24 hours. Anna will be managing the slides. And I will manage the meeting, including the timer. So that's kind of how it's going to go. We do. I just want to check. I just want to clarify. Whether or not Kelly is in the audience and she is not. Okay. So we're recording the meeting and that is sufficient. We're going to go to the announcements. Anna, please put them up. I want to particularly call attention to the fact that we have council meetings coming up on the 21st. September 11th and actually September 18th as well. So. And prior to this agenda being. Posted. Our, since this agenda was posted, the finance committee has set a meeting date of August 22nd. At 3.30. We're done with that. We're going to go to general public comment. And if you have, would like to make general public comment. Please raise your hand now. Right now I'm seeing. I'm not seeing any hands at all. There are six folks with their hands up. Okay, Anna, I don't know why I'm not seeing them. There we are. Okay. We're going to start. And again, I'm just going to ask for people's patients as we move forward tonight because we do not have our usual clerk of the town council. Paul, would you please bring. So let me just go on. This is general public comment, and it is the only public comment this evening. Since we are meeting in totally virtual mode tonight all comments will be through zoom. We've already asked people to raise their hands if they are in zoom. And residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes. I'm not engaged in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment. With that, I'm going to call on Peggy, Matthews, Nelson. Please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Peggy, you need to unmute. All you may have to ask her time. There we go. Hi, we can hear you. Good. Good start. Hi, I'm Peggy Matthews, Nelson district five. And I'm speaking in support of the dark skies friendly streetlight policy. Light pollution is a devastating is devastating to the natural world. We humans are just one part of the natural world, but are inseparable from it. Light pollution of our skies negatively affects the natural circadian rhythm of all forms of life from plants to salamanders to migrating birds to pollinating insects to bats and humans. The human health risks of disrupted sleep patterns are well documented. The impact of disrupted patterns on other species is becoming clearer as our environment becomes more and more out of balance. When you consider the impact of light pollution on human health and the well being of other species that humans rely upon, the costs of light pollution far outweigh any benefit to the environment from adding more streetlights in an attempt to induce more people to bike, walk or take the bus. Instead, reducing the glare of existing streetlights by using new low lumen, low glare, 2200 K lights in streetlights will better will result in better visibility for drivers, bicyclists, walkers and runners, and it will also help keep our skies darker for everyone. Instead of expecting all the streets to be brightly lit, it makes far better sense to reduce the glare of existing streetlights, which is almost certainly responsible for a significant number of bike and pedestrian crashes. We encourage common sense bike and pedestrian safety measures. Cyclists can use state mandated bike lights and wear reflective clothing. Pedestrians can carry cheap portable LED lights for visibility. The rest of the natural world relies upon us humans to make wise decisions based upon our understanding of science and the impact of our technology on the natural world. For these reasons, I urge members of the town council to support the dark sky friendly streetlight policy. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. We will now bring Eve Vogel in please. Eve, please state your name and where you live. Hi, can you hear me. You can. Good. All right. My name is Eve Vogel. I live on Harlow Drive off of East Pleasant. I serve for over 10 years on town transportation committees have driven walked, biked and ridden the bus and Amherst for 15 years. I'm also a geography faculty member at UMass, formerly an ecologist, and have worked on the careful balance of ecosystem protection with human use and infrastructure for decades. I strongly support efforts to reduce unnecessary nighttime lighting. Natural lighting and natural darkness are good for plants, people and other animals. And I also strongly support strategic street lighting for safety and comfort, especially for pedestrians, bicyclists and other vulnerable users of our sidewalks and street shoulders. My largest single effort in 15 years and Amherst has been to find ways to promote a transportation mode shift in which more people walk, bite or use transit for short trips rather than a car. A transportation mode shift reduces resource and energy use, reduces traffic and parking congestion increases public health and increases patronage of local businesses. Currently in Massachusetts, the number one contributor to greenhouse gas emissions is transportation. So a transportation mode shift is also crucial for our efforts to combat climate change. I'm excited about the street lights policy proposal, because improved street lights are essential for a transportation mode shift in Amherst. I thank Councilors Haneke and Devon Gautier for putting so much time and attention on a topic that can seem boring, but is important to many purposes. However, unfortunately, the proposal is not ready. It has been improved since June, but it remains one-sided. As currently written, it will worsen nighttime safety in Amherst and obstruct a transportation mode shift. I ask you to postpone the vote and make revisions to get this policy right. To understand the benefits, dangers and opportunities, let's focus on four streets. First, downtown Pleasant Street. Shielded lights, warm colors, pedestrian scale and frequently placed lights make for a win-win situation, protection of dark skies and pedestrian safety. This is a place where the current policy will work well. My street, Harlow Drive, not a through street, traffic is limited and relatively slow. It could be great to shield the lights and warm their color prioritizing dark sky protections over safety lighting rules. Many people in my neighborhood already do wear lights when they walk around, they are long-term residents. In these two neighborhoods, the current policy, as it stands, is already positive. Now, think about North Pleasant, north of campus. This is a major corridor for students walking to and from UMass after class in the winter to get pizza at night or home from parties at 2 a.m. Shielding lights and making colors warmer without adding additional lamps will mean less of the sidewalk and roadway is lighted. This is already a route that has one of the highest crash rates in the town. Eve, we need you to finish up, thank you. And it's also the site of a fatality a few years ago because a driver did not see a graduate student crossing the street after he got off the bus. The current policy without revisions will make this street more dangerous. Finally, East Pleasant, no sidewalks north of Olympia Drive. Many people, but not very many, take the bus, walk and bike on this route. But more will do it if the lights are not intermittent. They will become more intermittent, less light and more dangerous if this policy is passed. I asked the council to pause, make important revisions and achieve both dark skies and safety for the future of the town. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Tracy Zafian, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Okay, hi. I'm in the room now. Okay, great. Okay. Okay. Thank you. My name is Tracy Zafian. I live in district three just south of Amity Street. I'm currently the chairperson of the transportation advisory committee, though I'm not speaking here tonight on tax behalf. I'll send in written comments as well tonight. Since the sponsors first presented their proposed policy in August 2022 I've contacted the council numerous times with my concerns about the policy. And asked the policy be revised to better balance the goals of reducing the detrimental impacts of excessive life on human health, which I support with other tone goals relating to traffic safety becoming a more age friendly community and encouraging more biking and walking to help meet climate action goals. A lot of work has gone into this policy and into revising it in response to the feedback since the first came before the council almost a year ago. I appreciate those changes in the policy now is safer and better than what was first proposed. However, in my view, the current proposal still has a number of significant issues from a process perspective and a traffic safety perspective. I encourage the council to postpone its vote accordingly. It is not urgent for the council to vote on the policy at this time. It will likely be years before many of the town's current street lights reach the end of their useful lifetime and are replaced. And the current street lights do not have dimming capabilities. There is therefore time to propose to propose street lights policy has written to further make it better and safer. I appreciate the goal of reducing light pollution and overly bright lights at night. And I'm not a fan of glare either, which is noted can contribute to crashes and to drivers pedestrians and bicyclists having trouble seeing at night. But at the same time, my focus both personally and professionally is on traffic safety and saving lives and I see that as paramount. And there are so many traffic deaths that occur at night, including over 75% of pedestrian fatalities and 50% of traffic fatalities in general. And in looking at the crash data for Amherst from 2010 to 2023, a majority of the serious accident and fatal crashes have occurred at night. So research has clearly shown that good nighttime street lighting can reduce these fatalities and that the lack of good lighting at night can make it harder for drivers to see pedestrians and other road objects and to respond to them in a timely manner by slowing or yielding. So one of the earlier commenters tonight recommended that the town have light that's no warmer than 23 that 2300. Okay, thank you. So anyway, I just wanted to stress that I mean there are things that pedestrians and bicyclists can as comment as a comment or said there are steps that pedestrians bicyclists can do to improve their own safety, including having lights and having reflective clothing but not many do that. And it's important that we keep them safe regardless. I just want to make a final comment that when the Gazette wrote up the policy that's on the agenda tonight, it discussed how the policy is designed to increase the lighting on streets with heavy pedestrian and bicycling traffic. And so I just wanted to offer that if that is an indeed a goal of the policy that the tack is available to assist identifying those streets and evaluating if additional need lighting is needed on them. So thank you. One moment please. I'm just trying to catch up. James Lowenthal, please enter the room state your name and where you live. Hello. My name is James Lowenthal I live in Northampton I'm Professor of astronomy at Smith College, and I'm on the graduate faculty at UMass. I lead the Massachusetts chapter of dark sky international, the nonprofit advocacy group based in Tucson, I'm involved in the national and international level in the effort to save natural darkness at night from light pollution for the protection of human health and safety wildlife heritage and quality of life, and the starry sky. This is a modern day environmental crisis light pollution is growing worse by an astounding 10% per year far outstripping population growth. We urgently need to act to stop the erosion of natural darkness that all life on earth needs to thrive. You can see this erosion happening everywhere including in Amherst, where new bright blue glare bombs pop up practically every night on front porches commercial building streets and parking lots and schools and other campuses. Proposed lighting policy will help Amherst lead by example, and follow national and international best practices in limiting glare, over lighting and harmful blue light at night on its streets. I also founded the local chapter of mass bike the statewide bicycle advocacy organization on the lifelong cyclist and pedestrian and advocate for environmentally friendly transportation policy. I use my bike for transportation day and night summer and winter, including between Northampton and Amherst. I'm very grateful to you vocal Tracy's if in and others for their hard work in supporting bike bed transit. I believe the concerns they've raised while well intention are not well founded. If more light necessarily led to safer streets than New York City Chicago Philadelphia and LA would be the safest places in the world for bicyclists and pedestrians but they're not. We all know that to use a flashlight you point the light at the ground, not in your own face, but most of Amherst's current street lights do just that blind you with a direct poke in the eye. Many, many fatal bike pad car crashes around the US and worldwide are caused every day by this blinding glare from poorly shielded lighting. My friend and colleague Kate Queenie, resident of Amherst was struck and nearly killed one night in a crosswalk near Smith. There was plenty of light, but the driver never saw her. I'm sure glare from poorly shielded street lights was largely to blame Amherst is no different. Amherst already has way more than enough light so much that we've already lost the Milky Way from view that excess light elevates residents rates of cancer disrupts their sleep and harmful ecosystems including pollinating insects and dangerously blinds drivers without providing the safety promises cities and towns that have curved their light pollution and implemented the same sort of common sense controls proposed here have not seen upticks and crime or roadway crashes. Cambridge dims their light after hours, peperal installed local amber amber LED street lights and dims them after midnight. They're now saving money electricity and the police say they can see better than before. Okay, if I could have just another few seconds, I'll finish briefly. The Federal Highway Administration National Transportation Safety Board the League of American bicyclists all call for improving bike pad safety, but none of them calls for more street lights. We don't need more light, we need better light. I urge you to support this carefully thought out common sense proposed lighting policy, which has been vetted by professional lighting experts and is consistent with recommendations from both dark sky international and the illuminating engineering society. