The 260th annual town meeting will now come to order. Quick schedule review, our next session is scheduled for Wednesday, May 16th. There are, the audience has, the auditorium has been reserved for seven additional dates beyond the 16th. Seating reminders, the seats on the floor of the auditorium may be occupied only by town meeting members except for the front row, which may be used by members of the press and by members of town committees and staff participating in the presentation or discussion of articles. Such persons must wear non-voter stickers, which are available at the check-in table. Spectators in town residents who are not town meeting members may be seated in the bleachers to the rear of the auditorium. New information for town meeting members can be found on the back table to my left, old information on the back table to my right. Amherst Media provides gavel to gavel coverage of our proceedings on Public Access Channel 17, and I'd like to thank their staff and volunteers. If you wish to speak, you must raise your hand and be recognized. You must hold up a card to indicate your position. Green indicates yes, red indicates no, and a white card indicates that you wish to speak without advocacy or ask a question. When you're called on, please first state your name and precinct. If you forget, I will interrupt and ask you to do so. If you need more than three minutes or more than five when speaking to your motion, you must request additional time before speaking, and town meeting will vote on your request. Non-members who wish to speak should stand at the rear of the right-hand aisle. Any registered voter of the town of Amherst who is recognized by the moderator may speak without special permission. Others may speak with the permission of a majority. Please stand when you speak if you are physically able to do so. If you're making an amendment to a motion, the amendment must be presented in writing with four copies submitted to the following people or groups, town clerk, moderator, town manager and staff, and the chair of the finance committee, and the chair of the finance committee or whichever board is seated to my left. Procedural motions such as a motion to refer or a motion to dismiss do not need to be presented in writing. If you make any motion from the floor, it must be the first thing you do after you've been recognized and have identified yourself. You cannot speak first and then make a motion. If you've not already done so, please check your cell phone, make sure it is silenced or off. The election of four members of the town meeting coordinating committee and nine members to the town meeting advisory committee are taking place this evening. The polls in the back of the auditorium will be open until 9 p.m. If you haven't already done so, please take the time during discussions to go back and vote. If at any point in time, you're confused about proceedings, it is appropriate to call a point of order and ask for clarification. It's also always okay to phone me, send me an email or see me prior to town meeting if you need an explanation of any kind. All votes taken to town meeting are initially voice votes. After a voice vote, if the moderator or any member so requests, we will take an electronic vote. Make sure your device is turned on. When your device is on, you will see your device number on the device LED display. If you see a totally blank screen, press and release the power button, bottom right corner, and a display will appear on the screen. Is there anybody who does not see a display on their device? Good. The only functional buttons are one, two and three. One is yes, two is no, three is abstain. You never need to press any other buttons. Other buttons will have no effect in your vote. A vote to abstain will be recorded, but it will not count towards the result. There may be a lag time of a few seconds from when you press the button to when your vote is displayed. You may only vote with a device that has been assigned to you. Please power off your device at the end of the evening. To do so, you press and hold the power button until the LED display is clear. Always return your device when you leave town meeting. We will now do a test vote so make sure everything is working. Is there anybody who is not seeing their vote displayed on their device? Yes, 82, no, 50. To be honest, Mr. Wall, I forget what the right answer is. Yes is the right answer. Congratulations to those who voted yes. We're now gonna have three procedural motions to move three articles to be heard Wednesday in the order in which these motions are made. I first call on Ms. Turner to make a motion. Who hopefully is here, there you are. Can we get, just get a microphone if you want or you can come up, either one. Microphone? Holly Turner, precinct one. I move that we hear article 39 on Wednesday, May 16 at 7.05. Motion's been made and seconded, you may speak to your motion or I can speak to your motion if you want. This is, article 39 is being, was placed on the warrant and is being presented by a bunch of middle school students and we wanted to give them a time towards the beginning of the session so they didn't have to stay here till 10 o'clock and be tired the next day in school. Is there a discussion before we come to a vote? I see no hands, we now come to a vote, requires a majority. All those in favor of hearing article 39 on Wednesday, May 16th at 7.05, please say aye. Opposed? I hear unanimous in favor. I now call on Ms. Teilman to make a motion. Your mic's not on, I think. There you go. Okay, is it now now? Okay, how's that? All right, Mr. Moderator, may we hear article 25 on Wednesday, the 16th of May at 7.10. Motion's been made and seconded, you may speak to your motion. We will have a final figure for free cash at that time. Is there a discussion before we come to a vote? I see no hands, we will now be voting on moving article 25 to 7.10. And by the way, for those who don't know why we use these strange times, basically 7.05 means it's gonna be the first thing we hear on Wednesday, 7.10 means it's gonna be the second thing we hear on Wednesday. And we keep a couple minutes in between in case some crisis happens and there's something else we need to hear in between. For the discussion, no hands, we're now coming to a vote, requires a majority, all those in favor of hearing article 27 on Wednesday, May 16th, that's 25, sorry, on Wednesday, May 16th, that's 7.10, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. The ayes have it unanimously. And now I call on Mr. Slaughter to make a procedural motion. I move to consider article 27 on Wednesday, May 16th at 7.15 p.m. Motion's been made and seconded, you may speak to your motion. Microphone, whoop. Are we ready, there we go. There are a couple of technical issues we wanna double check with our town attorney and so there's a chance that it might come up this evening and so we wanted to guarantee that we had those questions answered before we got into debate on this article. For the discussion, I see no hands, all in favor of the motion to hear article 27 on Wednesday, May 16th at 7.15, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. The ayes have it. We now begin our evening with article 15, Capital Program Bond Authorization Transportation Fund and I call on Ms. Kruger to make a motion. I move that the town borrow $450,000 for repairs of the Main Street parking lot. And to meet this appropriation, the treasurer with the approval of the select board is authorized to borrow set amount under and pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 44, Section 71, or pursuant to any other enabling authority and to issue bonds or notes of the town therefore and further any premium received by the town upon the sale of any bonds or notes approved by this vote less any such premium applied to costs of issuance of such bonds or notes may be applied to project costs approved by this vote with a reduction of borrowing authority therefore by a like amount in accordance with Mass General Law, Chapter 44, Section 20. Motion is made and seconded. Before I call on someone to speak to it, I just want to point out that in the warrant article, it made a reference to Chapter 44, Section 711, but the motion is Chapter 44, Section 71. Section 71 is what it was supposed to be all along. It was a Scrivener's error and I ruled that the motion is in order and in scope. I now call on Ms. Krueger to speak to her motion. Okay, so I'm assuming you know that the Main Street parking lot is the one that's right opposite the front of town hall, but I just wanted to make sure you did know where it was. And I don't have a very long comment about this, the Drink Capital Planning Committee recommends this and I can also tell you the select board at their meeting of April 18th, 2018, recommends this 401 absent. A lot of our infrastructure is in needs help, needs repair, needs redoing. You saw the work that was done recently on the Amity Street lot, that's the one across from the Jones Library. This would bring this lot up to that level of quality. It's imperative that we do it, well, we think it's important that we do it now because we have funding already approved for improvements to the North Common, which is adjacent to the Main Street lot and there's a synergy of doing the two together, some cost savings and some opportunities. So this is the time to do this, this is borrowing authorization. And we talked, when we met last on Wednesday night about the Transportation Fund, this would, the bond costs would be paid out of the Transportation Fund. This is one of the things we do with those monies. There are others here tonight, Assistant Town Manager David Zomack, who can explain more about the North Common Project and Superintendent of Public Works, Guilford Mooring, can get into more of the technical aspects which I am not gonna do in my talk. Thank you. I call on Mr. Sharma to make a statement for the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee voted 601 absent in support of this article. Thank you. And Ms. Kruger, did you wanna make a separate statement for the select board? I did get the vote. So okay, good, so it's all combined, good. So this will require a two thirds vote since it's borrowing authorization. Is there discussion before we come to a vote? I see, hand over there, third row. Jennifer Page, precinct eight. I was just wondering if someone could explain when it comes to things like roads and parking lots and sidewalks infrastructure, how has it decided what we borrow money for and what makes it into the budget? Mr. Bacom. Hello. Thank you. Basically it's how big the number is. So this is a large number. There's not enough money in the Transportation Fund to fund the entire project, so we would borrow money over time and pay it back from the revenues that come in through the Transportation Fund. Further discussion before a vote? I see another hand, whoop, it went away. I see another hand over against the wall there. Janet McGown, precinct eight. I was staring at this lot yesterday and the asphalt looks terrible and looks like it needs to be replaced. The rest of it looked pretty okay except for maybe some sidewalking and so the number really surprises me. It just seems like a lot of money for asphalt and maybe redoing a sidewalk. Is there something else that you're doing? Cause it, I mean, you have nice granite curbs and it looked pretty okay to me. Mr. Moering, I believe is gonna come forward or you can talk from there, whichever you want. Guilford Moering, Superintendent Pollock works. When we start doing the asphalt work, we will rip off curbing up. It's not because the curbing isn't really, some of it's broken, some of it's chipped, but it's easier to work if you take everything up and start, so clean slate, that's pretty good. Clean, we can take it all out and we'll start working that way. The one thing that's not really seen in the pictures is we're gonna put new lighting. So it'll be new lighting. There's the Cobra lights that are there now. They'll be changed over to LEDs, which are LEDs and with black poles as well. There'll be lights along the edge, which is the park side, not just the road side. There'll be some ADA accommodations which will be a little more detailed how we do it, grading differently and so forth, and then there'll be the repaving and everything. There's also a couple of drainage items that have to be done as well. So it's just more than just paving it and redoing the sidewalks. There's a little more to do it. There's also talk about rearranging some a little bit. So that's the figure that's in there. Thank you. It's right here in the second row. Chris Riddle, Precinct 2, I believe the design, I understand that the design of the North, the design of the North Common area will take place at the same time as the design of this parking lot. Will they be coordinated or will they be, is the decision on the layout of the parking lot done deal the way I see in this slide here and the layout of the North Common still has to have a lot of feedback and input. Am I hearing that? What is the sequence of the design process? That's what I'm asking about. Mr. Zomek. Thank you for the question. So as has been stated earlier, we're really, originally this was seen as two separate projects. But as we looked at sequences, sequencing, as we looked at funding, we thought it really made sense to actually design the entire project from really the East Street, or excuse me, the Spring Street parking lot all the way up to Main Street to include both the parking lot and the North Common. What you see here is really just one of the concepts that was developed over a year and a half ago when we were going for grant funding. So at this time, we, thanks to the recommendation of CPAC and the authority of town meeting, we have 550,000 to spend on redoing the North Common. And if this article passes 450,000 here, we have hired a firm out of Boston, Weston and Samson. They have a very strong landscape architect on board, Christine Brestrup, our planning director, who's up back will be spearheading the effort. So we'll spend much of 2018 designing this. We'll go out to bid in the winter of 2000, did I say 18 or 19? 