for us so you can get this done.  Seeing the presence of a quorum, I'm going to call this meeting of GOL to order. It is December 8th, and it is 1032 a.m. Pursuing to chapter 20 of the Act of 2021, this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. And I'll provide instructions if needed. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time. All right, I'm going to first make sure that everyone can be heard. Mandy. And Darcy. Yes. And Paul. And I am expecting the other two members of our committee. I'm not heard otherwise. But I think we're going to get right at it. Paul has about 30 minutes and then he has to go. And so today's agenda is solely devoted to the town managed performance goals for 2022. And I'm going to put up on the screen in just a moment. The most recent draft. Paul has seen this and he has submitted some comments. I think we're going to get to that. I think we're going to get to that. I think we're going to get to that. Last night about 9 30. I sent that or put that, excuse me, in SharePoint for all the members of the committee. I don't know if you had any chance to look at it yet, but we're going to go through it. Paul also offered some comments on the second half. Of the performance goals, which is great. So we're going to work our way through that for the next 30 minutes. And then we will hopefully together draft a final version. So I'm going to go through the screen and let me put up. All right. Let me find it here. There it is. That's it. Okay. So I'm going to put this away. I'm still do some business on my screen for a second. Put that away. Put that away. Actually, I'm going to put that over there. Okay. Okay. You should see on your, I'm so ahead. You should see on your screen. The most recent version of. The. Performance goals and the track changes are marked in the right column. You'll see Paul has one already under policy goals, climate action. But before we get to that. Any comments, concerns about the first section. The preamble. Okay. Okay. Okay. So. Yes. No, I'm asking members of the committee. This is just, I'm just talking about the preamble right now. We've been through this already, but any, any other issues or concerns with the preamble. Okay. And now we're going to go through item by item. We're going to start with climate action. And Paul, you have a series of comments in this section. I'm going to go through them. I'm going to go through them. I'm going to go through them here with your thoughts. Great. Thank you. And these are, most of my comments here are after consultation with our sustainability coordinator. So the first one. I just want to make sure that, and most of them, I don't think necessarily need to be changed, but just want to make sure we're all on the same page when it comes time to review next year. So the first. Bracketed number one is implementing the community choice aggregation. So. So we're. We're going to continue to do that. And then we're going to go back to the agenda. And that depends on DP to be DPU review. And more, more realistically, it'd be 2023. So just so.  It wouldn't be. Be clear about where that stands. At least. Could we say beginning to implement with that? I think we want to make more. So it could be make substantial progress on. Making. Any thoughts? Yeah. I guess. Yeah. That's fine. It just keeps it out there. I'm just going to, again, this is just making substantial. Progress on implementing. Sure. Is that, I mean, it's a bit wordy, but.  So. Okay. Okay. Item four. This item four was the second one. And this is the. Oh yeah. So I was just a little bit confused. I know this is. And talk with Stephanie a little bit about this. And really didn't know what this meant. And I was trying to think, well, what would I do to respond to this? And would it mean that I've done workshops for all the committees?  It's a way that she says it's a way to develop a formula or pathway. So. Like developing a simple decision making flow chart and holding a workshop with department heads to guide them. And I think that's a way to, you know, I think that's a way to be more advanced. She thought that we'd have to hire a consultant to help us with a, with developing a metric for doing it. So I just sort of want to know where, what the council's anticipating with that number four. So I can take notes on that. I think that's along the lines of both of those things, probably along the lines of what the. Climate action plan. It assumes. You know, I don't know if that's another word, whatever. By all means necessary type of thing, but. So what would be evidence that we've achieved that goal? I guess I'm wondering, given what you just said, Paul, if we can change the word educating into developing. A method of. Or, you know, use the word matrix developing a matrix to permit. You know, and then it would be town multiple member bodies and staff to apply a climate action lens or something like that. We're developing a method. To aid multiple member bodies and staff on applying a climate action lens to decision, something like that. Would that be better? Developing and implementing, right? So would not just spend the whole year developing it, right? Right. But I mean the evidence would be we have that we've, we've got something. And this is how we're using this. We've got this matrix or whatever in our decision making. This is what we're. Yeah, instead of getting into the weeds, Paul, I would think that if you, you know, it's evaluation time in a year from now, someone might say, well, what did you do about item four? You would say, and you would give the answer.  I'm wondering if that's in other words, this is fine. And you these kinds of things you're suggesting. It sounds like we'd certainly satisfy for rather than trying to us guess what you might do. This instead of fixing you with a specific thing you've got to do. In this case, the answers you're, the things you're suggesting would be added, would certainly sound like they would address this. So I think this is fine as it is. Right. Yeah. I think so too. But, and I think that those things that Paul mentioned are would be excellent evidence. Yes. We are progressing in this area. It would be nice to be able to not just show the form, the matrix or the flow chart, but to show how it's been used. Yeah. Okay. Got it. Good. And then number five was, you know, like a timeline for transition. And this is where I sort of stumbled a little bit. Like we don't know, as I said, I mentioned, we don't know when there's going to be dump trucks available that are electric. And so, but I guess what you're, what the council is saying is we want something like a simple sort of. Scale that shows how we're making progress towards electrification of our vehicle fleet. And what we're doing on our buildings to meet climate action. Yeah, I think so. And I mean, I, we have a, we have so many vehicles and.    They may not have EVs available for them yet, which you could just say. But, but, you know, we want to have something where we're trans, we show how we're going to do this within a 10 year period of time. And that's how we're doing it. And with a plan. I mean, again, it goes without saying, but this is as, as budgets. And, you know, technology and budgets allow, obviously. Right. I would add Paul that we put this into the capital inventory because we thought that the original thought was, I think the original proposal was to have a completely different document and we were like, no, let's add it to this so that it's all in one. So we're not recreating a wheel on things and it's just there. So adding the columns and doing what you can with the columns to me would, would, you know, satisfy that to me. And that already has, I believe the ages of the vehicles. So that would be a big part of it right there. Yep. Okay. Got it. I'm going to throw in some apologies. I've been in a meeting since I hear a voice. When I'm here. Christmas pass. Many apologies. I'm sorry. That's quite all right. So let the record show that. Councilor Dantelis has joined the meeting at my God 1042 a.m. We got to move faster. Paul's done in 18 correct. So we are greetings that counselor and going, keep going, ignore me. Wait, I just wanted to get on the record. Thank you. All right. So Paul, we go on to the next. Is that correct then? Yes. All right. So this is community health and safety. Yes. So the number two, it's just, I mean, this, this presumes a positive vote from the council. So, exactly. Okay. Does anyone want to put a date in 13th or 20th? I don't know when it's coming up the agenda. All right. So we'll just have to leave that blank. Okay. Paul, you had a question about the language here. Yeah. So the description to provide services to respond to issues of homelessness, mental health, and other non-criminal calls to emergency dispatch. Yeah. You want to dispatch only. I would, I would just delete. I would just put a period after the word calls. Okay. Cause they may come into it. There's a discussion about having a private number for Cress. All right. Okay. Okay. All right. Sorry about that. Bear with me. If you can. Okay. Okay. Economic vitality. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I do not want to create another position. And I think. I think we have some language. I put language in there. Creating a, perhaps say creating a leadership structure to oversee parking policy. Planning. Could it be assigning a staff member? Is that too specific? What do you think? Leadership structure has come with somewhat cumbersome, but yeah, go ahead. We don't think this is a dedicated position. That does this. I mean, without. We're not going to have any room in our budget to create another position. Right. So I just think that you want this. You want to centralize the work and have a sort of a more. Accountability for the work. I think that's what the goal of this is. And to try and put some language in that. That meets that goal instead of saying hire someone. Cause. That has significant budget implications. I'm okay with that proposed language that Paul. I am too. What is the proposed language? Oh, here it is. Yeah. So it would say. Creating a leadership structure. To oversee parking policy. Planning and. Planning. I'm okay with that proposed language that Paul. I am too. What is the proposed language? Oh, here it is. Yeah. So it would say. Planning policy. Planning and implementation. It's not the nicest words, but. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I have a comment, George. Please go ahead.  I had commented before Paul that. That I was concerned about this because of the overlap of transportation with all the climate stuff. And because transportation is like a third of. The sectors that we talk about in the ACAC and your language would allow that to. Potentially be integrated with. With sustainability staff too. You know, or have multiple. Responsibilities. That would be related to climate and transportation. So. Okay. George, just on your draft, you need to add the word parking. Creating a leadership structure to oversee parking policy. Thank you. Otherwise it's just overseeing. So it's not transportation policy. That's where I'm struggling with. The original downtown park. The three, four and five were the original downtown parking working group recommendations. Paul. And so we just copied them word for word. Which was dedicated for parking management positions. That's why it would be a, that's why Paul suggested, I assume the parking policy because that's. That's where these three came from was. The parking working group. Planning and implementation. Okay. Further thoughts. Yeah, Paul. And then the fifth one, I just, you know, I, I was, even with the downtown parking working group. As there, we do have a transportation fund where the, the sort, the revenue stream comes from. Various parking systems. So. I don't know what this, how we would, what we would do. Here. So maybe your memory is better than mine, Paul. The council had referred to a finance committee. This particular point for any suggestions on what to do. Do you remember. Have any rep memory, memory of the finance committee recommendation on that? I don't. I don't either. I think we probably need to talk to. Andy, because I guess. So I would say if the finance committee dealt with that recommendation, whatever they recommended and came back to the council with might be the better wording. So I mean, we can. We have what I'm saying is that we have this already. So that would be an easy goal to meet. So keeping it here isn't a problem for me because I agree with it. So. It just. So the question becomes, why is it here since it's already exists? But I think what Manu Joseph and let's clarify with. With. So seek clarity with, so here, just a note to myself. We need to seek clarity with. Reach out to, to Andy. I reach out to finance. And see if he can, what if he can. What's their recommendation on the referral was. Cause there was a referral way back in 2020. On this matter. At least. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that was. Cause there was a referral way back in 2020. On this matter. At least I think it was 2020 when. These three came out of CRC. And then I believe the motion was to refer to finance. This item. For something. Okay. I will reach out to Andy and see if he has any, if he has nothing to add, then it stays the way it is. If he does. I'll put it in the, the next draft. Okay. For capital investments. Your next comment, Paul is. I think something to the fact that it requires town council action. Yeah. I mean, I think that's sort of, again, when these things work goes without saying, but you know, it's always good to not, not have, have goals that I'm fully responsible for. And. And don't have to depend on others for action. So can I, can I ask a question on these two? Cause obviously you remember Monday night, there was a lot of discussion on these and they might change wording. Is beginning schematic design phase. Doable in 2022. If that wording stays the same, or is that, you know, for the fire station, or is that something that's not even doable? No, that's definitely on it and all obviously. Definitely doable. That's a goal. Okay. Okay. And same with securing. A new location. Absolutely. Okay. So, and we're keeping, what I put the language in here based on our discussion on Monday night with securing a new location or locations. For the department. That's okay with that as well. Okay. All right. All right. Any other changes? We're going to move out of otherwise to housing affordability. And, um, And so Paul, here you have a comment from. Yeah. So on, so on these things. So it's interesting because, um, right now we don't run a shelter. It's, it's a private nonprofit that runs the shelter. And so if, you know, I'm thinking, well, suppose that nonprofit decides to move their shelter to Hadley or to Belter town or someplace else, suppose they, does this require us to build a new shelter or to create a new shelter in Amherst because we want it in Amherst. Um, and I think, you know, we're, you know, or as the shelter goes out of business for whatever reason, it's not going to happen, but just, you know, I'm looking at all the eventualities. Um, so, so it would require me to advocate with Craig's doors to say, no, don't move it across the border to Hadley because. Well, it doesn't say in Amherst, does it? Uh, item two is ensuring the continued operation of a seasonal shelter item three does have in Amherst and says it's ensuring the operation. It does. Right. Although the council conversation did have a recommendation to delete those words. Yes, it did. And I want to push back a little on that because, um, I'm not, again, um, I think the history of this is pretty clear to most people. Uh, Hadley's not building a shelter. Belcher town's not building a shelter. Um, even Holyoke is a challenge these days. Um, Springfield, I assume is, is reliable. Um, Greenfield, right? It's his regional problem. I agree. But it seems that, and this is a question for my colleagues and for the council. Um, do we want to go on record that we want to be a player and an actual permanent source of, of shelter in our area. Because I don't think we can rely on those other communities. Um, so I, you know, somebody give me an argument for why you want it other than Paul, for why you want to take out in Amherst, uh, from item three. I'll do it. Because if Paul taking out Amherst allows Paul to continue to truly advocate for a regional solution, including with North Hampton on and, and other surrounding communities that might then allow. Um, At the state level. Um, because then it can be argued and be worked with. It will allow him to also work with Sunderland and Leverett Schützberry Hadley, South Hadley, Grandley downtown to go to the state as a group and say, we need money. And this shelter, even if it's in Amherst, or maybe Amherst isn't the best place because it doesn't have the building, but maybe Hadley has a building, but it doesn't have the building. So I think it's going to allow him to work with all communities. And it will allow him more leeway. You know how much I want this shelter, George. But I think Mandy is right. My concern is that. We've been trying to do a regional thing for a long time. And it. It's never worked. So there's part of me that just wants to say in Amherst, because maybe we'll actually do it. We're talking about flexibility, Mandy. I'm sorry, George. No, no, I interviewed you. My feeling is that, that if a regional solution arises. Item three is not going to be a problem. No one's going to complain. Well, Paul, there's a regional solution now, but we still want you to build a shelter in Amherst. I think this gives him a greater flexibility because he could come to the table and say, look, I'm not going to complain. I'm not going to complain. I know that the council is committed to us being an active player in this. We have done this since 2011. Originally Craig's doors. Am I free? I've been told this by a number of people. Actually Craig's Craig. Craig's doors was approached to run the shelter in Amherst. It wasn't something that they, they were doing something different. And they were asked to take over the shelter and they did. I don't know. If we take this out. It's, I don't know. I, I, I'm not happy with this. What if we, we'd change it from in Amherst to four Amherst residents. I know that, that brings in the whole resident issue. Yeah. So the goal of this is, if I can jump in here, George, that we, the council wants to make a commitment to buy the town. To support it, not to support a seasonal and development of a permanent shelter, a permanent year round shelter. That's the mission. Right. And my response is like, okay. Right now that's been done by a third party. It's like, if you said, you know, so. And I don't control what that third. Party does. Right. So. And I guess, you know, like there. The third party wasn't in the business of shelters until the town came to them and said, we need somebody to run a shelter. Apparently the larger entities, a CSO. There was one, even there's another one that was even bigger. And the folks in North Hampton don't have a very good record. They just got their shelter open a couple of days ago, I think. So the track record of larger entities in the region and even of our North Hampton partner has not been all that impressive. Okay. I maybe it's something that council is going to have to discuss. I can, I can put a line through it. I can just take it out. I'm thinking that. Okay.  That's where the hotels are. That's where the motels are that people are trying to transfer. We don't have, we, we have won the OML. So. Yeah, it is a regional problem and that was an original solution is essential. So. Okay, I think. Okay, we're going to take it out. And if I want to raise it, I can raise it at the, I mean, I'm not sure there'll be a report. This may just be oral, but when we get to this point in the discussion, I may ask my colleagues to, to weigh in again. Okay. All right. We also play with a previous one. What role does CRC expect to play in implementing the plan? This was an earlier comment. Go ahead. Yeah, that's just like how, how does. How does that work? So we're delegating a responsibility to the CRC. Yeah. Yeah. So the council's already referred the implementation of the comprehensive housing policy to both the town manager and, and community resources. That was a referral the day we adopted it. And so that is a continuing referral that we'll continue on to the next council. So CRC hasn't had a chance to even discuss that yet, but we're still going to be able to do that. So we're going to be able to do that. And so we came up with this language of working with the CRC. Because there's so much in that policy that, that. I think this committee thought. On, on, I think my suggestion that. Saying you saying to you implement the comprehensive housing policy was just not feasible. And so you're going to need direction from someone. And since it's already been referred to CRC, that's where the direction is likely going to come from. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not, this is totally not thought through. I understand what you're saying, Mandy, but it seems to me that the housing trust either needs to get listed in here or, or super. There's a way for me that the housing trust supersedes. CRC, even if CRC created the policy. That's just a, so. You'd like to have the housing trust somehow integrated into this objective. Yeah. Yeah. And many, many of your thoughts on that or thoughts of any other. Darcy. I mean, I don't oppose that. I'm just, we haven't referred. The policy to the housing trust and that is probably an oversight on the council's. End. Yeah. Yeah. If it's, it's added to this with that inspire the council to the future. Well, we can even do it in this term, but. Are you okay with adding it or not? So working with the community resources committee and the, the, with the official title, the. Amherst affordable housing. Amherst municipal affordable housing trust. Yeah. Just wondering. Is there a precedent for. The council. Assigning. Implementation of anything to the council. I'm just wondering. I'm surprised that I would, I, I guess I'm assuming that the town manager is the implementer. Of all the different legislation and policies. Are we wrong about that? Well, we, what this is saying is, let's just make sure it says what we wanted to say that we want the town manager to work. With these two bodies. To implement. That's different from saying that the CRC is implementing it. That was how I would read that. It's not saying we want CRC to implement the policy. But we want you, because this document is for the town manager, expressing the intentions or desires of the council. We want you, the town manager to work with these two bodies to implement the comprehensive housing policy adopted by the council. So, so just to answer your question, Darcy, the motion that the council passed on September 27th, 2021 was moved to refer the comprehensive housing policy to the town manager. So that's what I'm going to say. I'm just wondering if that was. I don't think there's any precedent for doing anything like that. I think it was because there's so much there that prioritization has to happen somewhere. But that's another reason for me to saying I want the housing trust to have a more active role and equal role to CRC. And the town manager, you know, that the collaboration between those three entities. Sorry to make you a thing, Paul. And it does raise the question that for the town manager, what are you actually asking me to do? And how can I prove to you that I've done this? Does it just mean that I send a memo to these two bodies and say, you know, when do you want to meet and talk? Yeah, I think we would look at the, again, I'm thinking about this in terms of how I'd report to you. Next year. Look at the housing policy. Look at what we've accomplished. Talk about the process for, for choosing the, for prioritizing at consultation with CRC and the trust. And then what, what we've accomplished so far. And I would also say it includes similar things to the zoning, which is if CRC and the council want to prioritize X, Y or Z policy that, and whether, whether that goes to CRC or some other committee, once that prioritization is determined, helping a bylaw, helping craft the bylaw working, you know, in consultation to get the changes to the bylaw. If it's a bylaw, if it's not a bylaw, it's a bylaw. It's a bylaw. Needing money to, you know, or dealing with finding town owned land that it's working with whatever committee to do that. Similar to what was the zoning housing one. In a prior, I don't even know where that one is here. the zoning priorities one from last year, which was working with CRC to implement those zoning priorities or draft them. Okay. Sorry, I'm looking at another document. I've got two documents here. Ensuring the continued operation, ensuring the operation of these were changes, as I recall, and I put them in recommended by Alissa. We also had a, and this is, I respect Paul's time. Maybe we'll come back to this. We had a colleague raise, it's in your packet. This was Shalini on workforce housing. I'm not sure that's something that we could ask us to come back to that. I'm trying to get through Paul's concerns first. Okay. I've got more time. But then we'll come back. That's fine. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So. Let's see. I think you were concerned about how, if I understood your comment. Let me see it's down here. You can't meet it. Right. And I felt that the language here is articulating a council. I think that's what we do. Okay. Help us ensure. So I don't read this document is saying that you Paul and town. Right. Are supposed to do this, but we as a counselor committed to doing this. And we then are asking you to do one, two, three, four. Okay. But is that how others read it? Or could it be worded better? I think that's what do people think. So to ensure all community members are protected. Listen to and serve by the public servants. Right. I'm just thinking that if it's the town council, then it should say the count, the town council wants to ensure. And therefore Paul, you need to look at these things. Does that make sense? I read. I think this can be interpreted in two ways. And I don't want him getting slapped because somebody's interpreting it that it's all on him. But I think that's what we're going to do. We'll take the above housing affordability. Right. You know, it's. It's an aspirational goal and here's how we're going to get there. Yeah. Right. Right. Okay. That's how I read this document in general as a series of aspirational goals under these broad categories. And then to the degree that we can identify specific actions. For Paul to undertake. Good. And so we're not, we would not come back to him. And in a year and say, well, Paul, you know, there are people who don't feel listened to. And our town. How come you didn't take care of that? Just as a side note, if you know folks who want to serve on the. Community social justice. Community safety and social justice committee. We're, we don't have a quantum of people that can. Even fill it. Can I ask you if Jeremy Brown applied? Yeah. Okay. I'll talk to him because I thought he was going to apply. If you have names, I've been reaching out to people individually, Jen moisten has as well, which I get enough people that. Yeah. That interviews calling itself. Okay. Okay. Okay. And actually, you know, so. We'll talk about that another time. All right, that is, unless I've missed something that is the policy goals, then we would move on to management goals. This is what we're supposed to be working on today and word smithing, but Paul has a series of comments about each one that I think we should go through before we turn towards smithing. And the first comment here, Paul, under administration leadership and personnel. So, so the way I looked at this, I looked at the evaluations from the council, which I appreciate the time that you all put into it. And then, you know, looked at where I need to improve my work. And then this is one of them. And. And so this is where I want to make sure I'm more responsive going forward. And it specifically was about this, you know, the police with fire department staffing. And because that was what with the comments in the evaluations referenced the fire department staffing. But, and, and I, you know, this doesn't really say that. So. It's a question for us to what degree do we, I mean, this is a very broad, we have not touched this document is the same language as the previous year. It is. Right. And there's no nothing specific here that you can sort of say, okay, they want me to do this. Well, so it's, it's, you know, it's looking what this was a goal from last year and then saying, here's how the counselor graded it based on this language. Right. And they said you didn't do these things. Right. We want better work on this. So. What specifically is that an agreement and instead of having, I have individual counselor comments, but I don't have the council speaking other than in the, the performance review document. So if you want something specific to say, we really want this done, just put it in here. Yes. Get done. So you don't have to discuss it now, but that's. No, exactly under this category. What are specific things we'd like you to be doing. Okay. Increase staffing is what you're saying. Okay. Well, it was one of the, there were a number of as Paul saying, there was a number of things that individual counselors mentioned as not being fulfilled or being not satisfactory or what, not one of the top two ratings. I would say on this issue in particular. And it sounds like Paul, most of the things that counselors talked about, you feel you can address within this framework of wording, but what you learned about within this framework is the staffing issues. Is that right? Okay. And in particular with fire. Right. Because their budget implications for all these decisions along the lines, right? All right. Again, finance seem to be fine. Again, the language has not changed except for the fiscal year numbers. Again, long term vision. Paul has a number of comments here. So again, I just, I just copied what the council put in its performance review. And sort of tracking it to the goal. And then just saying, like, right. Or do you want to put these in the goal? I mean, this is very specific. But this is just want to ratify that. The way the performance review was done is what you really see as being responsive to this goal. So I would reference the performance review. I mean, we can think about changing and it looks like many of them are number three in this long term vision. Exactly. Right. Exactly. This is a challenge. This is something for us today to see if we can come up with some very specific things and then see what the council makes of it. Good. Good. And then we've got it right here. Like Paul has actually put the wording in the document. And the thing that's different here is increasing home ownership because that was, you know, that's a, that's part of the housing policy, basically. But, you know, and that's has shifted over time when I, before I started here that it was all about homelessness and addressing that. And then, and most recently like last year or two, the trust has really shifted to being home ownership opportunity, not rental opportunities. So that's just sort of an interesting development for the time. So do we want to put those categories in? I think that's something Darcy, we need to discuss. And I think we as a committee now to need to, not at this moment, but sometime this morning, again, to think about what we would like to put in. I mean, you certainly can talk about it now right now, but I think again, given a respect in Paul's time, what I told him is at some point we're going to have to do some wordsmithing and some thinking of our own. And I think it's a good question. I'm not sure we want to deal with it at this moment. I think we want to get through his comments in general. And then he can decide if he wants to hang or whether. But I just want to say, I, you're bringing those comments Paul, it makes a whole lot of sense. And, you know, from Paul's perspective, I can see why he'd want them in there. And I think that, you know, so that they would, you know, he'd get a better evaluation on them in the following year. Just so he knows what he's going to evaluate. You know, it would be clarity to what number three, planning for long-term improvements to public infrastructure parks, public ways. Means. That's the broad right now. But right, but you know, this, this is our development of our goals, right? Last time there were very specific goals and I could actually check boxes and the council was like saying, well, that's not what we really wanted. We wanted. Effort. Beyond checking the boxes. And, you know, I think that was the council was frustrated a year ago because it was like, did you do this? And I could check box. Yes.  I think then I think in response to council said, well, let's be more visionary in our goals. And let's do it this way. But, but also it always comes down to when you think about it. And when you're evaluating you think about specific things. So I don't think, I don't even know if it has to be in here, but it could be just a conversation post. Adoption of the, of this. That might be useful. I think what this for me illustrates. As I exit and I think about the last three years is how difficult it is for us as a group of 13. To craft a sense of where we want to go. I think COVID hasn't helped. But we haven't had really this document and the struggle we'd go through to craft it is the closest, I think we come. And at least we've come in the last three years to trying to create and present a vision broadly speaking for the future. And I think this is the only place it takes place, actually at the moment. Now maybe that will change in the coming two years. Maybe they'll come up with a better way of doing it. But I don't know what the others think of you think, but it's when we have these, this conversation like we're having today and what we've had at the council last Monday and we'll have again next Monday is, is the mind understanding the only time we as a body actually try to talk to each other about where we'd like, you know, the town to be going. For instance, do we want to emphasize home ownership now? Do we want to insist that, you know, we spend more focus more on infrastructure, et cetera. And I think that's a good point. This list that there's right here. This is it. As far as I can see. I would, I would say that we, we do want to be more specific and concrete because those are things that just keep being brought up over. Again. Right. Push down. Yeah, I feel like, you know, we, we started out being so detailed in the first year and then, you know, we sort of moved toward being really high level. And I think a happy medium is. Okay. We should, you know, personally, I think we're working towards that happy medium. Yeah. And I think we'll come back to this then. So definitely under number three, we'll come back and see if we can integrate some of these and we'll talk as a, as a committee and then we'll see what the council thinks. Community engagement. Paul, your thoughts there. I didn't copy in from the, I was just looking at the comments from the council, from the performance review. So just. But the same basic point, something more specific and concrete would be helpful. Yeah. And I thought I had addressed this one better and, but obviously the council didn't agree. So that's where I'm trying to get better clarity on this. Okay. Yes, I see what you're saying.  