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Rob Cushner, please enter the room state your name and where you live. Am I in the room. You are. Okay, good evening. Rob Cusner. I'm a 5 meter drive just around the corner from one of your earlier commenters. The moment I'm actually far away but I hope to get in a written comment but let me just briefly summarize. Since I listened to all the people tonight I know all of them. And I know them professionally as well as. Are you able to hear me okay, I'm getting a message. Okay. I'm not a professional astronomer, astronomer, but I am an amateur astronomer. I just returned from ontopagasta Chile, which is home to the largest ground based optical telescopes on the planet. And I tried to actually see the dark sky there up in the desert. And I had to come a desert. Unfortunately, I didn't time the trip right, the full moon appeared just as I was hoping to get a view of anything in the sky. I say this only because I'm extremely sympathetic to the idea that we need dark sky. And so Connor, a former town council, excuse me, town meeting member in the recent town council candidate, once summed it up quickly when he introduced the proposal, nearly 20 years ago to preserve the dark skies by saying, it's the greatest show on earth it's been going on for millions, billions of years. And even this coming weekend will have a chance for one of the highlights the perceived meteors. I hope I get to see that 35 years ago when I came to Amherst, I could see the Milky Way easily from my backyard in the van meter Harlow area. That's impossible now so I'm very sympathetic to the idea of reducing street lighting, especially in the smaller neighborhood streets like the ones that Eve and I and Peggy live on. And I agree with James James is a professional astronomer. He has to deal with light and having lights at the low temperature and is very important. Okay, to spectroscopy in particular. I'm also a cyclist year round cyclist, all weather cyclist I bike on the Norwatic rail trail with no lights at all and the ones on my bicycle. I just hope someone in front of me is coming on a bicycle also be doing the same thing. We're not going to have lights on the Norwatic rail trail. We're not going to have lights on some of the other pads around, however, some of the streets, East Pleasant Street, North Pleasant Street, route nine otherwise known as College Street and Delta Town Road. They all need much better lighting. I mean for all of you counselors given the somewhat divided views we've heard from people who've served the town as I have you know I was a select board member. I serve for many many years of the transportation. And I'm about to finish. I think we should adopt a policy like this but take into account some of the concerns that have been raised by other people like Eve Tracy and I'll even raise them to. We need to plan better where we locate lights, where even to remove lights, and I hope you'll consider that, perhaps, giving this a little more time, two weeks the moon will be new. Maybe it's good to wait until your next meeting to take this up. Thank you for your comments Robert Andy Anderson please enter the room state your name and where you live. Hi, this is Andy Anderson. I am a resident of District five. Here we are, three months after my last appearance, and with respect to the rank choice and voting implementation required by the town's charter, nothing has been accomplished. As I predicted back in May, the Commonwealth legislature held a hearing in late June on our home rule petition, which has a self imposed early July deadline for use in this November's elections. And now that we did it now get out of committee and time to meet that deadline still hasn't surfaced from that committee. So it can't be used until 2025 at the earliest four years after its intended first use. I know the representative Dom is optimistic about it being approved this session. But as I said back in May, we really can't even depend on that the legislature can easily bury it and make a mockery of our home rule. One quarter of a year ago, three square citizens petitioned you all to also approach the attorney general, it asked for clarification on their approval of the charter, and it's intended implementation of range choice voting through by the law. Instead of following up on that simple idea, you instead asked the town's attorney to approach the secretary of the Commonwealth with that question. And I'm told that their responses that they would not provide an opinion on the matter. So that was the dead end, also as I predicted. And what has happened since so far as I know, nothing. The matter was discussed at your last meeting on July 17 and the clear message was that there was nothing more you could do. In other words, you're ignoring our petition, because that is something else you could do. And one of you that there's no hurry now because of the short time until November. That's just procrastination. There was no reason this request the attorney general couldn't have been done back in May and there's no reason to wait now. So please don't wash your hands of this matter, don't wait, please contact the attorney general, the future of range choice voting and Amherst may depend on it. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Public comment for the evening. And we are going to move on to the consent agenda. Anna, would you please put this consent agenda on the screen. Yep, it's up. Thank you so much. This, these pieces were chosen because they were considered to routine. If you remove an item after I do the first round, please let me know. And the, and then I will seek a second, if you remove an item it does not require a second, and it will be discussed later in the evening. I also want to remind counselors that although something may appear on the consent agenda. When it, if it's, and it's past, you can still ask for more information with that agenda item comes up. So to move the following items and the printed motions there under and approve those items as a single unit, six a resolution in support of an act expanding access to trails for people of all abilities. Eight a withdrawal of measure proposed amendments to zoning bylaw article three article four article nine and article 12 duplex triplex town home converted dwellings. The authorize president to sign a letter in support of an act to modernize funding for community media programming 11 a approval of July 17 2023 regular meeting minutes. Mindy Joe I see your hand up. Yes I'd like to remove a to the authorization of the president to sign a letter in support of an act to modernize funding for community media programming. Okay. Any other questions at this time.  I'm going to take Andy Steinberg on that one. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to take that down. I'm going to now call the vote. I did hear from shallony she'll be joining us later but she is not hearing yet. At least I don't see her. Okay. Pat Angeles. Hi. I'm a Devlin got there. Hi. Lynn Greece runner is an eye Mandy Johanna key. Hi. Anika Lopes. Hi. Michelle Miller. Hi. Dorothy Pam. Yes. I'm Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Hi. Jennifer top. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Thank you. Just give me one moment to just do some items. We're going to go on to, we have already done resolutions and proclamations. And Pat, I want to just apologize for not asking you to do this in advance, but are you able to read the last paragraph or two of the resolution? The now there for us. Yes. I just want to say that this was sponsored by the disability access advisory committee. And how the, I just want to give this one fact, and then I'll go out of the 4,000 miles of unpaved, accessible. Unpaved hiking trails in Massachusetts. Only 7.5 miles of those 4,000 miles. Are accessible. And now therefore be it resolved that the town of Amherst calls on our state leaders and legislators to support S 4, 4, 6 and H 7, 6, 9 and act expanding access to trails for people of all abilities presented by Senator Joanne Cumberford and represented to Michelle Chicola and currently assigned to the joint committee on environment and natural resources. And now be it resolved that the town of Amherst calls on the President of the Senate, Karen Spilka, Speaker of the House, Representative Robert Marion, members of the Massachusetts Joint Committee on environment and natural resources, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Massachusetts Recreation Trail advisory board to support access to trails for people of all abilities. And now be it resolved that the clerk of the Amherst Town Council shall cause a copy of the resolution to be sent to Governor Maureen Healy, Senate President Karen Spilka, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Robert Marion, State Senator Joanne Cumberford, State Representative Mindy Dom and the members of the joint committee on environment and natural resources, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Commissioner Brian Origo and the members of the Massachusetts Recreation Trail advisory board. We need to stop this incredible unequal treatment of residents. Thank you, Pat. There are no presentations and discussion tonight. We are going to go on to the action items. And under the action items of the first is the withdrawal of measure proposed amendments for the zoning bylaw article three and article four, article nine and article nine. It's 12 duplex, triplex townhouse and converted dwellings. The sponsors have a memo in the packet. And I'd like to ask whether the sponsors at this time would like to speak to the memo. Mandy Joe or Pat. Okay. Doug Marshall, who is chair of the plan. She was speaking. No, no, I just was going to say that I feel comfortable that the committee is not going to take away from the state's what we need to say. If Mandy would like to add something, I'd support that. Thank you, Pat. The memo speaks for itself. Thank you. And Doug Marshall, who is chair of the planning board has joined us. Doug, would you like to make any comments at this time? No, I do not. You know, we have the. Foundation memo that we made to town council. And I think that speaks for itself. Thank you. Thank you. And I just want to recognize that Chris Brestrup is here with us tonight. But it's not going to comment at this point. Are there any comments from counselors at this time. On this issue. Pam Rooney. Yeah, I didn't know if you were going to call on any of the reports from any of the other committees that may have heard this discussion and. Had any vote since you called on the planning planning board. Were you. Were you ready to. Get a summary of any other report. DOL would be the other. I'm sorry, not GOL. CRC. Would be the other report. And if you would like to comment, please do. Okay. We had. We had a good six months, I think of discussion about this proposal. We heard also a CRC members from the public. We heard from. The ZBA. And we also. Got the results of the planning board. And the planning department input. On the proposal. I would, I think I would capture the, the essence of the feedback that was received from. Outside of the CRC. Is that there was a strong sense that our existing zoning. Is not the reason that we. It's not the deterrent. To affordable housing and Amherst. The ZBA was quite clear in, in that their process, they felt was very clear and inclusive. And that input from the public was in fact often. Resulted in better, a better product. The planning board voted unanimously to not adopt the proposal. And that, that. I think for the summarizes. I think that's a good point. Thank you. Are there any other committees that have the reports on this at this time?  Right. I'm just a, I want to comment that this is a very complicated problem. And that the challenge that we're facing now is that the economics of building. In our town only to be able to be built if it is subsidized. And so one of the things that we have to think about is how can we get more subsidies? The federal government used to be very involved in this. But we need to get the state government. To do more, not just the private entities. Because we do need to have more affordable housing. Solutions, which could work in many towns, increasing quantity of housing. And so we need to have more affordable housing. In a college town, many, many articles and research has shown in a college town, they don't work.  So we have to come up with some new ways. Not just increasing quantity of housing because that will be unaffordable housing that will not be in the reach of families, the families that we do want to. Keep here for full-time members. I certainly agree with the aims of the proposal, but I am a very aware of the fact that it's very complex. To come up with a solution that will work in our town under this economy and our being a college town. So we need to come up with some new ways. But thank you. Are there any other counselors who would like to comment at this time? Seeing none, then we're going to move on to the proposed streetlight policy. So I would like to first ask for a sponsor update from counselors, Hanna key and Devon got here. And then if TSO or GL. Would like to comment, although the. Version that you see in your packet now has been revised since those committees have reviewed. Okay. So. Thank you. Thank you. I want to start with a history of the proposal. This was brought to the council about a year ago and referred to TSO. And if the council remembers a year ago when we presented this proposal, it had two parts. We titled or referenced one part as. You know, one part as a location. You know, you know, performance specifications and another part as location specifications where placements would be. We referenced those placement specifications by creating lighting zones, lighting zones that were separated both by how pedestrian volume and street use, whether they were residential or collector or arterial. And also location in town. We had separated even farther for things like, were they a residential street that had a lot of pedestrian traffic or not? Were they a collector street or an arterial street? When we got to TSO, the very comments we received on that portion of it, the locational standards portion where that it needed more thought time discussion and research regarding which roads were low, medium and high pedestrian traffic. When we would measure that traffic, we would measure how areas should be low light, medium light zones and high light zones. TAC wanted more discussion. TSO said it needed more outreach. We were asked to remove the locational standards. Now you may be wondering why I'm talking about this because we did remove it and it's not part of this proposal. Yet now when we look at our proposal and the comments we hear now, many, many of those comments relate exactly to what was done, and we do not know much how many street lights should be on any one street because of how it is used. The locational standards. Ms. Vogel's proposal may not reference it by lighting zone, but that's basically what it is. I just wanted to remind the council that that part was removed for particular reasons and was never thought to be removed. We need to make sure that we have more information, more research, more thought, and that if we could do the performance standards, we could then move on to the other part. So what we're facing right now is not a change in where the locations are now. We can agree or disagree on what we think the location of a light should be. We have lights in town. Those lights are not safe. As you heard some of the commenters, some of the lights are not safe. They over light. And they have the wrong color temperature. They are a color temperature that has seen higher rates of colorectal and breast cancer and other cancers in neighborhoods that have been early adopters of such lighting. That's what we're trying to fix today. And with this proposal is correct the glare. Correct the color temperature. Correct the over lighting of the illuminance levels. Well, it's not even the illuminance levels because that's actually not in our proposal. The over lighting is lighting of the private properties that are next to the public way. Our proposal proposes. Lighting the public way adequately. We, I absolutely agree that next steps are those lighting zones. That's what we're trying to fix today. I think we should have that discussion. Is North pleasant