2018 design will bid it in 2019 and shortly after commencement in 19, we will be under construction on the Combine project. Public participation on May 29th in the town room at 7 p.m., we will have the first public meeting of the Combine project. We have had a number of meetings focused on the North Common already, but we're really jump starting the Combine process on May 29th in the town room with our design team that includes planning, DPW engineering, the historical commission will be leading that with the members of the LSSE commission as well. Thank you. Further discussion before a vote? Yeah, I see a hand right there, and from the aisle. Janet Keller, precinct one. Could someone tell us what the numbers look like for savings from putting over time from putting the LED lights in? Mr. Moran. So far what we see in the LED lights is we save about two thirds on the power we view. Thank you. For the discussion before a vote? Yes, over here, right against the aisle. Indra Parker and the precinct five. I was wondering if this figure included any discussion of perhaps putting any sort of solar panels that offer rain protection. There's something like that in a UMass, it seems like a unique opportunity to put something in like that perhaps provide energy for the town building. And if someone could also tell us if there was gonna be any electric ports put in for any electric vehicles, thanks. Mr. Moran. Gilford Moran, superintendent of public works. And the conceptual design we've laid out so far and some of the things we're asking for in the DPW, there is some opportunity to improve the power and the whole common in the park a lot. If you notice in the common now, it sort of has this ratty old wood pole there and a little rat box of a electrical box on the side of it. And every once in a while, the electrical inspector comes to me and says you gotta make that better. So there are a lot of upgrades going to be in both the North Common and in the parking lot. There hasn't been any decision made about charging stations but that's open for discussion in the planning process when everyone gets together and talks about it. If you'd like to have more charging stations, that's probably something that's doable. The issue about the solar panels over the parking lot, that's probably open for the discussion as well in the planning process. But then again, that's gonna be building something in the common, which will take away from the view of the downtown and the common. So that's something that's probably would be a little less likely to happen. But anyhow, it's still, all that's open for discussion when you come to the public comment session. On what day? May 29th. On May 29th, we said twice one more time. Thank you. I see a hand all the way in the back row there. Michael Burt was a little precinct too. Will there be any addition or reduction in the number of parking spaces? Mr. Domek. At this time, we don't know because we haven't engaged in the design process. We'll be looking at all of that. We certainly acknowledge that these are critical parking spaces for our downtown businesses. For the farmer's market and everything that goes on in Central Amherst. So we'll be respectful of that, but it's too early to tell what will happen with those parking spaces. We'll also be looking a little bit at parking on Boltwood Avenue as well. There's been some ideas coming forth early in this process for creative solutions or creative additions on Boltwood. So we'll look at all of that. Thank you. Yes, in the front row over there. Rob, customer precinct three about my 10 questions I think have been answered, but the 10th one, the geography of the site includes a fair slope to the east. And I'm just wondering, I know people have sometimes asked if there's enough parking downtown. And I'm not advocating for it, but many other municipalities have two level lots in the situation. I know it'd be much more expensive. It's not what it, so I'm not proposing it, but I'm just wondering once you invest this, maybe many, many years before something else were done. And I'm wondering if that was one of the considerations that had come into your thinking. Further discussion? Yes, third row from the back over there. Lisa Berry, precinct two, I move to call the question. Motion of the previous question has been made and seconded. We will now come to an immediate vote. If two thirds of you vote yes, we will then come to a vote on article 15. All those in favor of the motion for the previous question, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator, here's two thirds. We now come to a vote, we now come to a vote on article 15, which also requires a two thirds vote. All those in favor of the motion before you for article 15, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator, here's two thirds. We now move on to article 16, capital program bond authorization, water fund. I call on Ms. Krueger to make a motion. Move in terms of the motion. Actually, why don't you move in terms of the article, that would be better. I'm sorry, I move in terms of the article. Your motion has been made and seconded. And I'm calling on Mr. Sharma to speak to your motion. Mr. Sharma for the finance committee. The finance committee voted 601 member apps and to support this article. It's a water fund article, so a water fund is really an operating budget and not all the expenses can be absorbed in it. And that is why this request. Thank you. And Mr. Steinberg for the JCPC. I'll speak for both JCPC and the select board. JCPC recommends this and select board recommends it. Four to zero with one member absent. This is to allow us to do important water maintenance other repair work and the water system along College Street, excuse me, along Northampton Road, that section of route nine. The Commonwealth is paying for major road work which has been in a design process for a while, there have been several public meetings, noticed public meetings about the design of that. And it's important that we do the work at the same time so that we don't end up being forced into a situation of digging up a road and having to redo it after it's just been redone. It's better to do this work at the same time and that is why this is being recommended to you. Thank you. This also requires a two thirds vote and is there discussion before we come to a vote? I see no hands. We will now come to a vote. This requires, as I just said, two thirds for passage. All those in favor of the motion in terms of the article for article 16, please say I. Opposed, please say no. The ayes have it. We now move on to article 17. And I'm gonna say it even before she begins. There's a Scrivener's error here as well whereas the warrant refers to section eight and then in parentheses five and it should have referred to section seven and then in parentheses a one. And I call on Ms. Krueger to make the motion. I move in terms of the article except to correct the reference pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 44, sections seven, subsection one. Motion being seconded. Just a quick thing before we continue. For article 16, I just said the ayes have it and I should have said the moderator. Here's two thirds, which I did indeed here. So now I call on I believe Mr. Sharma to speak for article 17. As the previous two articles, this is a, you know, if an operating budget and the amount requested can be absorbed in it. So the finance committee voted 601 member absent to support this article. Thank you. And Mr. Steinberg for JCPC? C and the select board both recommend this to you. The select board vote was four to zero with one member absent. The purpose of this is to be able to replace major piece of equipment known as gravity belt thickener and rather than my trying to explain it which would be absolutely impossible, I would request that the moderator recognize Mr. Moring from the superintendent of public works who is prepared to make an explanation of what this is. That sounds reasonable. This will require a two thirds vote and I call on Mr. Moring to explain it. So with the wastewater plant, the current plant we have was built in 19, well it was put online in 1972. Most of the machinery is basically the original machinery. We've been doing a small upgrades throughout the life of the plant. One thing we did was about 20 years ago we replaced the big old vacuum press filters which sucked water out of the wastewater sludge and made it thicker and we replaced it with a gravity belt thickener. The gravity belt thickener we have is about 20 years old and it's having some problems so we need to replace it. So our plan is to put a new gravity belt thickener in, leave the old one as the backup in case we have to, actually we're required by DEP to always have a backup. So what the press does is it takes liquid sludge, the sludge flows across the press and it thickens it and makes a little more concentrated sludge, more solid sludge on the end. We then take that sludge and ship it off our disposal. So since my verbal explanation is probably not that good we have a movie for you because we like to talk trash and watch dirty movies at the DPW. So here we go. If this is enough I bet Mr. Moran could arrange for personal visits. Thank you. So as you see this liquid sludge comes out on my left, goes across the belt. The belt is a pervious membrane, the water falls through. The little white wedges you saw actually pushes the water and the solids together and squeezes them so more water is pressed out. And at the end you see sort of a material which is the consistency, oh it's a little more consistent. So that's what the machine is for. It's very important without this machine we actually end up shipping mostly water to be disposed of. So by thickening it up it cuts down on the cost of the disposal of the sludge at the plant. Thank you. Thank you. Is there further discussion before we come to a vote? I see a hand in the third row against the wall there. Laura Quilter precinct nine. I was asking some colleagues earlier where does our sludge get shipped to? It was just curiosity. Thank you. Mr. Moran. Right now our sludge is shipped to Hartford and it goes to MDC Hartford and it is burned in there in Centerator outside of an east, well it's on the east side of Hartford. Thank you. Further discussion before a vote? I see a hand in the front row there. Rob Custner precinct three. I'll stay away from the dirty stuff but I do want to know about the financing. Both this article and if someone cares to answer for the previous one, the funding source for repaying the bonds would it be, in this case the sewer fund and in the last case the water fund? It wasn't mentioned so. Mr. Moran. Yes, for both articles the water fund will pay for the water line and the sewer fund would pay for the gravity belt thickener. Further discussion. Yes, right in the center, third row. Gordon Freed precinct six. I highly recommend a tour of this plant. I went on one a few months ago. I took some time out from my office and went and it was sponsored by the Hitchcock Center. Are we ready to come to a vote? I see no hands. We are looking at article 17 and this requires two thirds. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed please say no. Moderator here is unanimous vote. We now move on to article 18, bond authorization PEG fund for Amherst media. I call on Mr. Steinberg to make a motion. Okay, Mr. Moderator are you gonna note the Scrivener error on this one before I make the motion? Oh, I guess I should be consistent. So yes, so the Scrivener had a bad spring and this one also the motion is changing the section to section seven and then one in parentheses and that's ruled in scope, it was just a typo. Okay, Mr. Steinberg you can make your motion. Okay, thank you. So therefore I move in terms of the article except to correct the reference pursuant to MGL chapter 44 section seven one. Thank you. Okay, so I'll explain the piece of paper that's on the screen. Are you actually, hang on a second. Are you speaking first or is Mr. Kubiak gonna speak for the finance committee first? Let's hear Mr. Kubiak finance committee since it's technically their article. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Finance committee voted six zero with one member absent to recommend this article and I, since Mr. Steinberg is gonna give you a complete explanation I will just yield the floor. Thank you. Now Mr. Steinberg for JCPC. Yeah, can we fix the brightness on that? I think we can fix the brightness on the display. But I couldn't go ahead if you would like. Let's give him just. Well, we need the lights so the speaker can be seen. Sorry. That's pretty good. No, you might be able to see the speaker but think of the thousands of people at home watching on TV. Mr. Steinberg, you have been recognized. Okay, because of the time I'm gonna ask for an additional two minutes, I don't think I'll need it. Mr. Steinberg's request an additional two minutes for a total of five without objection, you may continue. Okay, the reason I went a little bit of time is that this is actually a fairly complex matter. It involves a couple of different contractual arrangements which were negotiated at different times. The first one was there was a negotiation that went on for a while which was a 10 year renewal of the license from the town to Comcast to provide cable services within the town. And the contract that was negotiated included three particular sections that are relevant to the motion that's before you this evening. One part was that it provided funds to operate what are called PEG services which is public access government and education channels which is currently, you know, is channels 12, 15, 17 on our cable system. People at home are watching right now on the government channel 17. The second is that it provided funds for equipment needs to support both PEG services and other town needs. All funds are paid for by Comcast to the town on annual increments during the 10 years of the license period which is why something to bear in mind for a moment because we'll come back to it. The third thing that was in there is that Comcast has been providing what is known as an INET to the town of Amherst and they were demanding that there be a discontinuation of the INET during the period of this contract. The INET is the fiber optic network that connects all of the town buildings and provides our phone and our computer services and actually some of the cable services that allow us to show broadcasts that are in one location going across to others because it also connects to Amherst media. So the town is going to have to replace this with its own fiber network which then gets to part two of this which is the second contract between the town of Amherst and Amherst media to provide peg services during the 10 year period. The operating funds that I mentioned go to under the contract that the town negotiated with Amherst media go to Amherst media to provide the peg services. The equipment funds that I mentioned provided by Comcast are divided between a portion going to the town to construct the new fiber optic network and a portion going to Amherst media to meet some of its very important equipment needs. Amherst media during the negotiation of this agreement between the town and Amherst media presented a particular problem to us which is that they have a need to have some of the capital funds available to them much earlier during the contract period than would be available if they spaced it over the course of 10 years. So they asked if we would consider this arrangement which would allow for borrowing of the funds to allow them to make some of their investments earlier to meet their essential early equipment needs replacing important equipment that is failing and also related as I understand it to the impending move of their facility to a new location that they're planning to build on Main Street. And the payment would come from the funds that we would be receiving from Comcast over time instead of it being used in future years to provide the equipment since