I won't say fails, but way areas for improvement. One was the strategic partnership agreements. And the other was the roads and sidewalks and transparency in that. So those are the two sort of glaring things in my mind that the council identified, which I had also identified. All right. Any other thoughts from any more come back to this, but I think Paul, put his finger on two and one of them is, is now highlighted as a separate. Yes. Okay. And then the final, which we'll talk about in a second. Relation to the town council, no comments there. And then the final, this was the creation of yours truly simply, but it's so the committee needs the way in the council needs the way in. I don't think I have any particular deep insight here, but I just put this in as a separate goal. Titled it and described it somewhat. And some of the language that's above should be stricken. I think it's a very specific request that gets accepted. And the other question is, does it belong here? Does it belong under policy goals? I put it under management. I guess in a way, yes, it's managing a relationship. And what this is asking is. So it's a very specific request, which Paul seems to be quite open to at this point. It's good to call this out as this comment. Go ahead, Paul. Yeah. So I think this is useful for me. I don't want to be entering into a strategic partnership agreement. And I can't force them to put their hand to paper, but. So the fact that this is called out explicitly by the council is another tool for us. And also, you know, I'm not sure if you saw the front page of the Gazette about what Smith college gave some money, not very much to the city of North Hampton, everybody's a God, but, but that's more pressure. My colleagues. Yeah, because we haven't discussed this language yet. But is there anything that when you read this, that you feel is missing from the list of stuff like that. We should be mentioning, you know, and, and you, you know, more than us about what we might as a town need potentially, but are we missing stuff in this list that you'd like included in the list. So the things that we have talked about and this would be for any institutional partner would be affordable housing because it impacts their workforce. Economic development, especially a strong downtown is very important to the institutions. You know, public safety, specifically fire services that we provide to all three campuses and ambulance services. We want them to recognize their responsibility there. Education maintaining a strong school system. Right. And we have about eight things that we've identified that we think are of mutual concern that they should be parties to. So those are the main ones that we've identified. I don't, you know, I think, I think you've captured a lot of it. Yeah, I think it's most of it's here. If there's anything you see is missing, please bring it up. But we have mitigate financial and social impacts to the higher education institutions on the town, especially as it relates to the quality of life in our neighborhoods and to the demand place. I mean, we could reorder that if people feel that we stress first. Missile services such as public safety in schools. Seek ways to collaborate on areas of mutual concern, particular housing, you could include downtown, you know, vibrant downtown. I don't know that's a thought for the committee and economic development and the long-term financial viability of the town. People happy with that language. Go ahead, Paul. Let me throw one word in there with demand on place on municipal services such as, and I would put in the word, add the word roads, public safety schools and roads. Safety, safety schools. Because that's one place that we're working on. Public ways, maybe not just public ways. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Public safety schools and public ways. Yes, better. So such as public safety schools and public ways. Okay. I know there needs to be a number one in here before to mitigate. So where do we've got a number two at to seek to collaborate, but you never had the number one. Right. So. Right. Okay. We'll figure that out. Yeah. I guess it would be a beginning. No, it would be at to mitigate. No, it would be at to mitigate one. Thank you. One is to mitigate. No, no, no, no. One is to mitigate. Yes, after college and before to mitigate. So any other wording here, people that you want to add. We need an and before number two. Okay. And two. Thank you. And are people happy with the placement of this in terms of under management goals as opposed to policy goals. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense. That's where people recommended. That's where I put it. We're basically focusing on a relationship. And we have above relationship with town council. We have relationship with the public. Right. So long-term vision, community engagement. So I guess this is fine where it is. I think it's fine. You even added it in alphabetical order. That's just a natural. I do that. I do a lot of things without thinking that's why I get in trouble. Okay. Yes, Darcy. I'm assuming mitigating the financial impact means. They should be giving us some money. Yeah, I mean, it's worded. It's worded. The diplomatic way of saying it. Right. Exactly.  Give us lots of money. Right. That's probably wouldn't go over well, but I think Paul makes a very good point. That this is valuable to him first of all, but also when he goes to these three institutions, he can now say, look, this has become a major objective of the council. So that gives him a little bit more leverage, I hope. Good. All right. I think our task is to go back and word Smith, the management goals a bit, see if we can make them a bit more concrete. Paul, you're welcome to stay and watch us in action as terrifying as that can be at times. But I think I'll step off. I appreciate your considerations. We understand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Paul. You make the whole thing bigger. It's gonna be bigger. Okay. I will try. Let's see what I can do. View zoom. It's a 200%. I'm going to make it. Oh, it's 200% or 500%. So that's not good. I'm afraid that's as big as I can make. Is that how about, can everybody else read that? It's really hard for me to read. I'm sorry. All right. 500% of the comment window, it'll get bigger. All right. Oh, that's how do I know that on your left, I guess that little revisions window. So that thing, yes. And then you can make it a little bit bigger. I'm sorry, I'm old and I didn't print anything out. So this is, this is the best I can do. This is what's going to happen. So George, go down to the bottom of your screen on the right hand bottom. Got it. Okay. Right hand. There is a minus and a plus. Yeah, right. Yeah. The plus. It should be down here. Right. Yeah. Hit the, hit the plus. Got it. Got it. Thank you. There we go. That's better. That's better. Good. Okay. How's that? I can do more. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Mandy. Everybody. What do you want to do here? This is administrative. Well, Darcy was trying to say something and I spoke over her. I just had another comment on the strategic agreement. I was hoping to say it before Paul left, but I just wondered if we should add. You know, study best practices and other communities because there's a lot out there about other college towns. Where they've gotten, been able to get money from the local institution. Like Williamstown. Yep. I mean, you know, maybe add that in there too. I mean, that's, that's different from the relationship with the colleges, but it's, it would be something we'd be asking Paul to do, which is look at best practices. That seems to be something that he would do automatically. When investigating how to. I think that Darcy raises a really, really good point. It's something I've always been frustrated by.  And some of you have done this occasion. I know Kathy's done this a little bit. Maybe Mandy, but ever, you know, you just go off and take a look at what another college town does. There's actually an organization that I've explored it. And I may be now that I have more free time. I can explore it some more, but that is devoted to town. So I think Darcy is absolutely right. There's an enormous amount of information out there. I agree with that. And that's, that's also a process I use. But what I'm saying is I think he would be using, I bet he's using it already, but I don't care. I'm with Pat on this. The objective is to develop and implement strategic partnership agreements. No, for this, yes, absolutely. And so I don't see us adding. Not to this, no. To add a third one that says investigate practices. That goes elsewhere. It seems to be duplicative of the objective of developing and implementing because in order to develop and implement, you need to do that research. Right. Yeah. And so. But it might actually fit in one of these other. Yeah, I think it would belong elsewhere. Cause I don't, I, I won't say I know for a fact, but I would prittle a lot of good money on the fact that it doesn't happen. Except in very isolated circumstances, like somebody planning like Nate might go take a look at some other thing done in another town or city, but it's not systematic. And it's not. It might actually fit in one of these other. Yeah, I think it would belong elsewhere. Yeah. Cause I don't, I, I won't say I know for a fact, but I would prittle a lot of good money on the fact that it doesn't happen. But it's not, it's not, it's not, it's just, it's just not enough time and, and people, but it should be done. Anyway, you're right. It doesn't belong here, but maybe somewhere else. Can we go back up to. We just started at number one. Yeah, I think exactly. And the language here is great, but. Fire EMS is really the thing that Paul focused on. It will really stand out given the nature of this way. This is written. Everything is pretty broad in general. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. And, and so one of the things. I would potentially say not to put it in because, and I've got two reasons for it. Number one, actually I basically have one reason at the time we were. We were filling out our. Evaluations. We still had the ARPA planning outstanding. And so we were filling it out with things, not knowing what was going on and seeing the initial ARPA funds. And then after we filled them out, Paul has. Come in and clarified and extended the four. Evaluations. And he said that they will become permanent additions to the staffing. And so. Given that people may have filled out their evaluations different. There's been a distinct change in that staffing level since we filled out the evaluations, if that makes sense. And so. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if it's really related to fire EMS versus. Okay. Something in either finance or here, if we're looking about, about staffing, you know, plans for. You know. I don't know. Expanding our staffing levels in general, right? We, we, when we look at our finances and we look at our budget. There's not really an ability to add positions ever. I don't know.  We're about to add 12 new positions. So nobody around here can say, we can't add positions. That's just not true. Whether we, I don't think that's what Mandy is saying. And in. We, you know, if we look at budget projections for the next five years, the budgets are going to be extremely tight. I don't know. I don't know. So saying that we're going to do adequate staffing, I think is a myth. So do you put it in here? And then. I don't know. No, you don't. You don't put it in here. Yeah, I don't think you should. Right. One thing I was talking about is, and, and this past year has been very enlightening, right? Because for prior years, we've always had no, we don't have money. No, we don't have money. We can't add staffing. We don't have money. We don't have money. We don't have money. We don't have money. No idea what the actual outcome of that will be on the budget. But, but that. But pushing did made something happen yet. We're still not really in a place with a plan. For how that will roll out over the next five years and how it will be funded. And so I guess one thing, and maybe it's in finance, not here. Is to better be able to describe. The executive from saying, we have enough money to add one or two staff members somewhere. And, you know, or we don't, or if we add them here, I'm not saying things well, and I'm not sure it's in administration, leadership and personnel that it matters. But I do have a question, a comment that I'd made at the first council meeting on this one, which is number four. Yep. Well, are there two fours? No, there's only one. One for developing and implementing decision making. Go ahead. And plans regarding road and sidewalk repairs that are transparent to the residents. It hasn't been done. It hasn't been done for a couple of years. I would kind of like to make it stronger and maybe delete the word developing and, and start with just implementing. I don't know what it is, but, but. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. Transparent to residents. That hasn't been happening. And so how do we make number four stronger to say we want. Residents to be able to essentially look up a list that says, here are our plans for which roads and sidewalks are being done in the next five years in the order. And here's why one thing went in or. How do we make number four stronger because it. It's a list of. Planned road and sidewalk repairs that are transparent to the. That are available to the public. Right. So develop. Excuse me. You know, developing a transparent. Excuse me developing a list. Of planned. Or a future. I'm just throwing it out here. In other words. Do we, I mean, well, I think what people want is a list. That says, here's what's happening over the next five years or the next as many years as they can think out. That people can look up. I think what, but Gilford and Paul will probably say is that, you know, it's all dependent on how much money you give us. We can't make a right. Go ahead. No. Yeah. What we get to is dependent on how much money we have, but the order is not necessarily, and it might be helpful for people to know what they are. So. Make it available to the public. Update it regularly. It's right now a black box is the problem. Right. So potentially a list. Developing a list of future road and sidewalk repairs that is available to the public and updated regularly. That would be great. We need the word that between repairs and is. A list of future. Road and sidewalk repairs is available to the public and his updated regularly. I mean, I will send him a copy of this obviously after the meeting. Okay. Let's look at the others quickly. Anticipating future needs and position of the town to meet those needs. That's anodyne that's, you know, you could even, you could even take that out. But I mean, what we liked about this initially was it was a really meaningful sort of job description. Of the administrative sort of side of a town manager. And we could leave it as it is because it's fine. But, you know, it's not really. Telling him anything he doesn't already know. Number four does tell him something. You may not want to hear it, but it says, you know, this is so.  You could begin to think of what Darcy and I were thinking of, which is maybe it again belongs under long-term vision, but suggesting that he explore or begin to explore. Investigate other town, you know, other college town. Blah, blah, blah, something like that. Divising appropriate courses of action to achieve the policy goals of the town council again, at a die just, you know, okay, fine. Improving delivery of services to residents and businesses. And then an actual. While he's sort of dosing off and then four hits him right between the eyes. We want a list of all future road and sidewalk repairs that's available to the public and updated on a regular basis. Okay. It kind of stands out as not. The same category as the rest. This sentence is part of to provide leadership. And given what this, what the council has been asking for while it's very specific, I think. Making that list available to the public. And ensuring that it's available to the public would be providing leadership in this town. Given that it's been like a decades long struggle. As opposed to in the policy section. Under some other category. You know, that's where it seemed to. I mean, in terms of the nature of it, the specificity and. It seems to fall naturally in the first part of the document here. It really stands out. But for the moment, let's leave it there because we don't know what to do with it. I think it's something that people want. I think it's something that a lot of counselors would say yes. We can always put it somewhere else. Anything else specific that we could add to this, the first section. Okay. Maybe that can go into community engagement. Up above. Yeah. Down below management. Down below. Okay. Okay. When we get there, we can think about it. All right. Okay. Retaining, recruiting and developing highly qualified, diverse, effective staff. One of the comments and concerns has been attrition. Retention. Obviously. Paul has responded to this already. I'm not sure there's anything we could say here that would make any real difference. He's aware of it. He's, he's trying to deal with it. Maybe we just leave it as it is. I have a comment. Please Darcy. This might be where we could put in some. Mention of a public safety. Fire and EMS staff. We could say something like. After effective staff, we could say. We could say something like. Necessary to fulfill. Public safety needs and. Town priorities. Or something like that. I think if we're going to put that in, we put it in after anticipating future needs and positioning the town to meet those needs, because this one is to effectively supervise and manage the workforce.  To provide leadership by anticipating future needs and positioning the town to meet those needs. Why is this in again, in the policies section under public safety. And well, you know, just, it seems again, it's a public safety issue. All right. It's not a management question. Is it? I mean, there are different kinds of questions, right? Yeah. I think this, this is the section that is about. Hiring. People that we need. In other words, it goes to the question of. The administration. Well, it has to do with simply in general, broadly speaking, it's not specific to the fire department. It's specific to the workforce as a whole. And this is under management. Whereas if you feel like we need more firefighters. If we need more firefighters, we need to at least figure out if we have enough firefighters. And the reason for that is because it's a public safety question. Or less police or whatever. I think it really doesn't belong here. But the other issue. Necessary to fulfill town priorities. So I think that part of effective and appropriately administering the operations. Yeah. We have recruiting here. So that assumes hiring, right? In other words, hire the people that we need to fulfill our town goals.  And, you know, we have people that have 12 hats. Every time we add on a new priority. Some existing staff. Person gets assigned it. Literally, we maybe can't afford to hire more. And, you know, I pushed to, to bring on the 12 people. And I'm glad I did. But I don't feel like. That. The health department needs staffing. There's every department needs staffing. So that would, so I would. Support maybe a more general, a generalized statement, but not one targeting here, the police, the fire. And in particularly sense, I think the fire issues have been addressed. For over the next five years. I think they really have. Maybe not as fully as the department would like, but realistically and carefully. We don't know whether we need to decrease the police or increase the police. We don't know. And we won't know that for a while because we're, we're hoping crests will have an impact. I don't want a long list of departments that need better staffing. Cause it's across the board. Absolutely. I'm saying take out the public safety language that I suggested and just put in. Necessary to fulfill. Town goals. That doesn't change anything because if you, if, if right now it's necessary that the three people who've been doing the jobs of five people. You're not going to fire one of them. Or you'll lay one of them off. I don't know. I mean, I'll step back. I'm just pushing back on the fact that we are. So stingy with hiring new people. Because we don't have a budget that can hire new people. There's no money there. Right. Why? Because we don't, because we rest on property taxes. Because we have a ton of land that doesn't pay property taxes.  There's a lot of reasons why there's not money. At least why people say there's not money. Right. And we're seeing. Whether there is or not. That goes back to my thing of. We've been told for years, there isn't money to even hire. Took 10 years for them to figure out a way to put an economic development director at 100 grand and 200 total into the budget. And find the, to do that. And then we get to Crescent. Suddenly we have the ability to do that immediately. And I'm not saying we have the ability, but it was found somehow. Some way. And we might run into. Problems sooner rather than later with that. So is there a way we can put somewhere into it? I don't know whether it's finance or long-term vision. I'm not sure it's administration. Something about. Staffing levels. What about it though? I mean, that, that's what I don't know. Right. We're all concerned that there's not enough staff for what we want as a town to do. So somewhere in finance. That would be logical of some sort of report or. Honest conversation about what staffing levels. Would be logical for what we're demanding of our town and why we can't get there or what we have to cut or not demand of our town services. In order to have. Staffing and departments. Right. Like, and, and is it, is it cutting programs to fully staff certain departments and not having other departments? You know, because at some point. The morale of all the departments, right? The health department, as you said, needs more staff given COVID and everything we're asking and stuff. At some point you can't retain staff when you've got. You're asking too much of them. Whether it be schools, whether it be. Public safety, whether it be health or even recreation. And so. We don't want to get to a point in time where we're losing. Maybe we're there. But we have to. But we have to somehow talk about that. And maybe that goes somewhere in one of these management goals. Yeah, I, I, I would agree we need to talk about it, but I feel like we need to do more than talk about it, you know. Right. But it belongs in finance. However, we're going to list it. It belongs in finance, I think. That's fine. All right. I'll be right back. Go ahead. I think we're struggling right here. To see if there's anything we can do to this. I really think that we've added. Really belong somewhere else. Number four. Yeah, I think. I think it belongs under community engagement or could fit under community engagement. Right. And then what happens to for now that I've rewarded it. For had. I don't have a language anymore. I'm not going to make a change at the moment, but if we take it, if we move this, we just delete for. We would just delete for here and add something under the community and add, add the language. I don't know where it would be. I'm sorry. Community engagement is. I think it could replace number three. In community engagement. Hang on. It could become number three in community engagement. Because number three is going to disappear. Three is going to disappear. So it would be. In administration could become three in community engagement. Which would be, if you can, while I. Delete this. If you would just read out. Let me just delete it. I'm sorry. I was going to say, just copy it and then paste it as number three. Just highlight the whole thing and. Copy it. I'll get ready for a second. This goes. Because it really is a part. It's an item dealing with community engagement in a sense. I think it's a place to start. I think. Okay. So we're suggesting is under a community engagement. It's a place to start. Again, it says the same problem. These are very broad. Perfectly anodine sort of statements. Then the fine facility. Full of information. Hershey's supporting new ideas. Yeah. Yeah. And then up develop a list of future road and sidewalk repairs. That is available to the public and updated regularly. Bam. But yeah. And then for maximize contributions of time, multiple member body. That's probably where it belongs. Unless we put it in under policy. All right. When we come back to community engagement, but we were going to move to finance, right? I want to still go back here for seconds. So we have. And so. We're now taking that out. So you have to put an and before three. I don't know. Not that three. The first three. One of the main concerns under. Item one. Has been. The high rate of turnover. And the perceived. Whether real or not. Lack of mentorship or, you know, follow up. And I guess what we've been saying, and that's where we're probably going to leave it is that Paul has responded to this. And he's aware of it and he's taking steps to address it. And it's hard to see how we could integrate it into this document at this time. Something that specific. We want you to, in the coming year, demonstrate what demonstrate some kind of. What do we want to say? Evidence of. Stronger mentoring or. Follow up. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's part of the second number one. This effectively supervise and manage through retaining, recruiting and developing a highly qualified, diverse and effective staff. This is why I asked Paul in his comment, whether. You know, because there were a lot of comments about that that he was concerned from the council. And he didn't seem to think that this management goal needed rewarded to. Right. Exactly. Right. It allows us to ask him and then he responds and that's fine. You're right. Finance. I don't see anything, anything in particular we need to add here. So there were two comments. Yeah. Well, I have one request for number five, which is going to get rid of studying. And just leave recommending and implementing structures for user fees. We should be done studying by now. So I guess the comma after recommending would need to disappear too. But the other comment that someone made, and I'm not sure who it was at the council was, do we want to put anything on. Yeah. I think we can hear about. ARPA funds, other grant funds, the management and disbursement of ARPA funds reporting on the impact of. The. Use of those funds and other major grants or something. So the, there will be a second. Phase of release of ARPA money. Right. So what I'm saying is that you want, someone is saying they want to update or reports on. On how that money is being dispersed. So keeping the town council informed. As to the dispersal. Of ARPA funds. So the way I had it worded here. So this is what I wrote down. Someone was saying manage and disperse. ARPA funds and report on impact. So that was my shorthand. So it would probably be. Yeah. That is one. Effective management and disbursement of ARPA funds and report. Effectively managing and dispersing. ARPA funds. And reporting on their impacts or something like that. I'm less concerned about the report on impacts, but the effective management and disbursement, I think it would be effectively managing and dispersing. Yeah. Dispersing. Funds. And I would think an updating the council. I don't know.  Or do we? Or maybe it's. Thankfully managing the person. ARPA funds. Anyone that had anything to that. So it needs to be number five and five needs to change to six. All right. I have a comment on. Six. The board of health. Is looking at. Instituting. You know, solid waste fees. We have solid waste fees now. That's the transfer station fees. So I think we could just say. Structures for a new program. Right. So I wonder if we could just scoot in there a, and something like and potentially. Solid waste fees. Yes. We have solid waste fees now. That's the transfer station fees. So I think we could just say. We have solid waste fees now. So. Sure. Instead of adding the potential in there since. Right. Yes. Recommending and implementing structures for user fees, water fees, solid waste fees and permit fees. That can say the cost of providing services. Okay. I want to go back to five for a second and just make sure that. I'm the only one who has. I'm the only one who has. I'm the only one who has. I'm the only one who has. Report back to us occasionally on what's happening with ARPA funds. I mean, we assume he will effectively manage and disperse them. It's nice for us to mention that. But do you feel that we should include. Something to the effect. On. Impacts and use. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm the only one who has. I'm the only one who has. I'm the only one who has. Council and reporting to the council. Reporting. Impacts of. The impacts and use of the fees. Of the funds. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Was this where we were going to put in something about. Leading a conversation on. Staffing versus funding. What was that again? I said staffing versus funding. That's not a very good wording, but that's kind of what it is. On. On the challenge of. Providing. With staff. Right, right, right, right. Now becomes item seven. In finance, but yeah. The thought was move it here. Oh boy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. On the challenge. We're facilitating a conversation. I just, I just. I think it's, I think it's something you should come from the council. You know, from save from CRC or item TSO or something. It would be finance. Or finance, whatever. I have some counselor body. Would want to take a look at this. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Adding yet another task to an enormous. Suite of tasks. That he's just not going to have. The time. That's his key job. Yeah. You know, creating the budget. Is the master of. He's the one that has developed this policy. And he's the one that has developed this policy. No new hires. For any reason. There's no policy. There's no policy. Well, there's a. Practice. It's a level. It's basically level of funding. It's just, you know, it's, it's a level of services, level services. Because level services, which means level staffing takes up nearly the increase in funding every year. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So. How do we, how do we keep adding goals. And not add. Staffing to fulfill them. You know, like how, how does that work? Well, it doesn't work. And that's what I, I think it's going to happen in the next year or two, but that's, I'm not going to be involved in that. So I wish some of you the best of luck. And I try out a wording. Go ahead. Yeah. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. The challenges of providing adequate staffing for the municipal services desired within the revenue levels received. How about prioritized by the council? Well, this is just a conversation. Yeah. Yeah. I really think this needs to come from the finance department. Request. That kind of conversation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I guess I feel like that's the conversation. That we need as a town to. Have it out in the open, like what's happening here? Well, that's where a counselor steps up and, and, and makes a speech or a statement and says, you know, but that's got to come from the council. Asking Paul to do it is, is I think.  If a group of counselors, I wouldn't just be one of a group of counselors wanted to make this a major issue. That they feel that the town is not adequately staffing what the town wants to do. And they want to make that an issue. That's what they should do. And then they can figure out how they want to do that, whether they want to do it through a committee or they want to, you know, I don't know. Certainly would be a study or conversation that would need to be done. With the planning department. I'm sorry, the finance department. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, Pat. No, that's all right. Go ahead, George. No, no, please finish. I was interrupting. Well, it needs to happen in the finance department. They're the ones that have the information about what it costs and everything else. But that the, that we're asking. That we're asking the finance committee to take a serious and public look at funding. Because, and, and I'm not sure I want this to happen because it's very well, very possible that we wouldn't have gotten the extra people on crests if the public had weighed in and saw the impact on the budget. So. So I can make a commitment to bringing it up in the finance department. You know, in January and start talking about. That we need a conversation, a long, ongoing conversation and understanding of. The financial implications of staffing. That's what we're talking about. I don't know. It sounds like what you're talking about is the implications of increasing staffing in certain areas that some counselors feel are not adequately staffed. Now the most prominent one recently has been the fire department, but that apparently through ARPA funds, at least in the short term apparently has been dealt with. But there are other counselors who may feel that there are other departments that are not adequately staffed in order to fulfill the goals of what they or that they think the town right once. Well, this is why the conversation is so important. And that's, I do agree with Darcy because we wouldn't have gotten the commitment of the ARPA funds necessarily to, for the four positions. And now those four positions originally were going to be dropped as soon as the ARPA funds were gone. Now they've been placed in the budget as part of the staffing level for the fire department. In a more permanent way, the way anything. And it's yet without a plan. Right. So, so if there are other departments that individual counselors or groups of counselors wish to bring to the four and say this department or that department also needs more staffing. But what I'm hearing is generally they, there's this sentiment or feeling that there's more, we need more people to do the work we're asking them to do across the board. That's, you know, right. I think. The question is we might all be talking about similar things. The question is, does it go in a goal or does it go somewhere else or come up some other way? It's different. I think we're all finally realizing or starting to realize what finally is the wrong word that, that. You know, we have a lot we want to do, including what's already being done. That staffing levels may not be adequate. Currently even for doing what. Not just the council wants, but what we want to do. We want to be able to do that. We want to be able to do that. Currently even for doing what. Not just the council wants, but what the people expect the town to be doing. And, and. Those are always going to be hard conversations. I know I haven't figured out how to begin a conversation like that within. The council structure and even the budget development. And passage structure. I think we need to be able to do that. We need to be able to do that in new ways to do that. But what we need a conversation on, I think is. What levels of services and different types of services. Can we continue to provide. In a way that adequately staffs those services so that we're not just running. Town, you know, town staff into the ground. Because we're asking them to do too much. And then we have this retaining recruiting. And that's a really important part of what. That issue might be is what we're demanding of our staff. Yet we can't really have. We haven't found a way to have that conversation. So do we put that in a goal of, Hey, Paul, please help us facilitate that conversation. Or do we do that some other way? Let me offer exhibit a from today's discussion. I would think that all of us would agree that across the board, there's a strong desire for a parking czar for someone. Parking's always a big problem or at least a big issue and downtown parking, right? And so we all would like to see somebody hired to oversee that. What was Paul's response. 20 or 30 minutes ago. He can't do it. No way it can't be done. Okay. So that's, that's, that's just a simple example of, you know, the lack of a person. In a sense, the pointlessness of this discussion. Unless, unless the council simply says, we don't care. What you say we want you to hire somebody to do this. I guess what I'm saying is. We need to have a council-wide conversation on that somehow. consequences like this is where I think we're missing a conversation. What are the consequences of doing that is that that word, we're firing someone from X department because we have to maintain this total level of staffing no matter where they are is the consequences that we're reducing X budget over here. And so, so yes, your example is great. The response was we can't do that, but that's as far as we ever get and I think what what I'm arguing for and maybe Darcy's arguing for and maybe pass arguing for is a deeper conversation. And so if you have that deeper conversations you put it in these goals, or do you put it somewhere else, and maybe putting it in these goals to facilitate that deeper conversation is appropriate. Well, let's see what happens tomorrow night. Yeah, I doubt we'll have a deeper conversation but that's exactly the place for it to come up. But it's not I doubt it will come up. Yeah, my nights where it should come up, but it won't. I would agree with with Mandy Joe on that and I think that Paul is where it all starts I mean he's the decider on this stuff. So that's why we need to have a conversation with him. I mean, I just want to caution us having a conversation with him laying out everything that we want. Having this deeper conversation doesn't then mean Paul is going to give us what we want. So, first, it seems to me the council needs to have the conversation. And really find a way to understand what what it means when we talk about our financial position, you know, when you hire 12 new employees and you don't and you don't have any way of funding that after after year one or two. That's what I know well there, except there's been a commitment to fund it. So, for your one or two. It may be it may be that we decrease the positions in the police department if we find that crest is removing some of the burden that they have that. There's a lot of reality. And it may not happen that way we may find out that crest doesn't work. And eliminate that. I'm sorry what, or that it doesn't reduce the burden on the cops so it increases it and I'm not saying any. All right, so given that uncertainty at this point the conversation that you're envisioning is really moot. There's not much to talk about. We're going to have to see over the next two or three years, how this conversation with just crest what I'm saying is we need to have that conversation across the board as it relates to all departments all desires all everything. Right. Right. Because, you know, we're all see a priority and this is a priority and I think the town also needs to hear that conversation, which means it needs done in public and with the council so that we can actually as counselors, get a better idea of where our residents prioritize the funding. Darcy's been trying to say something. Please go ahead.  