street under lit because it doesn't have enough. Light poles. We should have that discussion. Because our time, you know, our town has changed, but that's not what this policy right now. Proposes. Because we removed those at the request of the committee. We need a discussion about safety for roads and transportation mode shift. But that discussion isn't just about lighting. It's about safety. It's about safety. It's about safety. It's about safety. It's about safety. It's about complete streets. It's about safety education of bicyclists. It's about other passive safety improvements. That can be done. None of that belongs in a street light policy. The design of a street for complete streets is not a street light policy. It's a different type of policy. So that was basically at least briefly what I wanted to say. If there's other questions, but I'd pass it off to Anna if she wants to add anything. No, thank you. I think Mandy, Mandy covered it really. We've been. Gosh, I think that someone has pointed out working on this for a year now, which is exciting. And, you know, I feel like we should get little cupcakes from our newest cupcake store in town. But I think, you know, we've really been seeking and appreciating the input that folks have. And I think as with any policy, this is a step in the direction like Mandy said, there are, there are more steps we can and should take. This is a step. And it moves us in a direction that is safe. And so, you know, I think I'm, I'm really appreciative of the folks who have. Given input that has pushed us further. And that has shaped this policy. I think if you look at the many, many iterations that Mandy and I have both presented to this council, but also have saved on our computers that we've been working on over time, you'll see that the, the amount that we have taken into consideration. And that we've changed is significant. And so I do want to thank the folks who have, who have provided expertise input and their own thoughts and opinions on, on this proposal as well. I'm now open for councilor comments. I am going to use the clock on the comments. And we're going to start with Dorothy Pam. I do remember the conversation in TSO, in which we agreed that shielding light downward. And color of light and those things. That did not seem to impede safety, but we're good for the natural world. Did not seem to cause any problems. But I have a question. There's an, it has been brought up that there's a difference between, and I don't know if I'm talking lumens or what I'm talking, but 2700 versus 3000. And I believe 2700 is the number that you felt was better for the natural world, but 3000 was the number that safety at pedestrian safety advocates liked. I'm so, I'm just wondering if there's some clarification on that. I'm just wondering if there's some clarification on that. That presents a problem. Mandy Joe or Andy. Or Anna. I'm sorry. I can do my best. Pepper roll has actually installed 2200 Kelvin street lights. Referred to as Amber street lights and the police indicate that that actually produces better visibility, even though they are less bright than before. A lot of people think blue light is safer because it's clearer sometimes or it's perceived as clearer, but it's not. And, and produces. More glare is the big one. So, so the goal with the 2200. That, that, well, we, we originally proposed 2200. We've moved it to 2700 because 2200 can be difficult to find. As Guilford said, 2700 is much more standard. I can't just, I can't really describe the huge difference between 2700 and 3000. So. Um, warm white of 3000 is obviously less warm. 4000 is where we are now somewhere between four and 6000. And those are the Kelvins that. Have shown in research studies to increase rates of cancer. At exposure at night, including in people who live in neighborhoods with 4000 Kelvin lights. Breast cancer, colorectal counselors, other cancers. And they have been working on the same thing. And, and the AMA has actually recommended all street lights be warm white at 3000 Kelvin or lower pepperals. Policy, I believe allows for up to 3000. If 2700 can't be found, but they've actually gone with, I believe 2200. Um, so. There is a slight difference of opinion, but there is research out there and. There's a slight difference of opinion, but there is a slight difference of opinion. Produce provide just as much visibility and necessary visibility. If you like properly that others do, but as much safer for the body. Uh, Andy. Yes, I'm going to make a motion and after I make the motion, I will explain it. I'm moving under. Council rule 7.1 sub part seven. I'm going to make a motion on this motion. Until September 11. Meeting September 11, 2023 meeting. Okay. A motion's been made. I need a second. Second, the Angeles. Okay. Andy, could you restate the motion again, please? The motion is pursuant to rule 7.1 sub part seven. Presumably not. So it should be made sure that. The motion is pursuant to the rules of procedure to postpone the vote on. This motion until September 11, 2023. Okay. Uh, if the motions been made in a second, would you. I'm sorry. Point of order. More of a point of information. Could Andy give us what rules, I'm not sure main motion is under debate. The following motions are permitted in sub part seven is postponed to a certain time. And the reason I'm making the motion is that I told the finance committee and asked the finance committee only members only to respond to me because of open meeting law concerns. With the end with the simple question is to whether members of the committee would like to have the opportunity to consider the finance whether there are financial implications to this motion. And the response was that there were two people who felt felt very strongly that we should postpone to have that opportunity for the finance committee to make that inquiry. And one member responded saying that he was essentially ambivalent but willing to go to go forward with the vote tonight so I wanted to report that to you too. But I felt since there were two members who had a strong opinion that I would make the motion. I think that there are questions about the staff time and equipment purchase and capital. I think that it might be involved and Guilford mooring the superintendent of public works is available for the next finance committee meeting on August 22nd, and we will still have the benefit of our current finance directors presence. So the date of September 11 is just simply the next meeting after that meeting with time to provide a report of any discussion and consideration that takes place in the finance committee. And I know that there's at least one other member of the committee who is present and in the meeting today with indicating wishing to speak so I don't know if she wants to speak on that issue or not. Anyway, that's the motion and the reason for it. And I think the last thing that I was saying, just for matter of disclosure, as a member of TSO, I supported the motion that's on the floor, the main motion that's on the floor tonight. So the motion has been made and seconded. And I'd like the people who have raised their hands to, if you will, kind of speak to the motion, or any other issues that relate to this. Okay, Kathy. Point of order Lynn, can we run the clock. I forgot who you said. I will do so. Excuse me while I turn my head the other way to do deal with my other computer. Okay, so Kathy. Thank you, Lynn. I reserve the right to come back on I'm going to speak just to the motion right now. I was similarly going to make a motion to postpone and I actually had picked a later date than Andy I was going to push it off till October 2. I think we need a financial assessment. I think we also need to look at whether we can get more balanced wording. So much Mandy on I need you to put every street back in. But I think there are places that it's overly prescriptive and technical to the point of micromanaging. And we need time to assess that rather than being told this study says this or that I've been clicking as you spoke, and there is even controversy on some of them. And I think the wording could be softer in the technical appendix. I don't have a problem for the most part with the beginning statements. So I think it would give us time to really have a substantive discussion to get more public input and to potentially look at, you know, what exceptions, and how the public would weigh into exceptions. I'm not going to stop there but I wanted a longer period. I'm willing to support Andy's to September 11. I have prepared about a five page memo and then I've marked up the PDF with questions on wording, some of which would be a GLL but places specifically think we should soften the wording. So I want to speak to that. Secondly, I'm finished on why I think postponing makes total sense. I might also mention that rule eight point I so rarely do this I'm going to have to double look eight point something eight point four. Eight rule eight point four says whenever there is a policy or measure proposed that we do not vote on it until we have a thorough discussion on it so we don't vote it on it till the next meeting in this case I think we need a financial review so wouldn't be the next meeting, but until the finance committee can meet, which is Andy has pointed out is August 22. Thank you. This actually is Council's second reading. There have have, however, there have been some serious revision since that first read. I would say what before us is so completely different when this is the first reading so I would just argue with that. As Mandy said that they really went back and rewrote. So it's the first time, certainly that I've seen it since it was way back in a year ago. Thank you. I have a point of order Lynn. Yes. So first shallony is here you might want to recognize her and second could you clarify for me I'm sorry for delays. Who seconded the motion. Andy. No, I'm sorry. Pat, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. And again, this is part of everyone being patient with our amateur clerk of the council responsibilities. I'm going to Charlie. Yes, thank you shall any. Can you hear us. Yes, I can. And we will now note that we have all 13 counselors present. I also just want to mention there's about eight people in the zoom audience I'm sure there's many others on the team on watching on TV. Michelle, please go ahead. I do have a question for Mandy and Anna. That was based on the earlier presentation that they made but I can hold hold that for now. I would like to support Andy's motion I think that it's it's a good idea to have a financial review. I would also submitted a motion, given the substantial revisions that have been made. And I understand that role 8.6 of our rules procedure does not define its expectations regarding a revised measure. I believe a GOL review is appropriate. Before this would be voted on so I know that GOL did look at it in its earliest version, and I believe declared it clear consistent and actionable. But there have been substantial revisions and I think it would be appropriate for us to have it go back to GOL. I also was in my motion asking for a substantive review so that some of this valuable input that we've received could potentially be included in that review. So, I do support Andy's motion, but also think that we should find a way to get it to GOL for one more review before it's voted on. Thank you. Thank you so much. I have two hands that are up and then we'll see if there's going to be a revision to the emotion. Anika. Thank you. So I, I want to start as a member and chair of TSO again to thank the sponsors. I know that there has been so much work that has gone into this and numerous attempts to gather that this is this is packed and I recognize that as well. And I also just wanted to vote both confirm and appreciate the separation of that that this is in two parts. As we know from the reports, the consensus coming from TSO was in regards to the need to lessen light pollution. And I think everyone was on the same page as that where the differs were, were safety and greatly around walkability. I know sometimes walkability seems to be pieced, you know, there are many different elements that are being brought up for safety concerns, but I would just, I think this this if with this positive does give us a chance to really look at that walkability in its entirety and holistically and looking at that, there is no separation between vulnerable populations between those who use like myself depend on public transportation and always have as opposed to those making choices to like or to walk for leisure purposes. And, you know, whether it's disability, or, you know, our senior population for two walkability scores scores, in particularly with in town lifestyle, they're all included in that whole so I do appreciate the separating the two. And this could give time for people to really digest because it seems like those concerns are coming as as pieced as opposed to the whole, you know, I 100% appreciate the night sky and us being able to see it. And so, you know, grew up with it missed it looked forward to seeing it when I decided to move back home, but one of the, you know, my other major reasons that was a pro for me was, you know, transportation seeing where we're going. And also, I think this allows for us to really include more of populations that are being spoken for, especially in regards to where we have more dense apartment complexes which are historically used there are bus stops where there's quite a long walk to get to either one's building or or or unit. So those were just my concerns and just comments at this point along with thank you to the sponsors. Thank you, Jennifer. Yes, I, I was totally support delaying a decision till a later date and very much appreciate you know think it should go to finance so I would be, I was always been concerned that if we don't have the budget in place to fully implement the recommendations. And we do some and not others we could be making some streets darker with out being able to replace them lights with what the sponsors are recommending would would be better served by so I think we have to know if we can kind of implement the policy as proposed, and I don't know that we can do that by September 11 I should say we could probably get the finance committee recommendation, but I wouldn't. I would need more time to address and allay the concerns that the pedestrian and and traffic safety experts in Evogel and Tracy's affian and perhaps others. I wouldn't be able to support it as long as you know those experts in our community in pedestrian cyclists and traffic safety have real concerns. I'm an expert so I have to kind of rely on the advice of experts, and I understand that James Lowenthal as the dark skies expert is feels comfortable with the policy but I wouldn't be able to support it until, frankly Tracy's affian and Evogel felt comfortable with it and I do get concerned of course we have to, you know, educate do safety education for cyclists and pedestrians but I live on a major connector street to the university. You know, it's new residents in, you know, students are new residents every year so it's, we don't have a lot of time to educate people before I see cyclists who probably don't know or don't heed what they do. You know, bicycling, you know, down Lincoln Avenue Sunset Avenue amnesty at night without lights on the bikes in dark jackets, and it's quite terrifying because as a driver you don't see them until you are very close. And even though these are major, these are busy streets major connector streets to the university, lots of