the equipment would be purchased earlier that's where the funds would come from for the repayment. What the chart on the screen does is it shows the division this is actually a page from the contract and I wanted to show you this particular single page from the contract because it shows how the division takes place how the money is divided over the period of time and how the and the agreement that was made with Amherst media. So I will stop at this point and if the further questions respond as needed. Thank you. And Mr. Slaughter, did you also want to make a statement for the select board or we all set, okay? So this also requires a two thirds vote for passage and do we have discussion before we come to a vote? I hear a point of order. Wait for microphone please. Paige Wilder, precinct 10. We were just told that the information on that chart has been conveyed to us and it was unreadable. Could that be read aloud or something? I didn't get any of that information. Yes, something being unreadable that's being displayed can be a point of order. So Mr. Steinberg, I'm gonna give you a little more time to explain. I don't know that you need to read all the numbers but at least explain the gist of what the chart is showing us might be useful. That's good. So the second column, the first column I think is obvious. The second column shows the amount that would be available from Comcast which is the licensee to the town of Amherst. And the reason that we use these words is that this is an actual page from the contract that we negotiated between the town of Amherst and Amherst media. And the next two columns show how the money is to be divided in each of the years so that because we didn't, the town does not need during the first four years to have any funds available for replacing the fiber optic network because the contract with Comcast and the town, the first contract that I described doesn't provide for the discontinuation of the current INET during the first four years. So the town investment in replacing the fiber optic network doesn't begin during those first four years, does begin till age, till year five. The balance that you see is for the amount that we negotiated to be available to Amherst media. Then when you see what's below is that sort of disappears as it says the total amount paid to ACTV pursuant to section 6.1A of this agreement shall be $675,000 to the town agrees to request borrowing authorization for approximately $410,000 in spring 2018 in order to accelerate funds paid to ACTV. And then it says if the borrowing is authorized, ACTV will pay the principal amount of the bond from the future disbursements to ACTV according to a revised schedule to be mutually agreed upon by the town and ACTV. So our agreement was that we would present this two-town meeting. I should say that the select board is not just recommending that you consider it but we're actually recommending that you agree to it. And if there are questions about why Amherst media has made this request and what its plans are, Mr. Lesko, the executive director of Amherst media is present in the building. Thank you. Once again, this will require a two-thirds vote. Is there a discussion before we come to a vote? Yes, I see a hand on the aisle right here. The Hill of Greenbaum precinct one. Is any of this money going to be used for buying new cameras and other kinds of equipment that immediately affect a better quality of say a high definition broadcast for the viewer? The equipment that seems to be used is pretty poor in terms of the reception that I get at my house. As I recognize the gentleman in the back of the room, you can come forward or you can speak from there whichever is more comfortable. Well, I can speak from here. Jim Lesko, executive director of Amherst media. All of the equipment is going to be improving the quality of what you're seeing and what you're hearing. We recently just put in a whole new master cable casting. That'll be tied into the next big project will be for Town Hall. And Town Hall has to be replaced especially with the increase that we're going to see in the members. And that'll be all new equipment. So there's an immediate like $60,000 just in that room. So among other things is that we have to tie back in and our new location will be tying back into the network what's known as the INET. So during the process of the citizens advisory committee and then with our meetings with Comcast and then with our negotiations with the town, we spent a lot of time showing them the equipment we would be buying and upgrading and adjusting as we needed to. So yes, the answer, the short answer is it will only make the hopefully much, much better than what you're seeing now. Thank you. Further discussion? Yes, right on the aisle here. Ruby Perkins, precinct two. I'm sorry if I got lost here in the numbers, but it looks from the finance committee report that we're borrowing, the town's going to be borrowing to purchase some of this equipment. But then the chart shows the payments coming to ACTV in the first four years. Is that something different than a repayment of the whatever we're borrowing? Like shouldn't that money come to the town to repay it for the borrowing we did for the equipment? Or are there two tranches of money, one borrowed and one directly paid by Amherst media? Do you follow what I'm asking here? Ms. Aldrich. All of this money comes to the town and it sits in a revolving fund. Any purchase that ACTV does with these funds goes through the town. So it's all there and the interest would come from there as well, interest and principle. Further discussion? I see a hand in the third row over there. Irene, you have the precinct three. So according to the text there says that ACTV is going to pay the principal so the town is going to be paying the interest on this bond. Ms. Aldrich. Both principle and interest will come from these ACTV funds from the portion from Amherst media. Thank you. Further discussion? I see no hands. We will come to a vote. This does require two thirds. All those in favor of the motion under article 18, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator hears unanimous vote. We now move on to article 19 and I call on Ms. Pavanelli to make a motion. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I move in terms of the article. Motion's been made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. This is basically a housekeeping article, passage of which allows the town to rescind the $225,000 unused amount authorized to be borrowed by the spring town meeting of 2017 for the acquisition of coal property. The finance committee recommends this article to you by a vote of six, zero, one absent. Thank you and Mr. Slaughter for the select board. The select board voted four to zero with one member absent to recommend this to you. I will say the following is that this article is tied in some ways to the next article, both of which relate to the coal property. The plans that we had there have changed a little bit by virtue of some additional conversations with the owner and so that's why this borrowing is not needed and the acquisition of easement is needed in the next article. Thank you. This just requires a majority vote for passage. It's two thirds to borrow money, but it's only majority to rescind the authorization to borrow. Is there discussion before we come to a vote? I see a hand way over against the wall there. Laura Quilter, precinct nine. Thanks for explaining that there will be an explanation. I was a little bit curious to know what the explanation was because it looked like last year when we appropriated the funds there was going to be an acquisition for passive recreational use as well as for conservation kinds of purposes. And so if we are just getting an easement for recreational access, do we not have the conservative, like what are the plans for the land? Thank you. Mrs. Omec. So yes, it is a bit confusing and this article as Mr. Slaughter indicated is related to the next article. So in 2017, our intent was to purchase the entire property from Mr. Cole. As would stated, we did some negotiation with Mr. Cole and in the end, we determined collectively that he would move forward with, and of course he went through all the various planning processes, but he would go forward with an eight home subdivision which would be a limited cluster development on the parcel. And if you've driven Route 116 South, you can see where this is beginning just south of the double roundabout. And in the process, the town would be gifted about six acres of land and I can just show you where that is on the map. So this area will be gifted to the town and Mr. Cole will develop one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight lots. So this was a collaborative process where we came together and said what land would be the best to conserve and what land would make sense for a limited development. And that's what Mr. Cole is doing. Thank you. For the discussion on Article 19, I see no hands to come to a vote and this requires majority. All those in favor of the motion in terms of Article 19, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator hears unanimous vote. We now move on to Article 20 and I call on Mr. Slaughter to make a motion. I move in terms of the article. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. Select Board voted unanimously with one member absent to recommend this to you. This is the other half of the equation here and what this allows us to do is actually access that land that's going to be granted to us and hopefully with the map that Mr. Zomek Doshody can kind of paint that picture a little bit more for you. But the idea is that we get an easement that allows us to access those trails that are in that section of town. But hopefully Mr. Zomek can kind of paint the picture a little bit more. Thank you, Ms. Ratner for the Finance Committee. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. The Finance Committee recommends this article by a vote of five to zero with two absent. It will not cost the town anything and I really think I don't have anything more to add than what you've already heard. Thank you. This will require a majority vote for passage. Is there a discussion before we come to a vote? And right there in the center, third row. Gordon Freed, precinct six, does this become a public way or is this just an easement? Mr. Zomek? At this time, my understanding is that it would be a private subdivision road with an easement for the public to pass and repass in the area outlined in black over the new road to be created. So it'd be pedestrians, bicycles. Mr. Cole has agreed to create a trailhead right here with parking for six to eight cars, which will allow us to access the old trolley line that was mentioned earlier in this session of town meeting. And it just so happens that this is the Epstein property, part of the 30 acres that will be protected as part of this effort in South Amherst. So again, the black area gets us from 116 to the gift of six acres. There'll be a trailhead here and then connecting trails out to the old trolley line, getting people up to hikers, mountain bikers, up to the Mount Hoyok Range State Park and beyond. For the discussion before a vote and I see a green card on the aisle here. Bruce Golan, precinct three. As I see it, Mr. Zomek and his staff's engagement has saved the town close to a quarter of a billion dollars. And if I'm right, I commend that effort. Further discussion. Yes, in the front row there. Rob Custner, precinct three. The assistant town manager alluded to the echo of an earlier discussion. The easement outlined in black is part of what appears to be the private roadway easement. And if you notice at the eastern end of it to the right of the screen, it's extremely close to the old railroad line, trolley line there. It looks nice with those little cross ties. And I'm just wondering in as much as that line, there is, as I mentioned earlier, quite a bit of interest in the rail trail community and having that serve not only as a nice recreational function but possibly still as a modest transportation function. I'm wondering whether our action tonight would preclude the granting of an easement that includes the rest of that road right of way and something directly to the trail because it looks like it would be much longer route for people to access the trail. Although, again, the topography at that section at the east end of the roadway may be something that makes it more difficult there. But I'm just wondering if we don't wanna preclude the ability to access it at other places. And I think my own experience with an erotic rail trail is whenever there is a possibility of access, it'll be taken advantage of and we wanna keep everybody happy. And so I'm encouraging both the people who are negotiating this and tell me to consider the possibility that we'll be back again for more easement acquisition. Mr. Zomek. I don't think any action, if town meeting takes the action before them, I don't think it precludes an easement as the speaker described in the future. But right now, I think what we've negotiated is as was stated earlier, a limited development that'll bring in tax revenue to the town with the eight new lots, new homes for families in a developing village center in South Amherst with a gift of an easement, a gift of six acres of land and connection to the old trolley line. So right now I think this is what's before us with Mr. Cole, but again, in the future, there may be further negotiations. Thank you. Further discussion before I vote? Yes, I see a hand in the back corner. Vince O'Connor, precinct one. So my one concern about this proposal is that the house lots that directly abut the old trolley line question is any of that old trolley line on the Cole property? And is there some way to have you negotiated a way to make sure that the access from those house lots be in some organized fashion so that everyone gets on, if this turns into a rail trail to South Hadley, which hopefully it will, that everyone sort of accesses that section of the rail trail in one location rather than having access be just walking out the back part of your house lot onto the rail trail. In the past, some of these situations have created problems for rail trails. And I just wonder if this issue has been thought through and some rail trail access point will be part of the subdivision and will involve the house lots that directly abut the rail proposed rail trail. Mr. Zomek. I guess the short answer is I wanna make sure I don't make any promises that I can't keep here. This is an old rail bed. There's been quite a bit of discussion of this as it pertains to the Epstein acquisition. This is the old trolley line. This is going to be a trail. I wanna make sure I'm clear. I am not saying it is going to be developed into a rail trail that is paved or hardscape. It is going to be a trail. If it develops in some way further that may be coming down in future years. But I do not think given the grant funding that we got for the Epstein property that we can pave or dramatically increase that or improve that trail to the point that it is passable with other than mountain bikes. So I wanna be clear on that. It is a former rail bed that will be a trail but when people think of rail trail I believe most of us think of Station Road and the wonderful trail that connects Northampton, Belchertown, Amherst, and many other communities. We're not set up to do that and the grades and other issues there, ADA and wetlands make that challenging. So this is gonna be a trail with wonderful access that Mr. Cole is going to provide for us. But I just wanted to make that clear that it won't instantaneously be a rail trail as most of us think about it. Thanks. Are we ready to come to a vote? I see no hands. This is Article 20. The motion is in terms of the article. It requires a majority. All those in favor in terms of the motion for Article 20 please say aye. Aye. Opposed please say no. Moderator hears a unanimous vote and we move on to Article 21. I call on Mr. Slaughter to make a motion. I move in terms of the article. Motion's been made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. Well, we've used Graf Park for many years as a recreational facility. We have not formally dedicated it to that purpose and given the care and control of it to our LSSE. This article does that. It is an essential and necessary part of a grant process that we've participated in and in order to receive the grant we must see control to the LSSE for that purpose. The select board voted unanimously four to zero with one member absent to recommend this to you. Thank you. Ms. Ratner for the Finance Committee. Thank you. The Finance Committee recommends this article by a vote of five to zero and two absent and all I would add to Mr. Slaughter's statement was that this process has been used for other projects in our town. Thanks. Thank you. Because we're transferring control of the land to a different entity, this requires a two-thirds vote for passage. Is there a discussion before we come to a vote? I see a hand way over against the wall there. Jim, old and freezing five. I think I'm making out the answer to my question on the map, but I'm having trouble from here to be sure. So I just want to be clear that this is the fields area. This doesn't include the trails that go along the river to the going east of the park. Could you just point out, I see the line, but I'm not quite oriented to where the line's on. Mr. Zomek. Yes, that's a great question. The Emily Dickinson Trail does begin at Gulf Park right here on the lower tier down near the Fort River. This area, by the way, is about 12 acres. And the Emily Dickinson Trail begins there and then leaves our property and we're very fortunate that Amherst College for many years has hosted that trail. So from Gulf Park all the way to the connection at Southeast Street that is owned and controlled by Amherst College and they've been very gracious and generous allowing us to have that trail on there for many, many years, going back to probably Pete Westover negotiating with them some 20 or more years ago. Thank you. Further discussion? I see no hands. We now come to a vote on the motion in terms of the article for article 21 requiring two thirds. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed please say no. The ayes have it unanimously. And we now move on to article 22. And I call on Mr. Slaughter to make a motion. I move in terms of the article. Motion is made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. The select board voted four to zero with one member absent to recommend this article to you. As you'll note in your warrant this is a rather lengthy list of multiple projects and multiple locations. One thing I will point out is if you see an address that is blank that just means there's not a physical street address, a number associated with that piece of property. But nonetheless these easements are for a number of improvements throughout town that involve the roadways and the sidewalks around our town. And so this gives the authority to the town to work on those different projects throughout town and therefore this select board recommended it to you. Thank you. Mr. Kubiek for the finance committee. Thank you Mr. Moderator. The finance committee recommends this six to zero with one member absent. Thank you. So this is interesting in that the phrase eminent domain is used in the article. And if our final vote is two thirds in favor then that authorizes us to use eminent domain if needed. A majority vote still counts as passage of the article but we no longer have the option to use eminent domain if it passes by majority and not by two thirds. I believe Mr. O'Connor now wants to make a motion to divide. Vince O'Connor precinct one. I moved to divide out a section D and asked to be recognized when we have completed the other four sections for the purpose of a discussion. So motion to divide isn't debatable as long as it makes sense to the moderator and this one does to me. So we're gonna first have a discussion on sections ABC and E and people can cross over and talk about D a little as well but we will have two separate votes is the critical thing. We'll have a vote first on sections ABC and E and then we'll be a second vote on section D. Is it clear that? Wait, do you need to be recognized Mr. O'Connor? Just then raise your hand. We're not having a discussion so raise your hand if you wanna be recognized. Mr. O'Connor. It is D be separated out, D is in David. Yes, D is in David. Section D, sorry if I didn't pronounce that well. Section D has been divided out. So is there, so eventually when we come to a vote there will be two separate votes. One on A, B, C and E and then a second vote on D as in David. And we are open to discussion if there is any. I see no hands. So Mr. O'Connor is likely recognized to discuss section D. Yeah, I'm Vince O'Connor, precinct one. So Mr. Moderator, use of eminent domain is a quite serious matter because essentially it means that we take away from the individual property owners really any negotiating power that they might have to affect a plan. And two weeks ago when I asked Mr. Moren was there a plan that I could view and review because section D has 71, no 73 properties. 16 of which appear to be owner occupied. And I refer people either to your warrant article which those, the listing of those properties are on pages 29 to 31 or to your finance committee report and the listing of those properties in your finance committee report is on pages 76 to 79. And I really think that this article should be defeated. I was told by Mr. Moren that there is no plan that we have no idea what we're going to do. They're applying for a grant. The plan is not in place, evidently contrary to what the warrant article says. And so we have no idea what's going to happen in terms of tree removal, impact on any of these properties whatsoever. There's a large number of rental properties but the viability of those properties and the impact on those properties could be significant. And I think before we vote an eminent domain or any authorization on such a large number of properties for which we have no plan that at least, I was told two weeks ago there was no plan that we should ask them to come back when they have a plan, when they can present us to a plan, a plan as a plan writing. And when we can see what the impact is going to be before we authorize the kind of eminent domain taking that I think could be very detrimental. And my understanding is also that the property owners have not been directly notified of this proposal because a town meeting warrant constitutes notification. This is not like a planning board hearing where individual butters receive notices. So no notices to the property owners, no plan that's visible to the town meeting. And I really urge us to defeat this proposal. If it needs to come back when there is a plan, I'd be happy to look at it. I think we all would. But right now we should defeat this. So I'm gonna kind of interrupt the debate because I realize I made a mistake. I'm going to make sure there's no further discussion on A, B, C, and E and then call a vote on that so we can dispose of that so we all then know what we're focusing on and what we're voting on. So is there any further discussion on sections A, B, C, or E? I hear a point of order. Hello, Alice Swift precinct eight. There's been reference to eminent domain and I haven't seen that in any of the verbiage that we have there. So I'll explain that point of order and that's in the warrant article itself. It says to see if the town will vote to authorize the select board to acquire by gift purchase or eminent domain. And since the motion was in terms of the article, it's eminent domain is a possibility for any of these items. Again though, is there any discussion on A, B, C, or E? And there wasn't before, I'm just checking once again. Now there is. I really made a mistake by not calling a vote. Yes, in the back of the IOA there, but we're not talking about section D now, I wanna make that clear. I'm not gonna talk about section D. Aaron Hayden, the chairman of the Transportation Advisory Committee. I just wanted to let you all know that we spent some time with these easements and the maps that exist on these four articles that we're talking about right now. And we wanted to recommend to you that you accept this article, that you approve this article. The improvements that are being proposed do further the goals that the Transportation Advisory Committee would advise the town has regarding improving these streets, not only for automobile access, but also for the other modes of transportation, which we're trying to encourage in town, walking, bicycling, and taking the bus. Thank you. Thank you for the discussion on A, B, C, or E. I see a hand in the back corner there. Lawrence Quigley, precinct one. I notice, just a question. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts apparently is one of the people that we would consider taking property from by eminent domain. Am I understanding that correctly? And I'm wondering if there's a limit to what the town could take from the University of Massachusetts. Seriously. Is there Mr. Moren? Microphone. There it goes. Sorry. Gilford Moren, which had public. We've already, you mass about what we're taking on East Pleasant Street. We're taking a very small amount. I don't know the answer to the second part of that question, which is can we take the whole campus? That would be kind of cool, but. Further discussion on the sections we're talking about here. I see a hand in the sixth row there. Bonnie McCracken, precinct six. My only, my question, I'm not sure if it's point of order, but are these all existing sidewalks? We're just improving instead of or putting new sidewalks in. Mr. Moren. No. These are all new sidewalks. There's no existing sidewalks here. So A is East Hadley. Well, East Hadley does have an existing sidewalk. It's becoming a multi-use path. The East Hadley Road project is we put together and we will be widening that to eight to 10 foot sidewalk or multi-use path. The other ones are new ones. So on East Pleasant Street, we're putting in a sidewalk from Village Park to Olympia Way. We're putting a crosswalk across the street. We're putting a bus pull off on the other side of the road. The other one is on West Bay Road, as we've been talking about that for a long time. That's the sidewalk from Applewood to Atkins. And then Main Street is a sidewalk there too. And that's just a. Hang on. We lost you right after. Tell us about Main Street again. Main Street is just a correction. When we put that sidewalk in, we got carried away and we went too fast and we didn't do the paperwork. So now we're doing the paperwork for that sidewalk. And both those property owners have been really good about the little error we made. We're just trying to clean that up. Thank you. For the discussion, yes. Second row from the back in the center. Thank you. Alan Powell, precinct four. With reference to Section D and the resurfacing of Route 9, could somebody tell me why the town is responsible for resurfacing at a designated state highway? We're not talking about Section D now. I'm sorry. I should have interrupted you a little sooner. But when we get to that section, you can ask to be recognized again. Yes, and the finance committee. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I just want to point out that eminent domain is frequently used in a friendly way because you can even if you're and we'll see it in another article where we're getting a gift. There's also mentioned in eminent domain because you can use it as a tactic to ensure there's a clear title. So just because you see eminent domain doesn't mean it's necessarily hostile. I know from Sorya experience as a slip-in in another community that using eminent domain is not necessarily a simple task if there's not an arm's length transaction that precedes it. So we try to avoid that stuff. Thank you. And I see a hand sitting there against the wall. Janet McGowan, precinct eight. What is the process for dealing with the property owners and working with them? I've seen this on very small pieces. Like, have all these property owners already been contacted? What's the process for working with them? Mr. Mooring. So we're not, we're not talking about D. So all the four other ones, we've already talked to the property owners and the property owners know the plan. They know they are entitled to compensation. They know they are getting the money from the town. So they do ask for compensation. It has to come from the town. The way we approach it is, is we try to get gifts or donations. And if we cannot, if it's a substantial amount of money, we have to come back to town meeting and have a creation for that money to do something that's a significant amount of money to buy something or to take a donation. Did that make sense? Thank you. Further discussion on ABC and E. I see a hand in the center here. Gordon Freed, precinct six. Who shovels these? I have no idea what the question was, but Mr. Mooring, if you do, you may respond. Oh, who shovels the sidewalks? That's the question, right? Well, we all hope that when it snows, snow doesn't fall on the sidewalks personally. But the town bylaw is, is that the property owner adjacent to the sidewalk is responsible for shoveling them. And that's kind of how it goes. On East Pleasant Street, the town does pass down East Pleasant Street now, so we'll probably continue on East Pleasant Street, that little section we're adding. The Main Street one, we do do Main Street already, so we would probably do Main Street as well. And West Bay Road, we'll have a talk with the property owners about the West Bay Road. What was the, I keep hearing the fourth one. East Halley Road, we actually are required, we go up that one one time too. So in a sense, in our little, even though we require property owners, we do have a list of roads that we do do the main sidewalks on. And we, most of these, three of these are on that now. Thank you. Further discussion before a vote? Yes, over against the wall. Jim Oldham, precinct five, I'm very pleased about the one you forget, East Halley Road, that it's being done. The map of the easement only shows the easement going partway, and I'm guessing it might be because we don't need, there's town land after that, but I'm wondering if the trail will, if that's the explanation, or where the trail will continue to get it all the way to West Street and Graph Park. Mr. Moran. Yes. Right now we don't need to go beyond, or need easements beyond South Point. So South Point is, we can get the multi-use path all the way there without having to take additional easements. And when you get to South Point, the easements are actually very small. They mostly deal with the driveway and making sure the driveway radiuses are appropriate for that property. Further discussion, or can we come to a vote on A, B, C, and E? I see no hands. We'll come to a vote on sections A, B, C, and E of Article 22. This requires a majority for passage or two-thirds to authorize eminent domain. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderate here is unanimous vote. And we now are opening up discussion on section D of Article 22 if there is further discussion. Is there further discussion on section D? Are we ready to come to a vote? I'll call on you once more.  As we heard, for the previous four sections, the property owners have had us met with them and discussed with them and it's gotten their agreement and so forth. My understanding, this has not taken place for the property owners in Article D, a very large number of property owners. We don't have a plan contrary to what the article says and there is nothing to be displayed in front of us evidently regarding this proposal. And I think at least enough of us ought to vote no to leave these property owners in a position to really negotiate with the town. And that is by removing by if more than one third vote vote no, then the town can discuss, they can acquire, but they can't use eminent domain. And it leaves the property owners who have not yet been notified in a better position to discuss with the town things like tree removal, the impact on their property and so forth. And I just would urge us not to do what this article proposes, not to give the town eminent domain authority given that what is happened in the other four has not happened in this proposal. For the discussion on section D, I'm always looking for new hands first. Yes, third from the back on the aisle there. Chair, Chair Weiss, precinct eight, does any town official have any rebuttal about Mr. O'Connor's statements? Mr. Mooring. Guilford Mooring, if you don't mind I'll just stay back here. So there is a plan, what there is not is a detailed taking plan. So we have a rough plan, we've been working with Mass DOT to rough this plan out but I cannot tell you for certain how much I'm taking from each property as we go along. I cannot even tell you right now if we're taking from every property. I don't think we're taking from every property. So what we've asked for in this article and I'm completely okay if you wish to vote for it so there's no in the article, that's fine. We are doing this because Mass DOT does not maintain this section of route nine. The town maintains route nine from South Pleasant Street all the way to the Belcher town line. So that is the town's portion of route nine. We do have a chance and we've entered into a program called the Transportation Improvement Plan to have the state and the federal government pay for this resurfacing. And we don't have to do anything except design it. There's no free money from the state. We have to design it and we have to get the easements. The faster we move along with design and talking to people about easements, the faster we move ahead in the TIP project and then maybe in the process by 20 or 21 to actually have a viable project that will go out and be built and constructed by the state. So because there's not really a possibility of a fall town meeting, we kind of push this ahead a little fast hoping we can keep this thing moving and stay in the queue with the state and move this project forward. So that's why it's here at this annual town meeting. There is no definitive exact plan for the takings. There is a plan for what we're doing along the road, a concept right now. Thank you. Yeah, one, the orange shirt there with the green card. John Cool, precinct two. I think we should all keep in mind that these easements are for sidewalks. A sidewalk is something that typically in this day and age, one would expect to enhance the value of one's property. So it's not simply taking for our purposes, it's taking for our purposes of enhancement. Yes, right there. Bonnie McCracken precinct six. So isn't a temporary easement needed so that you can do a thorough survey and evaluation about trees? Mr. Moran? No, we don't need a temporary easement to do that type of work. The state lets us go on to properties to do surveys, type work and to do tree work and stuff like that that would develop the plan. That's allowed already. I just say I support this project. Excuse me, excuse me. We don't have a back and forth discussion. Yes, I see a green card over there. Claire Bertrand precinct eight. I'm gonna vote in support of this. I heard free money, that's good. Improve the road, that's really good. Improve the sidewalk, check, check, check. And I see a hand second row from the back with a white card. Actually, very back row, sorry. Moran Adams precinct 10. I'm wondering that as you develop the plan for this particular section, is part of the plan discussing the implications with the homeowners as you have with the other ones that we've already approved? Mr. Moran? Yes, it's very much a part of the plan. We always do that. And because we're using state and federal money, we actually have to do it in a certain way. So it'll be actually a more enhanced discussion than we normally do, it's just town funded. Ready to come to a vote? Yes, third on the aisle here. Dianna Stein precinct nine. Mr. Moran suggested that the words eminent domain could be removed and that we would still be eligible for the TIF money and so forth. Is that a possibility? Yes, I would accept as in scope a motion in terms of section D that removed the phrase eminent domain. I see a card on the aisle right there. Very wise precinct eight. I move to amend section D by removing the words for eminent domain. Motion is made and seconded and you may speak to your motion. That seems to resolve a big part of the problem, Mr. Conner spoke about and Mr. Moran seems happy with that idea. Seems like it'll move us along. Are we ready to come to a vote on, so actually, hang on just a second. So I'm gonna, there's first gonna be a majority vote on whether or not to accept this amended motion. And then if it's accepted, we then have a majority vote on section D. If it fails, we're back to majority or two thirds depending how it goes. So the next vote will be whether we want to accept this amendment. So is there anyone wants to speak on the pros and cons of accepting this amendment or are we ready to come to a vote? Okay, here a point of order. Mr. Lacour, where exactly does it say the phrase eminent domain? Okay, so it says it in the warrant article. And keep in mind the motion, so first the warrant article says to see if the town will vote to authorize the select board to acquire by gift purchase or eminent domain in connection with the colon and then sections A, B, C, and D. So that sort of preamble applies to all five sections. But we're saying we've moved to remove the eminent domain portion just from section D. That's the motions before us. We're gonna vote on whether or not to accept that amendment. And if somebody wants to speak for or against accepting it, keeping in mind that pretty much everybody wants to accept it. Is there anybody who wishes to speak? Yes, I see a hand in the, I hear a point of order. We'll wait for the microphone. Maria Kapicky, precinct eight. I just wanna make sure that we've dotted our eyes and crossed our T's. Did somebody second and does this have to be in writing? You know, I'm gonna wave the writing on this. I feel that the town clerk has already made the correct note and it's under control. And I'm gonna wave the writing requirement and it definitely was seconded. Yes, front row over there. Rob, customer precinct three. I'm speaking both to support this and also to provide some, support the amendment but also provide some information about my own experience. About 20 years ago, Pete Westover, Art Swift, and I were involved in the design of the, what's now called the Swift connector. And a portion of that runs along Snell Street, just south of Route nine. And during the construction of that, it entailed the relocation of Snell Street. And to the great surprise of a family that had just purchased a home on the south side, their entire front lawn disappeared to be paved over by Snell Street. As much as I think it's a good idea to have friendly eminent domain to clear title as part of a warrant article, if necessary, our successors in the legislative function could authorize that. At the moment, my own experience personally, working as at the time, I guess, I forget what capacity I had, but I spent a lot of time meeting with just one family. And I can imagine the difficulties of meeting with 73 families. I think this is a wise move. And if it's necessary in any case to use eminent domain on a particular few parcels at the end, then it can be brought back for reauthorization either by this body or by the future legislative body of this town. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Krueger. Just speaking for myself, not for the select board. I'm gonna vote against the amendment, the amended version of the article. Might be the only one here. But I think raising a fear factor about how we use eminent domain was unnecessary. We've used it a lot and we've used it appropriately. There's certain regulations about when it can be used. It's being used for the public good. And I trust that it would be used judiciously. So I know Mr. Moring offered to remove it, but I'm gonna vote against the amendment and I support the original version of section D. Are we ready to vote on the amendment? I see no hands. This requires a majority. This does not. Okay, where was a hand? Okay, now I see two hands. Back in the corner there. Wailing Green, E-Precinct 10. I'd like to offer my support to the amendment. And the reason being that if down the road, as Ms. Krueger said, if it's for public good, we can come back if needs to use that eminent domain. But in the meantime, I'd like to support the idea that private property owners have the right to their property. So therefore, it covers their rights. And on the other hand, the public goods can be also enhanced if we have the tool of eminent domain. So I'd like to offer this support for the amended language. Thank you. Thank you. And yes, right there, third from back. Alex Lefebvre, precinct eight. I just had two questions, which maybe can or can't be answered. But one, just in looking at the list, I'm not sure how many actual families are affected. And if we know versus what seem to be rental properties and businesses. And then second, the offer by Mr. Moreing to get rid of the eminent domain. I'm just curious, what if any impact that actually has in terms of working with the state and the process and the grant funds? Does that create delays? I just, I don't know the impact of that. So I'm curious. Thanks. Mr. Moreing. So we truly don't know. We have an idea of how many actual families are affected, but we haven't verified that number. There's a lot of properties that have rental permits. And then we find out there's actually the family lives there too, and then rents out. And we have to verify those things. We just have to verify we haven't done that. So I don't know that exact number. Hopefully the state's not watching this and will not watch this and no one here works for Mass DOT. Because it's all in how you tell them what town meeting said. If you take out the eminent domain, I would tell the state and what I tell them is that town meeting authorize me to take these minutes that I need and take the property I need. That's how I would do it. If the issue of eminent domain comes up again and we have the two eminent domain, we'd be back in front of the next legislative body talking to them about it. The goal is to keep the project moving and that's kind of all this article is about. Further discussion before we come to vote on whether or not to accept the eminent domain amendment. Yes, in the back row, second in. Hank Vandenberg, precinct four, I call the question. Most of the previous question has been made in seconded. If two thirds of you vote yes, we will then come to a vote on the motion before us which was the motion to amend. I'll explain that when we get there again. Right now the motion is to end debate. So all those in favor of the motion for the previous question, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator, here's two thirds. We are now coming to a vote on the motion to amend article 22, Section D, to remove the phrase or eminent domain. Everybody clear on that? Hang on just a second. Guess they're not, yes. Get a microphone, please. Hate to do this, but. Amaran, precinct four. It seems to me that the amended language is too late to do this now I was trying, but should have, should be, I move that the town vote to authorize the select board to acquire by gift or purchase and then the text of Section D. I'll accept that as a friendly manner to put the word or before purchase is what you're saying, basically. You want the or in a different place or is there something more to it? I was thinking that you should have a preamble to Section D, says it's different from. I mean, I think I've stated really clearly that the motion is to amend just for Section D. So I think we're okay. We've already voted on A, B, C and E and we've authorized eminent domain if necessary. And just for Section D, if this amendment passes, we'll be authorizing Section D but without the eminent domain phrase. So I think it's pretty clear. So all those in favor of the motion to amend to remove eminent domain just from Section D, please. Yes, microphone. And just while waiting for the microphone, just to make it clear, we're not doing our final vote yet on 22 D. We're just talking about whether to accept this amendment. Yeah, it was Mr. Weiss who made the motion, not Ms. Stein, I believe. Oh, did I say who did I say? It's up on the screen as Mr. Stein made it. Yes, it was Mr. Weiss's motion. Yeah. Thank you. We are now coming to a vote. Motion previous question already passed. This is a vote on the motion to remove eminent domain from Section D of Article 22. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. No. Mr. Moderator, here's the ayes have it, but we'll have an electronic vote. We see 93 yes, 63 no, it's required a majority, so it passed. Is there further discussion on Article 22 Section D, which now only requires a majority and no longer includes the eminent domain possibility, or are we ready to come to a vote? I see a hand in the front there. Denise Barber at Precinct 9. Information I should have given for the last point of order, but this is a question. I believe we have a sidewalk that goes from Southeast Street all the way out to Gatehouse Road and then beyond on the north side of the road. Are we also talking about putting in more sidewalk on the south side of Belcher Town Road? Mr. Moreing. The concept at this point is when you get to Gatehouse Road and you go out to Belcher Town Road, is that more than likely that's gonna be a multi-use path on one side of the road, and then it'll be crosswalks that go across and take you across to the medical facility at Hall Drive, take you across the Belcher Town Road, and there's two old Belcher Town Road ones and then the Medical Center on Hall Drive. That's kind of how the concept's shaping up right now. Thank you. Ready to come to a vote? I see no hands. We are voting on Article 22, Section D, with no longer an option for a domain requires a majority vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Let's oppose, please say no. The ayes have it unanimously. We are now gonna take a very strict five minute break. Please be quick. If you haven't voted yet and you would like to, now's the time to do it because the polls close at nine o'clock, but please let's be back and back to work in five minutes. Okay, Mr. Slaughter, I now call on you to make a motion under Article 23. I move in terms of the article. Motion's been made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. So Article 23 is the acquisition of land or easements in a section of town between Hall Drive and Rolling Ridge. The select board voted unanimously, four to zero with one member absent to recommend this to you. Currently, this is a piece of property that, if I remember correctly, yes, has a sewer line under it and to have the easement allows us control over that. And I believe the property owners have been spoken to and are willing to gift the easement to the community. Thank you. Mr. Kubiak for the Finance Committee. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. The Finance Committee recommends this by a vote of six zero with one absent. This is a paper street. Nothing's on it. Nothing will be going on it. Thank you. And I believe there's a single handout that has information for both articles 23 and 24. I'm not sure which mailing it went with, but you should have that. And Article 23, again, has eminent domain in the warrant article. So a majority vote would indicate passage without eminent domain authorization. A two thirds vote indicates passage with eminent domain authorization. Is there discussion before we come to a vote? Yes, right in the front row center. William Gaysen precinct three. So I live off of Rolling Ridge Road. This is my neighborhood. And as has come up in town meeting before, I've been advocating and stumping for sidewalks, particularly on East Pleasant Street. In lieu of that sidewalk, these kinds of parcels of land are very important to people in the neighborhood, because in fact, there is a cut through there. And it's used every day by myself, my partner, our children, and people in our neighborhood and the two abutting neighborhoods to get around safely when going down East Pleasant Street is not nearly so safe. It also gives us access to the cut through to UMass. And going in the other direction on Owen Drive, there's another cut through. And so these kinds of passways, easements are the kind of hidden life's blood of neighborhoods where sidewalks don't exist. And so I would hope that more of these could be potentially acquired by the town and kept up in perpetuity. This one in particular, the neighbors get together and put mulch down on and keep going. So I don't see the downside of it. And if there's any, I'd be curious to hear them. Otherwise, it seems like a wonderful thing. So thank you. Yes, in the front row there. I hope this passes unanimously. Identify yourself, please. Rob Cusner, precinct three, also a neighbor. I'm just off the map. This parcel was developed by neighbors there with the not only permission, but the enthusiastic consent of the landowner who's one of the bigger landowners in the world, at least certainly the biggest one in western Massachusetts. And I can tell you from many personal conversations with her, she's been very eager to have this parcel taken by the town for this purpose. And so I think she'd be happy with any of the means of transfer. And I just put in a call to her. It went to voicemail immediately, but if she calls back, I'll try to confirm that. So I hope you'll support this unanimously. Further discussion before a vote? I see no hands. We'll now come to vote on the motion before us in terms of the article for article 23. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator hears unanimous vote. Now move on to article 24. I call on Mr. Slaughter to make a motion. I move in terms of the article. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. You may speak your motion. Again, the select board voted unanimously with one member absent to recommend this to you. This article allows us to rescind or give back an easement that we have taken many, many years ago. It is no longer needed and therefore we should return the easement back to the property owners. Ms. Pavanelli for the finance committee. Hello. The finance committee recommends this article to you by a vote of six, zero, one absent. This requires a majority vote. Is there discussion before we come to a vote? I see no hands. All those in favor of the motion in terms of the article for article 24, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. The ayes have it unanimously. We're skipping 25 because at the beginning of the session tonight we moved it to Wednesday. So we move on to article 26 and I call on Ms. Teilman to make a motion. Mr. Moderator, I move to dismiss this article. Motion's made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. We will not be using money from the stabilization fund so there's no need to go forward. And select board have any comments, Mr. Slaughter? No comments and let's see. This requires just a majority vote for dismissal. Is there discussion before we come to a vote? I see no hands. All those in favor of the motion to dismiss article 26, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. The ayes have it unanimously. And article 27 has been moved to Wednesday night. So we are moving on to article 28 and I call on Mr. Slaughter to make a motion. I move in terms of the article. Motion's made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. This select board voted four to zero with one member absent to recommend this article to you. Over the last several years, the Agricultural Commission, which we formed before the state law defining the rules and constraints around agricultural commissions, was set up with nine members and had some potential other membership besides just people in the agriculture business. What this article does, by virtue of some difficulty acquiring quorum membership in the Ag Commission, reduces the number by two to seven members and it broadens even more the allowable membership to include students, institutions of higher learning to be involved. They may be studying agriculture and not own a farm or operate a farm within the town limits. And so what this does quite simply is allow us to get a full complement of membership to the Ag Commission and let it function in its full capacity. Thank you. I'm not sure, is there somebody here from the Agricultural Commission who wishes to speak to this? I'm not sure if there is or isn't. I, yes, Mr. Slaughter. So I'm the select board liaison to the Ag Commission, which is part of why I took this article. They were in favor of it. Yes, thank you. I'm sorry, people might not have understood what you just said. I'll say that more slowly and clearly then. The Ag Commission has discussed this and they are in favor of it. Thank you. And Ms. Pabinelli for the Finance Committee. Since there's no implicit financial implication with this amendment, the Finance Committee voted no recommendation on this article by a vote of six, zero, one absent. Thank you. This requires a majority vote for passage. Is there discussion before we come to a vote? Yes, on the aisle there. Yeah, Paul Wright, precinct seven. I just have a quick question. The last paragraph specifies three-year staggered terms, three members each year. And if we reduce the number to seven, I think we need to adjust those numbers as well. Mr. Slaughter. So in my reading of it, the first sentence speaks to the term. The term of appointment shall be for three years staggered and that sentence ends there. The rest of that sentence is removed and then the rest is relative to initial membership. And since we already have initial membership, then that no longer applies, I believe. Further discussion before a vote? Yes, all the way over on the aisle there. Laura Quilter, precinct nine. I appreciate the addition of enrolled in an agricultural program. I was curious why we were taking students but not instructors in agricultural programs. Was that a deliberate choice or are they somehow included otherwise? Thank you. Mr. Slaughter. They have been technically granted because we currently have a member who is a faculty member. So I think under the or agricultural enterprises, so I think that them being professionals in agricultural enterprises, which would be an agricultural professor, for example, they're already included within the language. Further discussion before a vote? I see no hands. I do see a hand in the back there. Wailing Greeny, precinct 10. Even though the explanation was offered about seven members and given the language in this warrant article, the last sentence, the last paragraph, as if to suggest, shall be nine members. So I was wondering if we could modify the last one, one member for the one year term. That way it will be much more clear avoiding any confusion in the future. Thank you. Mr. Slaughter. So since the Ag Commission, this is an amendment to the existing, and so the Ag Commission already exists. And so all of that from the initially comma three members, which is the second sentence in that paragraph, has already taken place. And so now that we're amending it, that no longer needs to be applied. It's sort of vestigial, I guess, is the best way to describe that part. The more important part is that first sentence, which is the length of the term. Thank you. Ready to come to a vote? Yes, front row over there. Rob Costner, precinct three. I move to strike the language from the word initially to the word reappointments in the last paragraph. Hang on, I need to ponder this to decide if it's in scope. Could you repeat your motion? Or, because I don't understand where you're ending your strike out. And can I talk to you privately? Mr. Costner. Yeah, I wish you permission. Mr. Moderator Rob Costner, precinct three. After discussion with the moderator, we think we can withdraw the motion. So I'm gonna explain it again, because Mr. Costner was legitimately concerned that people were confused. So basically, I suspect that many, many, many of our town bylaws, when they talk about how committees are formed, have this section that talks about initially this is what happens, and then after the committee is formed, this other stuff happens. So we're looking in existing bylaw that has a section that says, initially this is what happens. But we're not concerned with changing that section and don't need to, because the committee already exists. What we're concerned with now is talking about the composition of the existing committee. So I felt, and I think I convinced Mr. Costner, that it's an unnecessary motion because it doesn't apply to our situation. And in fact, somebody could be compelled to go through our whole bylaw and change all the language of every existing committee to remove that section, but we don't need to do that. So he's withdrawn his motion and I feel confident and hopefully you all do as well that this initially section doesn't apply here because we're not in the initially phase of the commission, we're past that already. So we're gonna bring it back open to discussion. And yes, I see a hand there. Alan Palp, or as the article reads now, students are the only ones that need not be residents. They just need to be enrolled in a town institution. They can live off campus elsewhere. Is that intentional? Mr. Slaughter. I'll pull this a little closer. In the bolded phrase where it says, owners or farmers of agriculture. So it says, let me start with the beginning of the sentence in the third paragraph, the second sentence, third sentence, excuse me, says, all members of the commission must either be residents of the town, comma, owners or farmers of agricultural property or agricultural enterprises within the town. So they do not, at that point, they do not need to be a resident of the town. By virtue, they can farm in town but not necessarily live as a resident within town. Thank you. Further discussion before I vote? Yes, I see a hand in the front row there. Jeff Lee, precinct seven. I'm just trying to understand, are two people being kicked off the commission and when does their term expire? Thank you. Mr. Slaughter. I may not be perfectly accurate in this but I believe we currently have a membership of six. So no one's being removed but fewer are going to be added? Yes, in the third row there. Jennifer Page, precinct eight. Going from nine members to seven seems like a relatively small change and yet it does feel a little bit like a consolidation of power and it seems like you're sort of pulling, you're trying two things to try to solve the issue. One is to reduce the number and the other is to broaden the people who qualify. So I wonder why you maybe just wouldn't, just try broadening those who qualify in hopes that you would be able to get more people to serve. Seems like we're surrounded by farms and farmers so maybe it's possibly just an outreach issue and now that you're broadening the membership, perhaps nine will be more reasonable. Mr. Slaughter. So the thing I'll point out relative to the changing of the number is that whether you have nine members or not a quorum is five when you have a membership of nine. So regardless, and there was a period of probably five or six months where there were not five members and the ag commission could not meet because it did not have membership equaling even a quorum. It is a struggle and has been for a while. We did the same thing with the affordable housing trust if I recall correctly, we reduced the size of that membership as well. So it's a two-fold piece because again, it was a broadening of who might participate but it was also alluring the number to again, make sure that not that we just meet the minimum of quorum which goes from five to four but also that we try to fill this commission to its full capacity and therefore can operate in a full way. Are we ready to come to a vote on Article 28? I see no hands. This requires a majority for passage. All those in favor of the motion before you under Article 28, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. The ayes have it unanimously. We now move on to Article 29, zero energy town buildings by law. And I call on Mr. Steinberg to make a motion. I move in terms of the article. Motion's been made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. Before I do, Mr. Moderator, just to revisit a discussion we had before, there were gonna be three speakers this evening and you had indicated that you would separately recognize Mr. Riddle and we should not ask for an additional time for him now. Yes, I plan on recognizing Mr. Riddle, that's correct. So, thank you. Just wanted that clarification. As you recall at the Fall Special Town meeting, the town meeting passed the Zero Net Energy By-Law, and as it was then called. And the select board was concerned about whether it would be able to implement the by-law and but supported the concept of the by-law and made a motion to refer which was not passed, the by-law then passed. After that, we had an extremely good process and have done a lot of very good collaborative work with the original proponents and several members of select board and the town manager. So I'm gonna recognize or ask you to recognize Ms. Krueger to share the rest of the time to speak to this. I just wanted to say that I think that it's really important that we take this action tonight and not delay because if buildings are going to be planned as you will hear, it is really important that we do the planning with an understanding of what the by-law is going forward so that it can be implemented as we all want it to be. So I request that you recognize Ms. Krueger. Yes, Ms. Krueger. Up on the steps, so it's a little too tall. Okay, so as you just heard, the vote on the zero net energy by-law last fall made it clear how important energy conservation and reducing the town's dependence on fossil fuels was to this body. However, municipal officials had some serious reservations about the workability of the initial by-law. So in January, 2018, we invited the by-law proponents to an initial meeting to share our concerns and explain why we thought it might unintentionally prevent any town buildings from being constructed. What followed was an agreement to continue to meet and work together to rewrite the by-law to address our concerns, but also to make it clear or more understandable and more defensible as a by-law. We agreed to have four representatives from the town and four from the proponents' mothers out front. We embarked on a very intensive meeting schedule to prepare something for the warrant for this annual town meeting. So I would like to now introduce the group to you and as I say their names, if they could stand and face you and remain standing until I get all eight of us introduced. So myself, Andy Steinberg, Paul Backelman, Lynn Griesmere, Andrew Rose, Chris Riddle, Anne Perkins, and Rudy Perkins, not related, representing mothers out front. Okay, you may now be seated. Thank you. The main challenges, and I'm gonna be very brief if I can, the main challenges with the existing by-law in summary are that town buildings couldn't be certified as complying with the by-law until it had been operating for 12 months. This presented two problems. It was unlikely a design professional would certify it as zero energy until the 12 month mark, leaving the town unable to enter into a contract without that assurance. And also it might require obligating a future town meeting or council to spend additional funds and that could have put us in conflict with municipal law. Secondly, we are very concerned about additional costs of constructing a zero energy building, especially for an upcoming department of public works or fire station headquarters, since there are very few or no examples nationally of this having been done. Third, the by-law contained ambiguous terms that needed more clarification. So after a series of eight work sessions and much drafting work between sessions as well as consultation with others, we came to an agreement that we think addresses the concerns of each group. So I'm now gonna turn the remainder of the presentation over to Chris Riddle to explain how we solved the challenges I just mentioned and to walk you through the new proposed replacement by-law. Okay, just to be clear, technically, you're not turning over a presentation to anybody. And I just wanna check first, does the finance committee have any statement on this? Ms. Tauman. The finance committee voted six to zero with one absent. We did not believe we had enough information at the time to make a recommendation. Thank you. This will require a majority vote for passage. And now I recognize Mr. Riddle. Thank you, Mr. Madaverdeau. I am hoping that I request two additional minutes. If I need five minutes. Yes, you have three, so you can have an additional two without objection. Yes, you may proceed with five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Last November with other people from mothers out front, I argued that the town should build all of its new buildings and additions with high energy efficiency and with renewable energy equipment so that they use no more energy annually than they generate. We argued that these zero energy buildings are affordable, that four such institutional buildings already exist in Amherst and that the extra investment is returned through annual energy cost savings. Town meeting voted in favor, 123 to 54. As Mrs. Kruger just noted, the bylaw was we passed wasn't perfect. It needed some work to make achieving its goals less challenging in the real world of municipal construction and we offered to work with the town on it. This happened and I want to personally assure you that the select board and the town manager are squarely behind the goals of the original and this revised version of the bylaw and that the process was excellent. Good faith and hard work were provided by all participants. We, the original petitioners, emphatically recommend a yes vote on this article. Why? It maintains the essential features of the original bylaw. It applies to all large new buildings and additions, not renovations, built by and for the town. Renewable energy must supply 100% of the building's energy needs annually with minor exceptions. No fossil fuels may be burned for building energy with minor exceptions. It is stronger than the original bylaw in several ways. It works smoothly with public sector finance and procurement regulations. In the original version, compliance was determined by 12 months of actual operations. This has its virtues, but it is at odds with those regulations. There was a risk that desperately needed projects could be threatened, leaving terribly energy inefficient buildings in place. In the new bylaw, compliance is determined at the end of design, avoiding the public finance and procurement conflicts. The architect must certify that the completed building can achieve zero energy performance and this certification must be peer reviewed. The town undertakes to operate the completed buildings to achieve zero energy and to report to the public annually on its energy performance. The end result will be the same, new town of Amherst buildings that won't require or use significant non-renewable energy. With one minor exception, the bylaw now requires that renewable energy equipment be purchased by the town instead of being leased or supplied through power purchase agreements. This is a better long-term deal for Amherst taxpayers. The amended version explicitly requires high energy efficiency standards for the building itself independent of its renewable energy sources. In the original bylaw, the requirement for an energy efficient building was only implicit. And the amended version has been carefully crafted after many hours of editing to be clear and unambiguous. It's a much better piece of legislation. There have also been changes that slightly relaxed the bylaw making implementation easier. The minimum project size was increased from one to two million dollars. This change was suggested by the mother's out front group, not by the town because the North Amherst Library Project might or might not have had to comply and we wanted the first project out of the gate to be too unambiguously off of the greatest impact possible. We estimate that the cost premium for a zero energy building is unlikely to exceed 10%, about 5% for building efficiency and 5% for the renewables. The equipment like solar panels and wind turbines that supply renewable energy. The town wished to have some form of cap on the extra cost for renewables which mother's out front feels is reasonable. So the bylaw now requires that renewables be installed up to the point where they cost 10%, not 5% of the cost of the new building or addition. After that point, the town may acquire green power in various ways through third party providers or if that is more expensive, may simply purchase conventional power from the grid. The original bylaw allowed emergency generators powered by fossil fuels. The revision now also allows fossil fuel powered process energy, services like municipal sewage and water treatment and pumping and specialized equipment, essential non-building equipment that has no reasonable electrically powered alternative. Again, the original proponents from mothers out front strongly request your yes vote on this greatly improved version of the zero energy town buildings bylaw. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a discussion before I come to a vote? Yes, I see a hand there, second row from the back. Carol Gray, precinct seven. I moved to amend by changing the number two million to one million and I have copies for people. Could you enlighten me on which section it is in? It's in section two where it says this bylaw proposal would be applicable for all buildings that cost more than two million. I'm changing that to one million what was in the original bylaw. Okay, so motion has been made to change the number in section two, paragraph A from two million to one million has that motion been seconded? Been seconded, you may speak to your motion. I hear a point of order, hold on. You're park ranger, precinct five. Why do we need to amend something that's already in the law? Wouldn't we just strike that language from the current proposed changes as opposed to putting it back to what it originally was? So what we're actually doing with this article is we're rescinding the current bylaw and replacing it with a new bylaw. So therefore we have all the wording of this new bylaw and this motion is to change some of the wording of the new bylaw. It happens that the old bylaw had a one million figure but we're not talking about that anymore, we're talking about this new one. Okay, you may continue. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. I don't wanna weaken the law that we already have on the books. I liked that it applied to any buildings greater than one million. I recognize that for most projects, we're talking multi-millions but I just don't see any reason. I think anything the town builds should try to be zero energy considering climate change is gonna leave a planet that's so much worse off for our next generation. Also, I wanted to mention that I don't think the North Amherst Library is a good reason to vote against this amendment. The North Amherst Library, the proposal for that 50,000 in a prior town meeting was to use the existing footprint. I don't think that this bylaw would even apply to the North Amherst Library but even if it did, when I was a library trustee, I got a geothermal estimate for the North Amherst Library. It would have cost it 19,000 to sync one geothermal well which would have converted from oil to geothermal. Why not make that building be zero energy? Why not have that be the priority for all buildings but as I said, I don't think the North Amherst Library even applies here because the renovation, if it happens, hopefully it will, would be within the same footprint. So in general, I just don't think that we should weaken the existing law. Frankly, I'm very concerned that we've now imposed a 10% cap. The existing law did not have a cap. I think that the point isn't to just build more buildings. The point is to build buildings when we can build them responsibly in a way that doesn't harm the environment any greater than we already have. And so if it costs 20% more to build a building that is zero energy, I think we should do it. And I think in general, if you have a... I was really proud of what Town Meeting did with that other bylaw. All the boards were against it but Town Meeting voted this thing that was critical for saving our planet. And that was the first thing we did. I don't think that we should then necessarily go and negotiate against ourselves when we have a terrific bylaw. I get that there's reason to have better implementation. The 10% cap I'm not comfortable with at all but at the very least, let's put it back to 1 million. Let's have it be that that's the priority for anything that Town does. It's of a substantial nature and 1 million is. So I hope you'll support this amendment. Okay, I wanna talk quickly about process before we open the discussion. So what's on the floor now is a motion to amend changing that dollar amount in section 2A from 2 million to 1 million. We're gonna vote on whether or not to accept that amendment if that fails, we're back to the initial motion which is in terms of the article. If that passes then it's changed to 1 million and then we move on to eventually vote. This sometimes we do budgets, we talk about voting on the larger mountain and the small amount that doesn't apply to this situation because it's not strictly a budget expense, it's part of a much more complicated thing. So we're gonna first vote on whether or not we want to accept this amendment and then we move on from there either voting on the amended article or on the original unamended article. Is there a discussion? Mr. Riddle. As I said in my prepared remarks, the decision to recommend raising that number, that minimum size a little bit was our idea. It wasn't something that the town of Amherst suggested and mostly because of the, we want this project to be, we want the first one of these projects to be a landmark event. We want it to be clear and unambiguous that it's possible to do this and that it can be done at a large institutional and public sector scale and we just felt that the, I did a study for the North Amherst school, the North Amherst library and it's the only part of the North Amherst library that would have to comply would be the stairway and elevator addition. It's not likely that that would be over a million dollars but if you add in site works and soft costs it could. We just wanted to make it clear that we wanted, we're talking about important municipal projects of some scale and so that was our recommendation that we just raise that number a little bit just to delete to take the North Amherst school project out of the requirement to comply. This does not mean that I say North Amherst school, North Amherst library. The North Amherst library project doesn't mean that it