pedestrian traffic late at night, the streets are not well lit and you know, often students you know carry. They use the flashlights on their phones but I would be very concerned about relying on just safety education of cyclists and pedestrians, I would want to be comfortable that again our traffic and safety experts felt comfortable with the proposal before voting to adopt it. Thank you. Thank you. I would also support Kathy's suggestion that it happened at a later date if Andy wanted to restate his motion or amend it to October 2. I think the, a lot of work has gone into it and obviously a lot of work has gone into rewriting portions given feedback which is a really good thing. But I, but I would like to know that there has been an opportunity for attack, for instance to actually formally sit and review it with the sponsors. One of the concerns is that the revisions have happened after after some of the, the more public vetting and input. So it needs to have a pass through again to confirm that the changes. In fact, are in the right direction and that are appropriate. So I would, I would definitely support on October 2. I think we're pleased for for this. Pat. I also support postponement for many of the reasons that have been stated, but I want to bounce back to counselor Miller's suggestion that there be a substantive review in GLL. I, I'm not understanding why a committee that deals with clarity consistency and action ability is being asked to look at this substantively. I would like clarification either from the president or before that happens, we're getting more and more requests to look at things substantively. And I'm not sure that that's appropriate for the way the charge of the committee is written. And it might, might make more sense for this to go back to TSO for substantive review of changes. Pat, let me go on and get the other three comments that we have and then we'll see whether or not perhaps we're going to amend the motion. Dorothy. I want to make a suggestion that since there's a good possibility that there will be some changes made in our lighting policy that instead of waiting for that to happen and then to talk about a public education program that we get a head start on it, which would include maybe in the chamber. I don't know a major major movement on reflective hats and jackets or patches. I mean, people are not, I am shocked as I as I drive, I see people dressed all in black, walking in the dark. Okay, again and again and again, and I do not want to hit somebody I really really don't. I would suggest that while this is in the process of being refined and developed in a way where we can all accept it and be happy about it, that we start some of this education program now with giveaway projects and with promotions and all kinds of things, because we still have dangerous danger on our streets. We still have pedestrians who are not seen. We still have bike riders who are not seen. And we've had deaths, and we're a college town we will always be getting new students every year, and each each new batch has to be educated in and brought into our ways. We should have a culture that is much stronger than it is now of of lighting individual lighting, so that when we have this change, we're in a better position for it. That is my suggestion. Thank you, Andy.  Okay, just very quickly. Under motion, the motion that I made somebody, of course, can come in and make a move to amend the motion to change the date that I specified. That I did it so that it would be sufficiently after the finance committee meeting, but I was trying to honor the two co-sponsors by not proposing a date that was longer than necessary for the reason that I was stating. So, no, I totally understand, though, if somebody else makes a motion to amend motion on the floor, why they are doing it. Michelle. I just wanted to respond. I really appreciate that, especially as a former chair of the GOL committee, I totally agree. My major concern was that the substantial revisions that have been made hadn't gone through GOL. Yeah, and knowing that some of these other checks and balances and sort of inputs are going to happen, hopefully, if that gets voted, I think the substantive review was just sort of my voice around that aspect of things. So that's, thank you. Mandy Joe. I guess as a sponsor or co-sponsor, I'm seeking some clarity from the council. We're talking a lot about changes and all. But the changes that appear to be being requested from a number of people, especially when you talk about going back to tack and getting changes in conformity with Ms. Vogels and Ms. Zafian's requests regarding the amount of light on a street and the continuity of light on a street. And I'm just going to give North Pleasant Street as an example, which right now may not have enough street lights, but right now complies with our current policy, which we were told basically not to propose changes to in terms of where lights go. I guess the clarification I'm asking for is, is the council now wanting essentially that lighting zone and lighting placement standards that we were told to remove so that we could get the specifications and performance standards in. So does it want us to re-propose those because, you know, as TSO said very early on, and as the sponsors admitted very early on such a proposal, even though we made a proposal would require extensive, extensive outreach, research, and discussion amongst many different committees. And so I guess I need clarification. Does this council want that in this policy before we vote? Because if so, a month and even two months is not enough. And it really does need a referral back to committees to do that and to do that outreach. I mean, if the council's saying no, let's tweak around the edges and potentially come back with two motions, one motion to adopt the proposal, the policy, and another motion to create or send a referral back to a committee to do the work for something else that can be done in a month or two. So I guess as a co-sponsor, I need clarity as to what this council wants. Mandy, Joe, your question is absolutely appropriate. And one of the things that I've been observing is that there seems to be a consensus, we haven't voted, but a consensus that needs to go to finance, but then there's this other question about larger issues. And so I, you made one suggestion, and that is that we try to get this present policy to the point that it covers the general policy for street lighting, and that there might be a subsequent motion that says, start working on lighting districts or whatever you want to call them, okay, for lack of a more precise term. Kathy. Thanks, Lynn. Please start the clock at three minutes, but anyway, I, you know, Mandy, you're asking whether there are some tweaks, minor changes, and I made an effort in the second we give July to send you a markup that tried to identify a few places, but I'll give an example and this is why I think we need just a little bit longer time, maybe not bring in every safety and street. Appendix 2.8, and as I said, the appendix is my concern. It's, I've never seen this prescriptive policy appendix before. It's micromanaging, maybe because you need these, but this is what it says, a maximum population level at the public right of way line abutting residential or census uses, except in the Minnesota Park and District and Village Centers shall not exceed 0.01 foot candle as measured at grade in either the horizontal or vertical lines. I would like to know whether the 13 of us understand what that means, how many people in our residential world. And I think when I looked at the North Hampton policy, the 0.01 foot candle varied, depending on whether it was monogue road that's going, no sidewalks, 45 mile an hour, and people walk on it, 0.01, because the concern is about trespass, not about illumination and trespass is a very negative term, you know, so, so like 0.01. So I don't know how many of our current lights, don't comply with 0.01. And how many would require, we're not talking about a downward shield, just we're talking about a downward chill and the extent and Eve's thing, drew us diagrams that illustrated the light scope. So I think it's these places where it says shall, it doesn't say might want to consider or could vary. It's places like this that I feel like we have directly said this is what must be done, including the lumens the AMA. In 2016 AMA put something out on LED lights. They've since said maybe this and maybe that these are, you know, what level and where. So I think it's the technical appendix that needs to be reviewed. And there is some wording that GOL could probably clean up where sentences are really complex and have four things in them. And I think it might be longer than September 11, because if it went to GOL, even for clarity, I'm not sure they could meet and give us a markup that finance could meet and raise any concerns. And it's not quite clear to me how a member of the public, whose light is about to change ways in Northampton has a really nice three sets of civic forms one is moderator light one is removal. So they're just places where I think it's tweaks, it's not revised the whole policy, but it would take time. And I am submitting a written comment tonight to the thing with a markup, because I sent one to the sponsors, but I haven't sent it to anyone else. Thank you. And we will post that as soon as we are able to post. Paul will work with whomever has to do that. Pam Rooney. I was going to comment on Mandy question to the to the council. And I think my reaction to put putting it out a little further is that because there has been so much adaptation of input that a lot of change made to the document. I think, I think the robust conversations and evaluations occurred, you know, on version two, instead of on version 10, I would really like, I would really like them to have a thorough solid conversation on version, whatever it is now 10, I'll call it. And that's, that's why I'm asking to have it put off. It's a lot like our other policies that we've been working on. We keep tweaking as it goes and nobody but the writers really know now what's in it. And I'd like, I'd like, for instance, tax to be able to see it in its entirety and be able to weigh in on that rather than on an earlier version. Thank you. Michelle. I'm just wondering if we're veering from, we have a motion on the table. So, and also, I'm wondering, we're talking about all of these various suggestions to tweak language, you know, to have tack look at it, but we I think we need to get some clarity on where are we sending this and for what, basically. I think that Mandy's question on the clarifying that is is important so I don't know if we have that conversation and then deal with this motion but we do have this motion on the table. Thank you. Um, so let me, shall any go ahead. If you want to clarify something. I'm trying to get to get to a point where we either vote this motion or we amend this motion. And I'm hearing a couple different options. I think that we lengthen the time, and we suggest, and that the motion include other committee reviews, but it also I want to be totally respectful of the sponsors, and of the many other people who have weighed in, and wonder if the committee would have additional things they would want to work on before we do those reviews or have you basically said, we're done. That's a question to Mandy Joe and on. Um, it's a good question. Maybe, maybe there's a little bit Mandy and I guess maybe I'll defer to you but I mean I think we've, we've. We've seen everything that people want isn't necessarily in here but we have truly fine tooth comb this thing and so I think that Mandy, do you have any strong feelings.  If it goes back to committee, it will inevitably face changes and we will probably get together and review again with all of the additional comments, you know we just received comments today with markups and you know we we have looked at them Kathy will look at yours again we looked at yours the last time you know, and so I can't say it won't change, you know, because we do take into consideration everything we've heard it's it's why I asked my question what would you be looking for from us, so that we know. It seems to me. I'm sorry. Shalini. Was that you. Yeah, can I weigh in at this point. Sure. Okay, so I'm seeing it's two different in addition to what everyone has said and thanks to everyone who's worked so hard. What I'm seeing is a two different things one is like the financial aspect that definitely needs consideration and agree with that. But I think overall. It's helpful to get the clarification that we're not discussing location and all of that we just talking about the lighting specifications. My concern is really about one specific aspect, which is will the new lighting. And that's my understanding from the articles we're reading, reading is that it's going to reduce the safety in certain neighborhoods not like other generally it's going to improve is less glare which is more safety inducing and all of that. Amherst can the sponsors or the town confirm that with the additional shielding and the yellowing of the light and the reducing of the Kelvin or whatever is it going to reduce the safety for pedestrians and bikers. And if it does decrease the safety then we do need to go back and do we need to specify the strategies, according to the zones and again not adding more or less but just in terms of the lighting the how yellow and what the kelvins are going to be does, does the existing proposal need to add that additional level of specificity. My, and my apologies for not starting the clock, but that's that's the question at hand. Anika, please go ahead. I just wanted to add quickly at this point I think that we have landed on the, there is an extension here. But my question is also just food for thought and going forward in process that you know we have. Sponsors who are spending a lot of time on proposals and where that does not mean that anyone should have to feel rushed but where is that point where we vote. Whether you vote for or against just where, where is that point and then I guess just clarity that, you know, of course, if we you know if this is going back to committee and whichever one that was me we might not know. But what comes from that and that could also that time could be guided by what the opinions of said committees are. So, I just that you know counting that in and just maybe for further discussion just in terms of that that process how, how does that work so we can be clear, so we can take into account residents concern, but that we are most effectively using our utilizing our time. Shalini you have your hand. Yes, I do. I do have another comment with respect to process and as a member of the town services and outreach committee I take full responsibility as being a member of that committee. And I feel that in terms of process, we could improve and this is for all future processes to. In terms of, it has not been a clear process for how we are incorporating the feedback I know the sponsors have been speaking with tack and individual residents but it doesn't feel clear to me at least a committee member. But what is the process where we officially soliciting the, the written feedback from tack and other committees for that matter that, for example, and once the changes are made by the sponsors which I know they have been sending it back to these committees to incorporate their recommendations or they agree or disagree or so they hasn't been in my mind at least or if it's been happening it's happening behind the scenes I don't know. But I think there needs a little more clarity and that's some of the frustration I've been hearing from residents and other people as well. So that is one area we could have a little more improvement if it comes back to TSO is that we sit with the tack and officially and invite Eve as well as a past member of that but also knowledgeable on this issue to be part of this conversation that how do we separate out as to separate proposals one is a location which is the more comprehensive work we need to do, but right now to just refine this current proposal in terms of what Kathy was highlighting and what was sent to us by Eve today there's certain tweaks and all that can be done and how to make sure that we're not, we're only improving upon and not decreasing the safety and certain rewards, so that would be my recommendation. Michelle. I'm just going to attempt to amend the current motion on the floor, but I'm also hearing what Shalini saying I, my amendments were going to be to change the date to October 2. As well as to it's already being referred in this in this motion to finance so I would also ask that it be referred to GOL, just for clarity consistency and action ability prior to a vote and then I'm wondering if perhaps we could have a check in at one of the September meetings. If there is if time allows for that to have any further discussion about changes that the sponsors may have made in consultation with the various stakeholders and folks who are providing input. So it's it's so that we're sort of getting a sense of what's happening as they're moving through that process and holding the work on behalf of the council. So the amendments again would be to change the date October 2 to add a GOL review for clarity consistency and action ability. And then, sort of the other pieces that I described aren't necessarily in the motion but just to ask the town council president, if we could have a check in on this matter in September. Okay. Thank you, Michelle. Let's let, let me see if I can bring this to some sense of closure. It does seem to me that the sponsor. Excuse me, Lynn. Yes. Can I just restate the motion see if there's a second for that motion for the amendment, which is to. Yes. Okay. So the second is to change the date from September 11 to October 2, 2023. And in addition to refer it to the GOL committee and the finance committee. Right. That is correct. Okay. And then second how in addition to that. Okay. Is there a second. Change seconds. Okay. Mandy Joe, you have your hand raised. I was just going to ask who was second. Okay. So in addition to that, however, there may be some additional changes that come out of documents that have been sent to us in the last. 48 hours or going to be posted or whatever the case. And what I'm hearing from one counselor is the concept that we bring back any further changes and we have a substantive discussion. About those kinds of changes at one of our September meetings, we only have to. We have meeting on September 11th and September 18th. And, you know, we have to do what we have to do. So I'm perfectly open to that. And if we start having significant substantive changes and they need to be discussed in a more public forum, which they should be. Then it actually should go to another committee in that committee. Unfortunately, would be TSO I don't mean that unfortunately because I don't have the committee, I'm just saying they've already spent a lot of time on this. So if we come back with substantive review of this in September, I'll try to do it for the 11th. There may be a further referral back to TSO to make sure that input has been done and it's been done in a public way. Okay. So the motion that is now on the floor, Paul, please read it. To amend the main motion, which is Andy's motion to change the date from September 11th 2023 to October 2nd 2023. And to add that the, the measure would be sent to GL and finance committee. So we can do this in one of two ways. I believe unless somebody wants to correct me, we can ask the original person who made the motion, whether they will accept these as friendly amendments. Paul can't do that. No, you actually have a motion on the floor right now. Okay. So we will act on the motion to amend the motion to amend extends the date and adds GL to the review process. Are there any questions. Shall I say clarification with the GL then deliberation include bringing and the other stakeholders. No comments. No, that's not the role of. Right, that would be the standard. So I, I would like to see that happen. So does that mean we, we vote on this because this needs to happen also then should we have a separate motion to bring it to TSO for that. If there's going to be a public discussion with individuals and or other committees, then it needs to be referred to committee and not GL. And that committee would be. Right. So should I make that motion separate to this one or will this be amended further. So in this situation you could make a moat you can amend the amendment, or you can ask if it's a friendly amendment if the maker of the motion would accept the to add this in addition GL and finance committee you would ask I think you're saying to add TSO to that list. Yes, please. And Andy would you consider that would be Michelle's motion. Okay. Yeah, Michelle. I'm shall any I really I do I appreciate the intention behind the request. I, I, I know. Okay, that's fine. I can do it as a separate motion then. All right. Thank you. Okay, so we have the original motion. We have an amendment to the original motion. And so we can vote on the amendment and then come back to see whether it's going to be amended yet again. Okay, correct. The original amendment amendment to the motion is that it would be reviewed by both GL and finance and the date would be extended to October 2. Okay, that is the amendment to the original motion. Are there any further questions. Seeing none. I'm going to start with shall any bone. Yeah. Pat de Angelis. Hi, on a Devon got here. I Lynn grease prison. I made a Johanna key. Hi. Anika Lopes. I Michelle Miller. I Dorothy Pam. Yes, I'm running. Yeah. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer top. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Okay. So that was the vote on the amendment to the main motion. We're now back to the main motion. Unless somebody wants to make an additional amendment. There is this where I make the amendment to. Please send it back to TSO to incorporate the or incorporate or do. In incorporate. And consult with tax and other state and incorporate other president. How do I say that. What you want to do is you want to amend the motion. So that it goes to PSO. And it. For them to consult with individuals and tack. And tack. Yes. Okay. Are you extending the date? Okay. Not further than the October. One that's already being over second. Okay. Anika. I'm sorry. Is there a second? Okay. Pam Rooney was the second. Anika.  I think I've already said, yeah, I think that's said. And if I hear that people have questions, I'm happy to elaborate more. Anika. I just have a question for clarity. So, and this is. For both. So I thought that I was an act that I understood that, that Michelle had asked for us a review. That we would have prior to having any geo recommendation. And there would be a chance there that this would be recommended. Back to TSO. So with this thing, we would have both TSO looking again. And. GOL. So we would have both committees. Having a review. Going again and the, and the sponsors working with both committees at the same time. That is correct. This, the Shawnee's motion to amend. Sends it to TSO and asks specifically that they work with individuals that have provided input as well as. Attack. On any further substantive changes. To the Bible. I mean, to the. Policy. So. It does do that. Michelle. It just building on what Anika was asking. I would like to ask somebody from TSO. How much has this is how has this been in TSO for, for quite a long time, right? And it's been discussed in TSO multiple times. I assume. And so I'm just wondering maybe to ask the chair, Anika of TSO or anyone, what, if it went back to TSO might be able to happen that hasn't already happened. Or could that happen through a sort of a process of working with the sponsors and then bringing it back. To the full council in September to review. I either one of those sounds like a good possible option, but without knowing what TSO has already done and what they have to do. I'm just curious how, how that lands. Anika. Yes. So thank you for that. So yes, it has gone. It has been in TSO for, you know, quite some time, but then, you know, as to everyone's point that there, there have been revisions and then, you know, different opinions after, after those revisions and still, you know, and then referred on to council with those, with the concerns that were left with, with TSO. To be. Taken into consideration. We have met. Trace, Trace, who I really appreciate her email today, especially with her, her third bullet point for everyone who was able to read that, but she is an honorary member, I would say, of, of TSO. So she's, she's with us all the time, who we have, who we have not engaged with directly through TSO. As a member of TSO. We have not engaged with directly through TSO. As Dorothy's point has been maybe the bid or the community outside of just the few who are mentioned, like those who actually do rely on a public transportation outside of leisure or who make the choice to. So, you know, there are, you know, there are aspects of community that we haven't dealt with. So, you know, I think it would be important to, you know, I think it would be important. However, I would also like to extend the question to. The sponsor, just in terms of capacity issues, because if, if we are doing less, this is, you know, we're, we are definitely expanded. This is a new ballgame, which I mean that, that is fine. However. Is there a way that we, I think it would be important that if this is what we do, that we streamline it. So we're very clear. We're very clear about the goals so we can put realistic, you know, timelines on those. And so we're not handing over a hundred recommendations onto the sponsors who are, you know, trying to, I think balance this as best that they can. Thank you. I would like to also mention that. I think it would be important to, you know, I think it would be important to, you know, I think it would be important for us. Once people are beginning to consult with individuals, what you, what we as a council really are committed to is maximum transparency. And the way that maximum transparency happens is that it happens in committee meetings. So I'm actually. Feel that. I think it would be important for us to, you know, I think it would be important for us to act again or tack as a body and or a substantive conversation in which others who have weighed in or might still want to weigh in. Then it should happen in a committee and the appropriate committee in this case would be TSL. Because it's certainly not GOL and it's certainly not finance. So we have a lot of questions. And what as a member of TSL. And as I said earlier, I did full responsibility in terms of the process, we have not yet defined very clearly. How we are inviting. Officially inviting feedback from tack, which we have been. We got some, but we got an email and then we got a lot of personal emails from different members present and pass from tack. But if none of it was officially documented or add in the committee meeting, as Lynn just said. So what I'm proposing by bringing it back to TSO is that, especially given the nuances that having brought forward, that we officially as TSO send the latest format for the document to tack and invite tack along with Eve or anyone else for that matter to our TSO. To go over what their proposals are and changes that like to make. And again, what I'm hearing as a council, we are separating there is a comprehensive change that needs to happen. And that is not what I'm proposing at this point. I'm just going with what I just want to ensure is that with the existing changes to the lighting fixtures and the type of lighting that we are not reducing the safety in any particular neighborhood. And my understanding is overall, it's not going to do that, but there are certain neighborhoods that if we don't incorporate a look at it carefully, we might be reducing the safety of pedestrians and bikers. So this TSO meeting would be very specifically looking at what is the current proposal and how to make sure that it's not going to reduce the safety by incorporating tack and Eve and any other numbers feedback. Ideally, I would say that this should happen before GOL looks because it seems to me that GOL will have to look at it twice, which is what I was trying to do is say that TSO does this and then GOL looks at it, but finance can look at it in the back. Shannon, again, I'm sorry I didn't run the clock. This is, let me start. I would agree with you. GOL has to look at it after TAC, after TSO is finished and finance is finished.  It's my understanding TAC meets once a month. I don't know when. And I guess what I don't, you know, I'm kind of speaking as chair of CRC that's not really involved in this committee, this discussion, but has done a lot of extensive public outreach. We have done the specific comments from people and incorporating them and their views into meetings by having public listening sessions. And I guess I don't know if that's what's being requested here or whether, you know, I don't know if that's what's being requested. I don't know if that's what's being requested with specific things like that with listening sessions or whether what's being requested is that TSO hold a meeting and then specifically invite just certain members of the public to essentially be panelists at that meeting, but not other members of the public. Or just, is it a joint meeting with TAC? Because that might take even longer to schedule. I'm worried about timeline here. I don't know if that's what's being requested by this amendment. In terms of timing. Not that it's not valuable, but it. I don't know whether it can all be completed by October 2nd. If it really is joint meetings or public listening sessions with the outreach that goes along with that and the planning that goes along with that. Or whether it's not that and something else that I'm just not aware of. I'm not aware of that understanding at this time. Mindy Joe. One of the reasons I asked. About the deadline is because I. Totally feel that. October 2nd is more than ambitious. In fact, impossible. And what you've just described. Which is something you have done a lot of in CRC. And I think that's one of the things that you've just described in our rules of procedure, various options for having meetings in which there's panelists and joint meetings and people who speak. So if this goes back to TSO, I would encourage TSO to look at some of those. Public options for input. And. And that can include. You know, a joint meeting with TAC, a joint meeting with TSO, a joint meeting with TSO, any number of options could happen. Let me just go back. There is a motion to amend. The motion that's on the table. The motion that is on the table now includes. CRC. I mean, so I'm sorry. Jesus. Let me start. It includes a review by finance and a review by GOL. A review by finance. This is a review in October 2. And whether the person who made the motion to add TSO to this has certain goals in mind. You can't just narrow what people are going to come and talk about. Whether it's safety or not. So my question now goes back to. Is October 