should not be built to very high standards. There's nothing to keep us from doing that. It would be nice if it could be built if the existing, our bylaw does not require any work to be done on renovation building, on the renovation portions, just additions. And I would like in the case of the North Amherst library that we work on the renovation portion that we think about new windows and we think about some more air tightness and some new doors and some serious conservation efforts but that would not have been required under our old bylaw anyway. So we recommend that we raise the bottom threshold a little bit up to $2 million but I can, well, except for whatever the body chooses to do. Thank you. Yes, I see third row with a red card there. Kent and Tharp, precinct one and I would like to point out a few things. One, it's really been an amazing collaboration effort taking something that was proposed and town meeting passed, not just by slim majority but by a good majority and then a really excellent group of people getting together and doing something that we all need to do a lot more which is listen to each other and collaborate on something to make it even better in a way because my hope is that we'll defeat this amendment and that will make it more possible for all of us hopefully my friend Carol Gray also to vote unanimously for the last amendment for the final passage and there's nothing to say we can't make a building that costs less than $2 million net zero energy. I think as we go on, we're gonna find out that over time we're actually gonna save on every building that's net zero energy over the life of that building is gonna come back as a surplus in money. So it's nothing that prevents the way it's been presented from making a building net zero just because it's less than $2 million. And also this is the goal in my part of my life right now is to make this town then the state then the whole whatever net zero so that our grandchildren can live on this planet before it gets destroyed. And I think a unanimous vote if we can achieve that, my hope would send the strongest message to the rest of the community, the state, the planet that here's a town that's willing to really put forth something that is probably unheard of. I think somebody said at one point, anyplace else in the country. And so I'm hoping that we can defeat this amendment and pass it as a unanimous vote and save the planet. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I see it hand way over there, green card. Van Caner, precinct two. I'm very appreciative of this article and I will vote yes for both of them if we have a chance to vote on both of them. I don't feel terribly strongly about this amendment. However, my first instinct was that why do we make long-term policy based on one building? It doesn't seem to make sense. Just the way an article you hear from me later, one development shouldn't determine long-term policy for zoning. So I just feel like it's short-sighted to see one building as a reason to raise a number double. However, I fully respect the work that's been done by the people studying this that know more than I. I've asked some friends that were involved with the first article last year who were involved in the creation of that article and they are very supportive of this current article without the amendment. So I am not strongly in favor of this current motion. I do want to say I'm a little bit disappointed by a couple things and yet my heart is with this. So the thing that I find a little bit disingenuous is to say that if the goals are not met, the green energy could be purchased by the town. But there's a big if, and the if less ever source energy is cheaper. And I think generally, conventionally, generated electricity is cheaper than green energy. So I just think the intention even be in there if it's not likely to happen. And the other thing I wish was in it would be carbon offsets. So that if a building did not meet, like the North Amherst Library, did not meet zero energy standards that we could put up a few extra solar panels that the old landfill or whatever required to help make it in essence, zero energy. But I will support both of these articles. Thank you. Yes, right here in the front row. Hi, Andrew is precinct for one other reason. I'd say the North Amherst Library that we've thought about is that this could be a model piece of legislation. And by upping the minimum to two million, it not only makes it better for a longer time, but it also makes it more palatable to other municipalities who may take this up as well. And perhaps even the state legislature. So that's one reason for keeping it at two million that doesn't have anything to do with the library. Thank you. Yes, along the aisle there. Hilda Greenbaum precinct one, I'm voting no on the amendment. My disclaimer is I am a patron of the North Amherst Library. That construction needs to happen as soon as possible. And I don't know yet where the money's gonna come to do the construction, but we have not had a toilet in that building that's usable by the public now for several years. Last summer, a portable potty was brought in, but I don't think that that's an acceptable alternative. I was handicapped last summer. I was lucky in that the librarian met me out in my car and brought me my books and picked up my books that I was returning until now I can go up and down the stairs, but there are other people who cannot negotiate those chairs. So for those two reasons alone, the work has to happen and I don't think it should be hindered by any possible interaction with this bylaw. Further discussion? Yes, over there, second row. Bob Greeney precinct 10. Not hearing any compelling reasons for the higher amount. I'm not. I'm gonna vote in favor of the amended version or the lower version. And hearing excuses, definitely, like excuses about the library, we just like build it and make it work. It doesn't mean that we can't renovate the library and fix the toilet, just do it within those guidelines. So I'm voting in favor of the amendment. Okay. I almost banged my gavel a little and didn't. You didn't quite cross the line, but talking about excuses, borders on talking about motivations of other arguments and other speakers and we really wanna talk about the pros and cons of the issues and not the motivations of the people discussing them. So that's just a general note to everybody to keep that in mind as you're discussing things. Further discussion? Yes, right here, second row. Pat Holland precinct one. I'm going to support this amendment to keep the dollar amount at one million. We don't know yet how much Northammer's library renovation is going to cost. But one thing I wanna mention and negotiations are going on about that but we don't have a statement yet, a bid yet. When I was sort of talking with people in the neighborhood who use the library and I was talking about how probably we were going to have to raise public funds, I should say private funds to help pay for the renovation. People were very willing to support this library and people were also hoping that it would be, it would be with zero energy capable. And I think that was a plus for the prospects for fundraising to pay for the library in the future. Yes, I see a hand right here, fourth row. Yeah, stand up once I recognize you and then the microphone knows. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Jane Wald precinct one. I live in the precinct where the Northammer's library is located and it's just a wonderful part of our village center. For this article, however, I don't wanna get distracted by the Northammer's library. When I think about all of the capital projects that are coming down the pike, those are really, really very expensive projects and I'd love to keep our focus on the value of zero energy, a zero energy bylaw for things like the fire station, the schools, the Jones library and so many other things that are going to be coming at us. Thank you. Thank you. And way in the back corner there. I'm, excuse me, I'm Steve Schreiber from precinct nine and I urge everyone to vote against the amended amount and to vote for the article. A couple of reasons. One is that eight people that are a lot smarter than me, I can only speak for myself, worked hard to come up with that number. The other thing is that they're talking about total project costs, not total building costs. Those are two different numbers. So when you talk about project costs, you could be talking about things like that are in the ground like sewer lines or all kinds of subsurface infrastructure. You could be talking about intersection improvements, things that really have nothing to do with the building envelope. So your $2 million could actually be quite a bit of that can be used up quickly on things that really have nothing to do with the building envelope. I think that total project cost is an impure measurement for that reason, but I think it's the best we got and it was, I really trust the process that happened to make a better article. Thank you. Yeah, right there, third from the aisle. Ali Hughes, precinct five, I call the question. Motion of the previous question has been made and seconded, if two-thirds of you vote yes, we will then come to an immediate vote on what's before us, which is the motion to amend article 29. All those in favor of the motion for the previous question, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator hears two-thirds. We now have a majority vote before us. The motion is to amend section two, paragraph A of article 29 to change the dollar amount from $2 million to $1 million. All those in favor of this amendment, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator hears a majority against the amendment. And I heard a request for an electronic vote. We will have one. We have a result of yes, 37, no, 107. The amendment has failed. We now have before us the main, the motion in terms of article 29 with no amendments. Is there further discussion before we come to a vote? Yes, I see a hand there. I'm preaching three. As has been said, this exemplifies the best of town meeting, I think. And it's appropriate to part on this kind of a note. This is really groundbreaking potentially legislation, I think, as has been said by a previous speaker. I'm standing to endorse or to speak for a unanimous vote. Some of you may know that in my day, in my firm in town, we did and have done quite a number of buildings. Not so large as the ones we're talking about here, but have achieved zero net energy. I say that only because it connects me around the region and around the country, indeed internationally, with all sorts of people who've been striving to do this for many years. And I know the conversation in that community as has been referenced earlier is eyes are on this town. People who pay attention to these things are very curious, very interested and very supportive. The eight of who stood earlier, and I went along as well because I was a driver, we went to the zero energy advisory council of the State Department of Energy and Resources. It's a flow on from Governor Patrick's zero net energy task force that he set up in 2008 and which a number of us here were a part of. That group of 50 odd people in that room listened to an excellent presentation made by four or five of the eight. It was just wonderful to watch this relay thing that went down. There were questions from this group of 50. They were all supportive, encouraging, and somewhat in awe really of what had gone, what was happening in town. People are watching. This is an opportunity for us to create something that will be emulated all around the place potentially. We did this some years ago with the open space community development bylaw which was triggered by co-housing which was another innovation that this town put forward many years ago. And that bylaw also has had an influence but I don't think it'll have anything compared to the potential of this. I endorse a unanimous vote on this. Are we ready to come to a vote? I see a hand over there. The third row, one to the fourth row back. Janet McGowan, precinct eight. I have a question for the people who drafted this. If the building would come in at 12% and be zero net energy, can you do that? Because the language seems to sort of send you in another direction. So is there flexibility to spend a little bit more to get to zero net energy or does the language in that section kind of stop you from doing that? Mr. Riddle? It's important to read the actual words there. We're talking about a 10% cap on the expenditure for renewable energy. Understand that? That is to say the solar panels on the roof or wind turbines. Cost to make the building itself be very highly energy efficient is not included in there. My calculations based on projects in the area were that the combined value, the combined premium for both energy efficiency in the building and the renewable energy systems on the roof added up to, I've heard numbers anywhere from eight to 10%. Particularly, normally the renewables are about half of that. And so in order for us to get to the 10% number, that would amounts to four or five percent has to go up to 10%. And we've done some calculations and we just think that that, you know, take a $20 million project, you know, that's a $2 million PV array. That is to use strong terms, one hell of a PV array, you know. It's no buildings that I know of have ever had that much renewables in them. They don't need it. So we're never gonna get there. My strong belief is that 10% is never going to be reached. And especially considering that the price of renewables is going down so quickly. So I'm not worried about it. I think the town really wanted to have some sort of a cap on this expenditure. We understood the need for that and we supported it. But the cap is quite a high cap. Thank you. Yeah, on the aisle there. Jeff Bloust, I'm precinct six. I call the previous question. Motion for the previous question has been made and seconded. We will now come to immediate vote. If two thirds of you vote in favor, we will then come to a vote on Article 29. All those in favor of the motion for the previous question, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator, here's two thirds. We now come to a vote on Article 29. No amendments. It's just as it's written in the warrant. The motion is in terms of the article and it requires a majority. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator does not hear unanimous vote but does hear a majority. We have a request for an electronic vote. Town meeting by-law say only one person needs to request it so we will have an electronic vote. The result is yes, 149, no, two, five abstain. So Article 29 passes. And it is 9.57. I'm gonna see if Mr. Slaughter is interested in making a motion. I move to adjourn to Wednesday, May 16th at 7 p.m. Motion made and seconded. Before we vote, a couple reminders. Please turn your devices off and return them.  Please on Wednesday, be here promptly. Thank you. All those in favor of the motion to adjourn, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. We are adjourned.