2. Realistic. I personally do not believe it is. It seems to me like we're looking more like a November or even a December. Michelle. I actually, please go ahead. Yeah. I mean, I was just going to say I'd rather not have to come back and ask for an extension or feel rushed. So I think that if that's, if that's what we need in terms in terms of that, I also know, you know, I know we haven't figured out the full TSO calendar, but I think that there's going to need to be timing in advance if we are going to do some sort of public listening session. So I'm not, yeah, I think October 2nd may be ambitious, even though it feels far in the future. So your options for November are November 6th, which I think we may need to look at, relook at anyway because of the election and November 20th. If you said we need to look at the relook at the six, it would be safer to put it on the 20th, but either of those would be fine. I think. Okay. Let's, I'm going to suggest the 20th as way of moving us on. Michelle. I just, you know, I was, I'm thinking about this similarly to the rental registration by law, which came through a set of four, four sponsors and was referred to CRC. And at that point when it was referred to CRC, three of those sponsors were also members of CRC. So that worked out. I was not. But at that point, CRC became the keeper of that body of work. It was no longer about the sponsors necessarily. And I think that's a little bit where, and maybe this is a bigger discussion around process where we're sort of trying to figure out how much of this gets held by, on behalf of the council, by the sponsors. And how much of it should just go to the committee. It gets referred to and be held by that committee in terms of engaging with the community and setting up hearings and all of the things that I know happened in CRC with the rental registration. So I'm not sure how relevant it is, but just to say that I think there's some process piece here that might be just making this a little bit more challenging for us to figure out. Let me just. Let me be very clear. The reason I would put it in a committee and therefore TSO is in fact to create maximum transparency. When you have maximum transparency, you hold committee meetings. You can have dialogues. You can do any number of other things, but it's in the public. And that's. Something I think we all subscribe to. Anika. I just had a question for clarity. I didn't hear the date. I'm looking at the TSO schedule and so could you just repeat the date that was suggested was that. November 20th. November. November 20th. Yeah. I'm wondering if you could do the TSO and TAC meeting along with public input on the September. I think it's September 7th is our TSO meeting. And we can, I think that gives everyone enough time to publicize it and get TAC members or representatives of the TAC members to come to the TSO meeting. Okay. I was just trying to say that just, okay, I was just going to say that because I think if we do it, let's assume if you do it in September, then couldn't we get it done by October. I'm buying. No. All right. I'm not going to try to sit here and schedule meeting, schedule committee meetings and what's going on, which agendas. That's up to the committee chairs. And the committees. Pat. Yes. I may be throwing a. Tiny little silver monkey wrench into some of this. I think that the public input. Has been rich and varied. And even tonight in public comment, we saw the divisions. Between people who, you know, who feel one way about the lighting and dark skies and people who are concerned, they support that, but are concerned about safety. Those people are those people. I have horrible phrase. There seems to be. I think there can be some efficiency. If TSO is meeting about this, they could include a representative from TAC. And they could include Eve Vogel, who has done really deep research in all of this and has a rich commitment and a deep commitment to finding a way to create a win-win situation where protect pedestrians and, and cars and, and bike buses are protected. And yet we have, we are protecting and we're encouraging dark skies. If you look at everything that she's been writing and all the, the quality of her research, she, and she's trying to do something that it's very difficult for this town to do. To create a collaborative solution. So damn it. Add her to attack meeting. And representative of TAC and let that committee work. The sponsors have done an incredible job and need to be supported for that work, not necessarily have it taken away from them, but to find a way to participate deeply with, with TSO and with these two, two representatives. I, I'm sure this is going to get distorted. I'm not trying to stop public dialogue, but I do not believe given the volume of. Reaction we've had that we need to have more dialogue to show this division. We need to have a meeting of people who are going to find a way to analyze this and find out where their conflicts and make this work. We need to have a meeting of people who are going to find a way to do that. So forget all the extra who. Pat, I appreciate that. Again, I leave that to the chairs of the committees as to how they want to arrange their committees. So. Paul, has there been a formal addition? So there's a motion to. Right. The Shawnee's motion to refer to TSO and that TSO would consult with the committee. But the date hasn't changed. So it's still October 2nd. If you want. So that. I would like to suggest a friendly amendment of October of November 20th. I accept. I'm sorry. Yeah, I, that's fine. And who was the second? Pam was a second. Pam, honey, do you accept that? Okay. No, I don't. I don't. I don't. I don't. I don't. And that is on the floor. At this time. Adds to the existing two committees. That it goes to TSO. And it extends the date to November 20th. Is there any question about the motion to amend? Seeing none. I'm going to start with Pat D'Angelo's. I'm. Okay. I don't think we're going to. Within Greece Mersen. I made it Johanna G. I. Nicholas. I'm Michelle Miller. I'm. I'm Rooney. I'm sorry. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Hi. Jennifer, Todd. Yes. Alicia Walker. Shall we go to the original motion? Yes. Okay. And now we're back to the original motion. Paul, do you want to try to give me the original motion? Sure. That under this is Andy motion as amended twice under rules. Under 7.1. And that would be referred to the GOL finance committee. And TSO and TSO will consult with individuals. And. Tack. Okay. That is now the motion that we're voting on. Are there any questions? Okay. See none. Order. Okay. Okay. Okay. That is now the motion that we're voting on. Are there any questions? Okay. See none. Order. Okay. That is now the motion that we're voting on. Are there any questions? Okay. See none. We're going to move to a vote on a devil and got here. I. Lynn Greece. Mersen. I'm Andy Joe Hanneke. I. Anika Lopes. I. Michelle Miller. I. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. No. Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Hi. Jennifer. Yes. Lisa Walker. Yes. Melanie Balmille. Yes. Pat D'Angelo's. Hi. The motion passes unanimously with all counselors present. We are going to take a break. I did not. Come up with a slide. For a break. Anna. But we will take a break. Please. I'll be back. And with your cameras on. At. 835. And don't forget to mute. I'll make a quick, I'll make a quick sign. As you return, please turn your videos on. So I know that you're back. I'm here. I'm just leaving my video off. Thank you. And Anna, when you get back, can you take the screen down? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. When you're back, please. Turn your video on so I know that you're back. As you come back, please turn your video on. So I know you're back. Jennifer, I just saw you, Kathy. Alicia, are you back? Yes, I'm here. So Kathy, are you back? Okay. We're going to move on. To. Revision of bylaw 3.5 residential renter. Bylaw 3.5. Disregulations. I've listed this as a first discussion. That let me just. Give a small history and then turn this over to. CRC. There was a group of four counselors who were initially discussion discussing some. Form of changed the rental bylaws. And then we had a group of four counselors. We had a group of four members of CRC and so our members of CRC. And so it became important for the conversation to. Officially take place in the CRC committee. They have done that and they have done a lot of work, which they bring forward to us today. And in addition to that. They have kindly made sure that all of this material was available to us. We're not going to have a quote slide presentation. But I am going to turn it over to Mandy Joe and Pam Rooney. Who are going to talk about. The rental bylaw. And then we do have a couple of motions. Regarding referrals. Okay. Thank you. John Thompson and Rob Mora. We have been working on this for 16 months and one or both of them, I believe has attended every CRC meeting. That this has been discussed at except one. They've made a huge effort to attend the meetings, to review the regulations, to review the bylaw. To offer their input with what they think would work or not work when we were going through different variations and different. And what they would like to see in the bylaw itself and in the regulations. What they thought was necessary for them. And also just their experience with the current bylaw. Enforcement of it. What works and what doesn't with the current bylaw and all of it. I can't thank them. Enough. For everything they've done for CRC and all of the time they've taken out for it. I think it's really a bittersweet to say that because John Thompson has his last day in about two weeks. He is retiring after a massive amount of time with the town as a wonderful. Inspector. And employee and just overall good person. So we will miss him. Not just on CRC, but, but we thank him for all his work. I also want to thank the committee. As you will have seen from the two reports that were written. The recommendations coming out of the committee are unanimous. As anyone that knows this council will know this committee has a lot of very varied views and opinions. On housing in this town and on rental housing in this town and just a lot of things in this town zoning in this town. We got to a unanimous recommendation in no small part because we were all willing to. Give a little take a little listen, learn. And work together. To get to where we are today. So I wanted to thank the committee for that. Now where are we? We've got two, two recommendations for essentially a passage to approve a bylaw and a regulation. Proposed by law and proposed regulation. And we have a recommendation to refer. The third part of this, the fee schedule and there's a bunch of documents that go with it to finance committee. The bylaw is a recommendation to adopt, rescind the current and adopt the proposed. The biggest changes in this bylaw. Are the inspection requirement right now, the current bylaw has a self inspection requirement, a self certification where the property owner certifies that the property complies with all state, local building codes, zoning codes, fire codes, health codes. And the proposed bylaw will change that to a town inspection. Done by a town official. From our inspectional services inspection services department. And done generally once every five years with some. When you get to the regulations. With some possibilities of certain properties being inspected nearly every year or every year or every two years or every three years, but every rental unit. Looking at those regulations would get inspected at least once every five years. The other change that is larger than sort of the clearing up of some things is the enforcement mechanisms. We have set forth some additional enforcement mechanisms make it clear what can be a via a penalty, essentially, what can be a penalty and what cannot be a penalty. A couple of things to point out that we've written who this applies to very carefully. It was one of the biggest conversations and some of the longest conversations we had was what rentals should this apply to and how do we get the wording right? Because what our department employees, John and Rob wanted to see and what we wanted to see was to ensure that particularly. Non dorm rentals. That might be on university property are inspected. Our inspection services department has said that dorms under state law are inspected regularly. And we wanted to make sure that something like the P3 that is on Mass Ave and going up and coming into service would be included in this bylaw. And as of now and as of what we understand the ownership and lease situation at that location is that building would be subject to the bylaw as well as many other, as well as all other rentals in town. So I wanted to just make that one clear. I don't have much else to say on the bylaw. The report talks a little bit about some of the other changes and all. I'm happy to answer questions on that on the regulations. I did tell John he reviewed the regulations since Thursday meeting and said they look fine to him. The regulations are really sort of setting forth more of clarification on requirements. So that's where we get the frequency schedule of every five years. We've put some of that in the regulations because regulations are easier to tweak if something is deemed needing to be worked on or needing to be changed. It can be done a little quicker with a little more flexibility than if it's in a bylaw. And so if we decide that, or if the town decides that five years might be too infrequent, it can be changed to a three year inspection requirement through the regulations. If we decide we really need to have the rental property owners being asked a question on how many plumbing hookups they have in their unit. We can add that to a rental application quite quickly. If it's in a regulation versus if it's in a bylaw. And, you know, and the appeals, this is how an appeals works is the same way. So that's basically what the regulations are. They go hand in hand. The recommendation is to adopt them essentially. Together. The bylaw says that if the once the right, that the town council would adopt the regulations first. And so that's basically what the regulations are. They go hand in hand. The recommendation is to adopt them essentially. And so that's basically what the bylaw says. And so that's basically what the bylaw says. That the town council would adopt the regulations first. And then once they are adopted, the board of licensed commissioners would have the authority to amend them afterward. That is done and proposed. Because of a conversation and guidance of this council months ago that you may or may not remember about regulations and fees. The fee structure. Our recommendation on that is to send it to finance. And that is the document that is in the packet. That structure took a lot of conversation about tradeoffs. Pros and cons of different versions. I just put some of those questions in the supplemental. Report about what we had to answer and decide on, on what a structure might look like. Our, why we're recommending sending it to finance is because through that conversation, when we started talking about fees, we were being guided by guidance that we received from the council to propose a structure that would be cost neutral to the town. Meaning that all fees. That, that the fees received and the fee revenue would cover 100% of the costs of this bylaw enforcement and. Implementation. In looking at the fee structures as you will see in the Excel spreadsheet that's a PDF, but it's from an Excel spreadsheet. And the fee revenue would cover 100% of the costs of this bylaw enforcement and. Implementation. We are looking at the cost of the program, and it's, it's a little bit more than that, but it's from an Excel spreadsheet. When you look at options, The estimated cost of the program is about $450,000. To run the program, which will require three new inspectors estimated by Rob Morra. To get to that number right now, we bring in about 150,000. We could, as CRC get to a point where we thought we had a. a logical application fee structure and numbers that is option one in the charts, but when we looked at inspections. You'll notice that there's a couple options and none of them really get up to $300,000 or one of them might get close, and that's with like $400 per inspection and fees. And we realized a CRC that our charge is not to discuss that guidance and maybe recommend a different guidance, but we were struggling with all of the recommendations we got from the public all of the input we got from the public and the guidance received from the Council on making it neutral. So, our recommendation is to send the structure to finance to have a conversation on determining whether that guidance that this program should be completely cost neutral should should stand or whether essentially there's new justification for covering some of the costs through operational budgets and other receipts in the town, like property taxes or strategic partnership agreements or, you know anything else that goes into getting us to our operational budget and the revenues. We received input from the public that it would be that it's logical to cover some of the costs through that operational budget because all residents benefit from the program, not just those residents that rent and those property owners who rent, who own property that are rentals that that all residents will benefit from this new program. And so, but it's, we believed in CRC it was within finances per view to make a recommendation on how much the fees should cover and then come up with the recommended fees. And so with that, I'm going to stop talking. If Pam wants to add anything she may and then we can have conversation. Pam. Thank you. Yes, I would say also that to balance out the work that was done by the CRC in terms of a bylaw and in terms of regulations and fee there was another component that was sort of a spin off. It was one of the drivers of tackling the registration program. And that was a reconsideration of our nuisance bylaw that a nuisance, I think was one of the drivers of why we felt that the bylaws needed upgrading anyway. And we did not ultimately include nuisance factors if you will behavior this management of properties and that kind of thing we did not include within this bylaw. So this is a cleaner rental registration program with an upgrade of our nuisance property bylaw as a secondary effect essentially like having to create regs we also created this greatly improved nuisance bylaw. I would second Mandy that with help from Shalini, there was an extensive outreach program that that engaged the engaged Amherst program and we got well over 250 I think responses from that that reflected both renters landlords and the neighbors. So it was pretty pretty inclusive and conclusive. And I do hope that if you have questions you can answer them. So the floor is open for comments or questions. Dorothy. I have one question. You had reduced fee for owner occupied properties which I totally understand. But then also for anyone in town. And I remember hearing some of the comment from the public on this and they didn't say anyone in town but it was like, well what about if you're close by or if you're have a rental unit adjacent or near on your block. And I thought the reduction wasn't just that it's a town person we like them, but that they, the tenants would know who they are, they will know who the tenants are, and behavior is just better under those circumstances, because we do have some local landlords that have unruly houses. They obviously do not live nearby because they wouldn't tolerate the noisy chaos, if they did. So that that's my only objection otherwise I think it's absolutely fabulous work. Is there any comment. Okay. I have my hand up. So I'm going to, I thought I had my hand up maybe I don't. Okay, Kathy, our manager did you want to comment on that. I'll wait till after Kathy and then I'll make comments. Okay. Kathy. Yeah, I'll make comment questions. This is, as you all well know, a voluminous amount of work to read go through and cross list. So I'm going to focus on what I thought was the impetus. Initially, we know, and I think the town staff know that there are a handful, and I don't know how big a handful of properties that are perennial problems, and sometimes they're owned or managed by similar, and it's not all rental properties. And it's not necessarily the great big ones, you know the multi units. So I had always hoped we'd have a policy that could somehow zero in on them. My question is, is on the inspection side in the units because I did find one town and I sent it in right at the beginning that varied their policy depending on whether the rental unit and or property owners were a perennial concern, either because of complaints or because of safety or because of public health, or police coming in regularly. And when they were those. There were more inspections than and if they were complaint free for long periods of time so we have five years one year at the initial and then five years my question is why wouldn't you want to go longer than five years. If you had a property that had been complaint free for all five years, why would you inspect them again, because it raises the cost of inspections. My second question is, if you have a problem place and you're inspecting more more frequently, could we build the inspection costs to the property owner, rather than and help finance, could there be a way of doing that and people would be going back from the beginning on what criteria. Then my third is how many units, we inspect, and the, there's a standard that says under 25 units, and I don't exactly know how you count a unit I think it's an apartment, but an apartment doesn't have five bedrooms or one, but under 25 you inspect every single one of them over you can do random. Why 25, why wouldn't you do if it's a really small establishment inspect all, but then, as you get bigger spot inspect because again it raises up the number of inspections and I'm not talking now the nuisance inspections if you're called that someone's worried about the electrical wiring or the plumbing. So that those are my major and, and I didn't do the rest, much of a thorough view I was looking at the things that raise the cost to the property owner and or to the town, and whether we can moderate those to do what I initially said have tried to zero in on the pockets that are problematic. However, broadly the definition of problem problem is defined. And I'll reserve other comments for when I've read the whole thing because I see it's going to finance, and I'll get another chance to think about all the other pieces. Thank you very much. But I'm going to guess that maybe she's calling on me. You saw that you were muted when I'm running two computers tonight so sometimes I get the wrong one. Sorry. I'm going to try and answer all those questions to Dorothy we had a lot of requests on a fee structure to recognize that owner adjacent properties as some people referenced them were generally more well taken care of than properties who have an owner that lives not in town, or sometimes much farther away from town than next door but sometimes next door. So that part of the fee structure recommendation is an attempt to recognize that for small landlords that have that live in town but might live on a property on a parcel that is not the parcel they're renting. That they many times are close to as well taken care of as an owner occupied property, but that so that's why there's a three unit limit to ownership in the town because we wanted to make sure we didn't put food in that sort of line of fee structure, those owners who live in town that own and really do run a rental property business as a huge going concern not as one or two units in town. So that that was that attempt there we recognize it might not be a perfect way of doing it, but it was our attempt at threading the needle there and to Kathy. So, the five year is was a standard that was, we originally had three we moved it up to five at the request of Rob. The town department is the one that believe that that was the most well believe that that was a good number of years to be able to get into every unit. This is within the regulations within that five year the ability for there's a couple of reasons why that five year would not hold even if there weren't complaints. So, one is if the building commissioner believes the property needs inspected more frequently five years in order to obtain a permit. So one, one thing that our building commissioner has said is that they are generally aware of which properties might be more problematic. And that they wanted the option to inspect them more frequently than the standard five year inspection frequency. Another thing we wrote in is Pam hinted at this with her comments is one of the reasons to earn or an inspection more frequently than every five years will be a violation of the nuisance by law we know our nuisance by law rewrite is not done yet we are working on it. And we will begin working on it in earnest we've we've reviewed it a couple times already but we will work on it in earnest now that this one's at the Council. But we've written in that the, the, we've really tailored the rental registration permitting to health and safety code enforcement, building codes health codes and all of that but we recognize that nuisance, non building code insurances can be a harbinger of issues related to a property and so we've written in that a nuisance property violation could be a reason that the building commissioner would mandate a more frequent inspection schedule to renew a permit than every five years he could do that once a year if he deemed it necessary because of all these other nuisance violations so we've tried to write that into it to get that. What what you were saying is on if it's been a perennial concern how do we get in there more frequently we've tried to ensure that that's in within the regulations on the frequency schedule. The billing for extra inspection costs to the owners the fee schedule sets forth multiple fees and different fees well finance will make a recommendation but we have listed a fee for an initial inspection. The very first time you get a permit, which Rob and his department have said actually takes more time than a renewal inspection if you're going for. If you're renewing your permit and you need your inspection five years later that that one will take less time so that might have a different fee, but then for complaint inspection so. When there's a complaint that will have a separate fee, we've proposed a CRC to finance that each of those three inspection fees include a follow up inspection in case the inspection is failed. But if you need to follow up inspections that second one if you fail the second the first follow up inspection if you were cited for five violations you come back in a month and there's now three violations instead of five. When you come back in a month to look at those three that one will charge another inspection so we think we've covered that that ability for the people who are getting inspections to pay for the inspections. Within the fee structure, although depending on the fee set, we don't know how much it will cover that that will be up to finance, but we've written in the ability if you're having more inspections, you will pay more because you'll pay for each of the inspections, instead of just paying one flat fee that covers all six inspections or something. I hope that answers all the questions. Jennifer. Thank you. You're muted. Yeah, I guess just to add on to what Mandy said that we really were following the recommendations of our building and safety department and they thought that every five years wouldn't be too onerous but that would ensure that we knew that the, you know, apartments duplexes that were being rented out were in fact safe and healthy and you know met all our inspection, you know all our safe health and safety standards and I guess one example was, I think it's actually in your district Kathy of you know that there's actually a proposal for a special permit before the zoning Board of Appeals 798 to 800 North Pleasant Street in 20 the same property owners have owned a duplex that's currently there since 2004 has had, you know, like five pages of noise and complaints and other violations. And in 2020 in fact it was cited for not being fit for human habitation. So we kind of use that as an asked Rob, you know would our revised zoning we just asked at the last meeting, kind of prevent that situation from happening and he said the problem there was because there weren't mandatory inspections and it was only complaint driven. They many years went by before they were finally called to go to the property. And so they felt that, you know, and we may find that, you know, after, you know, maybe a period of five years or more that for certain properties that are, you know, inspected once every five years and there's no violations that maybe we can extend but that, you know, our staff staff thought that the five years was a good place to start, and that we could ensure then you know that, you know, every property that is rented is inspected, and that we could, you know, kind of vouch for that they had health and safety standards and I guess one other example is next door to Dorothy on amity and Lincoln there's a big property I think it owned by a major, you know, property owner in landlord in town. I think maybe 17 students live there, and five or six or more years ago there was a fire a few weeks after school ended. And this was reported in the Gazette that it hadn't been inspected in more than 10 years, because we didn't have systematic inspections and I remember when that happened thinking, you know, if I said, my child went to school in Amherst, I would want to be assured that wherever they were, whatever apartment they were renting that, you know, it met all health and safety. You know, standards that the town has set so we wanted to perhaps err on the side of caution, but we were advised that five years was a good place to start and then we can always revisit it. Thanks. Kathy, did you have a follow up question. I just a response to what they were asking Lynn but if you want to go first that's fine. I want to stay on the same top I was on the same topic of frequency of inspections who bears the cost and targeting. And I'm drawing somewhat from nursing home policy to that states learned a lot from this, but others can go. I had my, my questions and observations actually are not in that area. Okay, so I just, so I did ask, you know, why every unit under 25 and I do understand five to me is better than three. I have no problem with that. And it's more. If you start to really know your properties which that first inspection will give you and if it's owner occupied longer time periods may be warranted and use use your nuisance law and others as I absolutely agree with that's a that's a signal that maybe there's going on to get inside and inspect the property for other reasons and I when I first ran as counselor was a person who bought a house down the road said she tried to rent and she wanted the counselor to know that you have some slum lords in town and that there was loose wiring rats mold and she listed a bunch of things that she said we just couldn't rent them. To extent we know about them, I think we should clean them up. One of the things the nursing home industry learned in some states but not all is target your inspections. Do them randomly, you know, sometimes surprise. And if you have a well performing institution. Tread lightly because you want to keep them. And if, and this is very vulnerable residents they can't even speak for themselves. And the other thing was pull their license. So I'm also wondering why you would keep permitting someone and I originally thought there is a permit fee. If you have one strike against you get a warning if you have two strikes it's doubled if you have three strikes at some point we yank it. You know so so just trying to think of carrots and sticks is. And as I said I haven't read it all. So that's the way I'm thinking to to focus and target. And I think it's a good idea to focus and target. And I think it's a good idea to focus costs to more people being hired in the town. That's it. Hold on. So, first of all, I want to thank the committee and I also want to thank the initial sponsors and the staff who put in so much time on this. And because of that I actually do want it referred to GOL, because I don't want to sit here tonight and go into what does this mean or what does that mean. But I, I made a couple observations and one is and they lead to questions okay. First of all, I, this does seem to place a little more responsibility on the board of licensed commissioners, and maybe that's fine and that you, you know I know you've talked to them. I just wanted to recognize that it does place a little more responsibility on the board of licensed commissioners. I also was glad to see that subsidized housing was exempt because of the federal review that takes place. It seriously covers the territory. And so I found those kinds of things really important. I'd like you to talk a little bit about the issue of number of people occupying and number of bedrooms. In my district. I know there's at least one house where there's four bedrooms and seven cars. And does this get at that issue. And then I frankly just don't remember have we ever gone out on legal review and at what point did we go out on legal review. Thank you, Dorothy, unless Mandy Joe wanted to address some of those. I just want to tie up something that Jennifer said. Right. Okay, so the house next door. I don't know if it had other problems but it's fire alarm worked. There weren't any people in the house and the fire alarm kept going on. People didn't know what it was, but it went on and the town fire department did a great job. So when things are done properly. Buildings are saved. Buildings are saved. And it's very important that this legislation get passed. It's been a great. Dorothy you mute you muted accidentally. It kind of it did it to me. I love the fact that the, the people who take care of this were input day by day and really worked on it so I think this is a really great piece of work. I'm sure there'll be a few more little touches here and there but I'm really happy with it. So thank you. Mandy Joe. Okay, I've highlighted the questions now so hopefully I won't miss any. Why the 25 so 25 is a number that we, you know, in some sense it's a residual number but it's also a number in terms of the, the when, when you split from a minimum for large apartment complexes at what point do you say we're not doing all of them. We're not really going to do a subset and most many of the towns we looked at, did that split at 25 so that's, that's why the up to 25 is a full number. There's been a change it and prior, prior to the current version, after 25 it was, it was a minimum of 25, but 25% every year. So it would be 25 until you got to 100 units and then if you had 150 units it would be something like that and then you'd end up with an inspection every, every unit every four years. With the change to inspection every five years the town attorney recommended that we clarify the units the goal is to get into every unit every five years and so once. Once you hit 25, then the new regulations say for larger complexes, enough to ensure that you are inspecting every unit every five years without setting a specific target every year for buildings above 25 so if you have up to 25 units. You could, you will have them all done in one year and if you pass and if our department says, we're not concerned about this property, you won't have any inspections for five years. You'll come, well you won't have a initial renewal inspection for five years. If there's complaints you'll be there but you'll you'll get one big inspection once every five years. If we have complexes above 25 units, this will actually allow our department to say well, instead of doing in in a 150 unit we have, I think it's three, maybe six units of complexes that are between 100 and 150 units. Well, instead of if we have five say instead of doing a 20% of every of each of those complexes every, every year, we can do one full complex every year. So it will give our department a choice to say well we're going to do 50% this year 50% next year and then nothing every for three years. We're going to do it all this year because we have five of these types of large buildings and we're just going to spend our time in puffed in one year and then in Brandywine the next and then that or our department can choose to say, we're going to do 20% every year so that we get into that building that that complex every year with a subset of the unit so it gives them a some options. So we have our pool their license. Yes, there is. But, but Rob had wanted it to be may and our attorney recommended mays not shells in some of these to, to, you know, and so once you hit three notices of violations in three years within three years. Rob can decide to suspend or revoke the permit. If it's suspended or revoked and the we've, we don't, we have some specifics on how long the first suspension is, but then we get long so so and if it's under suspension you cannot renew your permit so if it's suspended because of, because there were three violations for violations within three years and Rob did decide to suspend the permit and that's a six month suspension that would come in through the renewal well they wouldn't be able to renew their permit until after that suspension is finished. So that is in there. They need what we had received Rob and his department indicated they have never suspended a permit in the 10 years of it because they don't like suspending permit so the suspension issue was another one we spent a lot of time on of. To make it we had attorney review that said, if you do do suspensions you need a lot of due process and you need to work on all of that and it gets very complicated and a lot of the suspensions can't actually happen until the least term is up so you're actually suspending the permit not for the current residents, and maybe not even for the landlord because the landlord could just change ownership to a different owner, even though they might be the different owner. And it wouldn't apply or there'd be also other issues there were a lot of issues with suspensions so we tread lightly with it to Lynn's questions, the BLC has been reviewing these drafts, since we started including them they have had their input they have said what they liked about their inclusion or what they didn't like. We've modified it because of all of that they have at this point signed off on all of it. We had a constant contact with Marion Walker the chair and she has the versions that are in the packet today and will be with a final she had the attorney review ones and she'll be talking with them finally and knows when to get additional feedback back to us if there's anything they do want to change but they have seen basically this version before the attorney review. And I just wanted to clarify that it's not fully exempt they will need a permit under the system, and Rob will get to choose whether they actually need inspections he actually didn't want a full exemption from inspections because he sometimes has seen instances where despite the federal inspection and the federal inspectors coming in there were some town issues that needed corrected and so he wanted the option to choose whether to need that inspection or not so it's a may up to our town department. I just wanted to clarify that number of people occupying bedrooms and does this get to the issue so necessarily I'm sure Pam and Jennifer will have it. It's hard we talked a lot about this right there's a zoning so so to get an inspection you have to comply with the zoning. And the zoning bylaw has a definition in there that defines family as certain related individuals or if there's unrelated no more than four unrelated. So if it's obvious that it's not in compliance with that. A permit should not be granted because the requirement in the bylaw is that you comply with that. It is not the one of the reasons to suspend or revoke a permit in the bylaw so if you have the permit in general it will not be suspended or revoked if a violation is found of it later. We talked a lot about application questions that could get to this issue a lot about how to start tracking some of this and figuring some of it out. And it's a very complicated issue. Yeah, I would say on a personal non chair level. I think we've tried to thread that needle pretty well. It's not perfect. And one of the reasons it's not perfect is because our building inspector has indicated that, even if he sites someone in that violation when he gets to court, and the court asks, and someone challenges that particular rule because there's five and the court asks well is it unsafe to have five individuals in there. If he does not feel the building is unsafe for an occupancy of five he cannot testify that it is unsafe he will not testify that way and generally if he cannot testify that way, the court will throw out that violation. So it's, it's a complicated issue we've tried to do the best we can with it I would say. And nuisance we're dealing with that issue under the nuisance review nuisance by law review to so this is not the end of it I would say legal review yes those are actually in the packet. So, and you asked which version it was basically the version before this one I think there's a number I think they were like, say they were version eight and you're seeing version 10, nine was essentially the same as 10. There were various so yeah. Thanks, I just wanted to clarify what point and maybe I just didn't get to that level of detail and everything you sent us but thank you so much. Andy. Yeah, I thought long and hard about whether to make this observation but I think I really need to as a matter of first reading and just being an understanding of what it is that we're being asked to consider. The reason I was hesitant was because it's also being referred to the finance committee and I want to make it very clear that this is not been discussed with the finance committee at all we have not taken this up, because it hasn't been referred. And I've not talked with anybody but I just want to point out something that's very obvious. This is a significant financial change for the town. And for us to adopt it without recognizing that significance, I think is not doing our job as counselors. Andy pointed out that the suggestion from Rob Morrow was that the additional inspectors would cost approximately $475,000 per year, and that it would be divided in some fashion between new revenue and revenue that we would otherwise find in the budget to give you some context to that. The $475,000, I'll give you two comparisons or three comparisons. One comparison is Cress. Cress has funded at $642,000. The library operating budget for three branches the library the amount of the town contribution to the library. The total library budget this time contribution is $2,214,000. And third number that I wanted you to remember is that we spent time in the spring focusing on a request from the schools for elementary schools for additional funding and ended up saying no that we did not fund it and that was the finance committee recommendation and the council decision, their request was $84,000. So when you're talking about a $475,000 additional expense. I really urge council as it's thinking about this between the first and second reading to give serious consideration to those dollar amounts. And yes, some of it will be generated by fees no doubt I again can't say that with certain fees to what it is, having not had any discussion whatsoever in the finance committee. But there was a lot of concern when we were talking about the debt exclusion about the impact of increased costs for landlords on rents that are being charged by the landlords. And that doesn't necessarily just go to any single group of landlords, but it gets to some extent, shared across landlords and I know it's a complex question that needs to be discussed. But I just felt compelled to point out that this is a significant expense of a significant additional change in what the town is doing, and the cost and that we need to understand what the cost comparisons are, and what we're going to be able to do or not do, whether it be capital like roads and sidewalks, which is the perennial concern, or anything else that we did. So that's my comment. Thanks. Thank you. I'm going to suggest that I placed the following motion on the floor to refer proposed revisions to general bylaw 3.5 residential rental property and the proposed regulations for general bylaw 3.5 residential rental property to the governance organization and to review for clarity consistency and action ability with a report back to the town council within 45 days. Is there a second. Well second but point of order that zero after the five is very important we have a 3.5 bylaw and a 3.5 zero bylaw. Ah, thank you. 3.5 zero bylaw. Okay. Wow. One would hope we wouldn't do that too often. So it's been made and seconded. Are there any other questions regarding that motion? Kathy? It's a simple question, Lynn, if during the finance review we attacked the issue, Andy just rose and those raised and that was my question about frequency. I don't think they need to review again. We're referring a different document to finance and we're referring the bylaws themselves to GLL and, you know, the chairs can decide to wait until the finance review, which could be happening as early as the 22nd of August. So I don't think there's an issue with sequencing. Mandy Joe, did you have a comment? No, I was just going to comment that this is not a referral of the bylaws or the bylaw or regulations to finance. In fact, there isn't a motion on the sheet to refer those to finance just the fee schedule for creation of fees is on the motion sheet to refer to finance, not the bylaw and regulations themselves. There's two motions that I'm trying to work with here. This one is clear, consistent and action ability and that's GLL. There's a second motion on the motion sheet. And that is about the fees. Kathy. Okay, then, maybe this is for the second motion I won't don't want it just to be the fees but it's also the frequency of inspections. You know so it's not just a fee schedule it's also frequency. So, I think both of those need to go to finance that's where it gets to 5475,000. Okay. You have every word that I you know as I said we've got all these parts so some part of one of those might be in not in the