My, my observation is that Amherst moves about twice as slowly as other municipal governments because of the fact that we're so understaffed that everything has to go twice as slow. You know, I can give you examples but I don't really want to because I don't want to highlight problems in different departments but, you know, the climate action plan probably happened twice as slowly as in other towns and the community choice and, you know, everybody's saying well how come that's not up and running. It's because staffing problems within Amherst that's what it is so. And it isn't anybody doing anything, you know, intentionally, it's just piles of contracts and the accounting department that they can't get to etc. So it's like, I feel for the staff very much. I'm just saying very, very slow in getting in accomplishing stuff. So there's a desire expressed by some of you to put something under finance related to a long term or to a conversation about how to. And I think maybe you had presented some language. I'm going to write this down. I think it needs to go into long term vision to maintain and manage the town's capital and public assets consistent with the count councils long term vision. We, this is a conversation that would affect long term vision. Instead of finances. Yeah, because I mean it'll, it'll, it affects finances but it affects. This is a conversation and nothing may change and it may be the most incredible conversation in the whole world. So it, we're talking about that. There's a long term vision that in Amherst will have appropriate staffing levels and funding for that's those staffing levels in all departments or something I'm not. Let's just put the language up here for a moment to look at it. I'm going to put it here where we can move it. And I'm a number seven just for the sake of right but Mandy go ahead give me the language. Facilitating a conversation with the council. On the challenges of providing adequate staffing levels for the municipal services desired within the revenue levels received were levels are bad words but. Okay, let's forget to word that facilitating a conversation with the council and the challenge of providing adequate staffing levels, given the level of municipal services desired. Given the staffing levels and just do providing adequate staffing, given the level of municipal services desired. And then I had within the revenue levels received but it's probably but it given the level of municipal services desired and the constraints of receipt of revenues or existing revenue levels or something or existing revenues received. So what you are the three of you are asking him to do in the coming year, and he'll be evaluated on is initiating a conversation with the council on this challenge. So we're not asking to provide adequate staffing we're just asking him to talk about it. Because we can't provide adequate staffing given our current revenue levels, he would he would turn to you Darcy and say okay you tell me specifically you the council he would just turn to you he turned to the council and say you tell me which department or department you want to increase staffing in. And then I will tell you how that can be done, or I'll tell you why I don't think it can be done. Take a smaller percentage from the capital budget. Right, you could undercut your capital budget and use it for your operational budget sure that's that's perfectly legitimate. What would be the results of that. You'd have your roads, water sewer buildings, etc, their trucks and etc would be in less good condition. I also think that this should say facilitating conversations, because I don't think this is a one time conversation. You're right pat. Okay. I'm just going to put your language in here doesn't mean I agree with it at all but I'm going to put it in here because we need to see it. We need to have conversations with the council on the challenge of, of providing adequate staffing, given the level of municipal services desired by the public and existing revenue sources. Well, no it's desired by, by, well it could be by the public but also desired you know maybe just that we'll just leave it. All right. I want to move on, but it doesn't belong in finance or long term vision. Let's take a look at long term vision for a moment come back to that. Because we're asking him is to ensure the town facilities and infrastructure are well maintained, developing a five year now is this correct he still is developing. So, I mean, I had a comment that we should reword that because we have a five year program now. So, updating or maintaining or reporting on the progress of, I would say updating or maintaining. I don't know which words better. Here he has to do it. But we have one and now it just needs forwarded on right so updating the council or maybe updating the council. Just the five year capital improvement program updating the. Okay. So we can add the sentence we put in finance after planning for long term improvements to constant blah, blah, blah, the last number three add a four, or put because all of those things would affect staffing. So you'd like to take seven and put it down here is for you take move this and put it where are you seeing seven I'm sorry. We have facilities and conversations. Oh, yes. Yeah, yeah. You want that down under long term vision. Maybe. Okay. Or what do you guys think. I mean it almost sounds like it's more of a long term vision, right. I mean it's a financial thing to it crosses both but really we need a long term vision conversation on staffing levels and levels of municipal services and what services and, and that's a vision of our town. Yeah. Yeah, it makes sense to put it under long term vision to me. All right. Going to for the moment. Whoops. Are we doing on time. Okay. I do want us to get through this. The idea is that this would be then presented to the council on Monday. Is it on the agenda for Monday. I haven't said the agenda yet, but they will be setting it today. Probably. Did I just do something wrong here. If you just cut it or copy it and then paste it and then yeah now now paste it below. For some reason it didn't. Okay. Undo that and just hit copy. All right. Okay, where did seven go disappeared. Okay, well, here you can type it again if you want I've got it. No, just undo where it. Okay, six seven is out there somewhere. Repeat typing. No. Okay, let me try this again. There it is. Sorry. All right. It needs an and and it's number four. All right. And the and before three would get deleted. Thank you. And then Paul wanted us to talk about the specificities of number three. Okay, which is planning for long-term improvements to public infrastructure parks conservation land recreation land and public ways that ensure public accessibility, safety and sustainability. He opened up his comment. You can see his comment on what we said in his performance evaluation. Okay. Okay. Okay. Is it possible to move it over a little bit? So that we can. I'm trying. I got. Get the picture. Is that, are you able to see that still? Yeah. Only part of it. How's that? Okay. This again is the problem we're having with this particular section of the document, which is the. The language is aspirational and broad. Which is fine. But it's not. It's not. It's not something in a concrete that doesn't. Right. So. Rose and sidewalks. We've already brought in. I think that's been dealt with. Is increasing home ownership in here anywhere? No, it isn't. It isn't. I mean, that should go back into affordable housing. If we want to put something in there in. And I think that. Yeah, that may broadly fall under the. Working with CRC and the housing trust on housing issue in general. And the plant on this one, the planning for the use of a vacant elementary school and a youth empowerment center is, is already included in number three long-term improvements to. Infrastructure, you know, all of that. So. So. Without it being explicitly stated right. And so should we be explicitly stating them? We haven't explicitly stated Hickory Ridge, but that's going to be in here. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Do we want to put the increasing affordable home ownership in the affordable housing section? Hang on to that Darcy. I think that's a possibility. I'm not ruling it out. Certainly. I'm not. I'm not. There may be others that want to raise it. I just want to settle this first before I will bop and back and forth between different sections here. I realize it's here in Paul's comment. So that's. Is there anything. Do we need to get more specific in the long-term vision to allow Paul. More to give Paul more direction. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Give in our review of him. Right. And I don't see anything here. So are we going to say to Paul is the council going to say in a year. You didn't create a youth empowerment center. You didn't. Plan for a vacant. I mean, there's fake. There isn't a vacant elementary school at the moment. For the next year there won't be. And it won't be the one after that. And the after that. There's going to be those schools aren't going to be vacant for a long time. So. Sidewalks has been addressed. I think. I, there is concern about our infrastructure, particularly sewer and water lines. And, you know, there's a report somewhere probably in DPW. On, on the long-term, you know, what's the long-term plan there. Is that one of you want to highlight that in this coming year. Yeah.   There is a document that outlines what we should be doing. In terms of our recreation of fields or athletic fields. Does someone want to put that in here? Yeah. I mean, I feel like. This one. Yeah. I mean, if we make it more specific, we're going to be sitting at the council arguing over the specifics. Exactly. Why recreation fields instead of this or why. Right. Right. There's doesn't mean anything in this list that jumps out at us. That. We'd say immediately everyone wants this in here. I mean, I think number one and three cover everything in the list except home ownership. And so we're back then to Darcy's question. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This is, this is takes us back to the other part of the document now. You passed it. Sorry. Housing affordability. Okay. Let me just shrink this if I can. I'm going to take the comments out at this point. All right. The suggestions been made by at least two counselors that we introduce something to the effect of. I mean, I would argue that emphasis on home ownership instead of just rental. I mean, this was provide access to safe affordable housing for low and moderate income residents. With an emphasis on home ownership over rental. I mean, well, I don't know where you'd add it, but I think counselors have. Have asked for that emphasis. Some counselors have asked for that emphasis. I'm not sure where you would put it in here. Unless you. I don't think you need it. I mean, if you're providing access to safe affordable housing. That, that includes rentals. It includes home ownership. I know, but Pat, the idea is that I'm not saying I agree with it, but the suggestion of Darcy and, and Shawnee and perhaps others is that for this coming year, we'd like you to, we're thinking, we want you to focus on home ownership opportunities. And that maybe that's. Yeah. To provide access to safe affordable rental housing or housing for low and moderate income residents, both rental. I don't know. I mean, the only thing we could, maybe where it could go is number one, working with CRC to implement the compliments of housing policy. With a priority on the home ownership goal. But there's five goals, right? Like, are we going to set out which goal we're going to prioritize next year? Yeah. See, I don't feel comfortable with saying prioritizing that goal. It's a very, very, very important goal. But it's. Equally important that, that. Residents have access to affordable housing that they can rent. So that won't stop. The question is whether we, and that's a question, whether we as a council have enough, enough of us on the council that would like Paul in this coming year to put, put particular emphasis. He's not going to not think about the other four goals, but particular, put particular emphasis on home ownership. That's the question. Language for a number four. So that would be. Maintenance and creation of home ownership opportunities for low and moderate income residents. So that would be, you know, trying to protect neighborhood moderate income housing and also creation of. Housing opportunities. And how is that different from one huge issue in our neighborhoods. You know, buying up of moderate income housing by. No, I agree. That's something I know at least one incoming counselor wants to work on. It's something a number of us have certainly looked into and, and talked about. It's happening all over. What about access to safe affordable rental housing and possibilities for low home ownership for low and moderate income residents by bump. What was that again, Pat? I think it's something like to provide access to safe affordable. Rental housing and. And possibilities for home ownership for low and moderate income residents. Yeah, I think they're. I don't know. I think there also should be in their protection of. All of that's part of a comprehensive housing policy goals. That's the thing. And so implementing that policy. Is how we start doing it. And so that's why I say, if we want to prioritize one, a specific one of the comprehensive housing policy goals, that's probably where we would need to do that. Or a motion from the council. But. I think maybe it makes sense to leave this. Darcy can certainly bring it up. Charlie can certainly bring it up. Anyone can bring it up on a Monday night. And see if they can convince enough of their colleagues. To. Want to put in specific language related to home ownership. But at the moment, I think we are not. Of one voice by any means. I hear that request. And I think it should be brought up on Monday night, but I don't see any language I can construct now. That would. Satisfy all of us. I don't see any language I can construct. I don't see any language I can construct. I don't think anyone covers it. But I agree that, that. I mean, if the council could come to consensus, that they really want Paul to focus on. Priority. Prioritize goal number one of the five. I'm not sure we could have that. That'll happen. Okay. So I'm going to, I'm going to leave this, I think. Okay. As it is. I think we're down to the last one relationship with the council. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Because people were okay with its placement in terms of here. And we went through the language while he was here. No, no. The one above. I'm sorry. That one. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. I'm jumping the gun. Yeah. So no one had any comments. We need to get rid of the space before the number three. And after the parents. Just on a cleanup matter. Okay. I think I had one thing. And I'm not even sure I agree with it right now, which is on number two that says providing support to council committees. I wanted to add the word appropriate support. Like I said, I'm not even sure I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm just. Are the committees getting. Maybe adequate is a better word and adequate level of support, particularly are the committee chairs getting an adequate level of support. I mean, you can provide support that's not adequate. Again, though, this goes back to all staffing levels. Exactly. Right. It goes back to that. So I'm not even sure I'm convinced we should change. I also feel like. You know, I think that there's require very different things. From staffing. So. What you might consider adequate. George might consider. In adequate. So. I don't know. I don't think I'd like to add that. I think that we as. We do put. Pressure on staff and departments. And I think that there's, you know. I think there, some committees have put more pressure on then seemed reasonable in different instances. And. Let me just throw something out here quickly. I know we're really at the end of time. And so people may need to go and we do want to wrap this up. But I gave Paul a document about a month ago. That I've used and I've shared it with a number of you over, over the years, which is sort of like a fact sheet just sort of a, you know, that I, and he agreed with me. So this is great. I mean, not particular document, but the idea of having something that every year would be updated by staff. It's the same old problem who we do it, right? But just the basic fact sheet on population demographics, you know, number of staff employees, you know, the current average tax burden on just a simple fact sheet that counselors would have that they could trust was, was accurate. We just had the census of the census numbers would be updated. But, you know, when I sent that around, you know, people said, oh, thank you very much, but it maybe it doesn't really matter that much, but it just, it always strikes me as strange that we often called upon making decisions as we are. And we often don't have at our fingertips, just basic factual data information about our town.  You know, and it changes obviously on a regular basis. But anyway, that was something that I felt should be provided to all counselors by staff. I created it. I shared it with some of you. I shared it with Paul recently. He thought it was great, but I have a feeling it's just going to be like all of things. It's just going to fall through the cracks. So it means when you are making these decisions, you either have to find out yourself or just don't know some basic data points about our town. And it, you know, so that would be something that I would suggest is concrete that would be nice if he could provide that to you every year. That's not in here though, right? No, exactly. I'm just saying, I mean, it would be a concrete example of what it means to provide support to the council. We'd be providing on a yearly basis, updated. I don't know what the term would be.  How many people work for the town? How many people employed by the schools? What's the average salary of a teacher? What's the average salary of a cop? You know, how many, what's the demographics of our schools? You know, what's the average tax burden on it? You know, what's the average home price? What's the average tax burden? What's the current tax rate? The changes obviously this year just went down a little bit, even though the tax burden will go up because house values, property values have increased, but nonetheless, that's, you know, it probably will never happen, but that's a concrete example of something that should be done and could be done, but somebody has to do it. Can we add that to the, can we? I don't know. I mean, I'm wording it would be, you know, I could, I could mention it at the, at the council meeting on Monday and just in a poll, we'd probably say, yes, great. And I'll, I'll see what I can do. There's so many things this is getting back into. Right. There's so many things we could list in terms of documents and things we want created at the tip of our things, right? That we don't want a list of just check these two things off and you satisfied this goal. Right. I think it's important for him to be able to use his creativity and his, you know, leadership abilities. Right. Yeah. So I just bring it up because the, the, I didn't know whether providing support for council committees was strong enough or whether we needed a. Sort of. What level of support we're looking for, right? In terms of evaluating that one. So take GOL, you know, we just, we want KP law to get back to a reasonable amount of time, but, you know, and Paul does the best he can, but sometimes they don't. Right. So that's why I think I had originally appropriate support. Yeah. Yeah, I don't, I, it's fine. Either we could add the initiative. I don't have a problem with that. I really like George's idea. No, it's a great idea, but maybe you can bring it up. You know, the two of us starts to bring it up on our way out the door and just say, you know, this would be great if, if over time Paul liked it. And he put it in his little folder and I, and I'm sure, no, I'm sure he was serious. He meant it. But, you know, anyway, yeah. Yeah. It's a lot more than a fact sheet like Mandy Joe said it would be a, it would be more like a list of documents. That was, you know, a document page on the website or something. That would also be publicly accessible, but you know, it would be great. It would be great because there's a lot of that stuff that we didn't get when we first started. You have to find it yourself. And then hope that you got it right. And if you send it to somebody in town hall to have them check it, you have to go through Paul and that means it usually doesn't get done because he just, there's only so many things he can do. You know, you just hope you get it right. Right. All right. So final doc is people okay with this location language. He's really important. I'm glad it's here. But okay. So one last thing, sorry. Go, go, go. Community engagement. Paul's comment. We don't have what we evaluated him on that language from the evaluation memo in the comment, but minus the strategic partnership agreement comments. What are the types of things he needs to address in this community engagement? I think he was looking for a little bit more specificity in one, two, and what is now for, I guess. Yeah. I actually think he does a really good job in this area. So I was a little surprised by some of the comments of my colleagues. He works really hard to engage the community on a number of different levels. So I guess your question is a good one, Mandy. Those of you who are critical of him or apparently there've been some, I don't know what specifically are you wanting him to do that? He's not doing less cup of Joe's.  You know, community presentation officers. So what is it? You know, I don't know what four means maximizing the contributions of time, multiple member bodies in this valley. I have no idea what that means. If somebody can tell me I'd be happy. I don't, I'm sure he doesn't either, but. I think the intent of that was when, you know, using, using not having multiple member bodies just for the sake of having them using them in a consultative fashion and then listening and taking their ideas, maybe not always following them, but I think TSO, this is one thing that TSO has actually done well with, right? Go to DAAC, go to TAC and say, Hey, this is a decision we need to make. What are your suggestions? And then you take them into consideration as you make your decision. That's what I see number four as. You know, getting towards or getting it. And it's interesting to watch that play out because you can see the tension that creates it. It seems to work that okay, but you can see how you're stepping on toes. Those committees are stepping on departmental toes. And there's a certain amount of tension there. And maybe, maybe that's just unavoidable. And I think I agree with you that what TSO has done, I think overall has been a good thing. I'm not sure everyone in town hall would agree with that because you've got now citizen committees, you know, making recommendations in areas that traditionally have been handled by town departments. And I think there's a certain sense of, you know, trespass in a certain sense. And, you know, so be it perhaps. Well, and that maybe the conversation, right? If the town, if the council likes that, then we leave this in. If the council, you know, doesn't like that and thinks. This that is inappropriate, then we need to reevaluate the committee structure. And what their roles are. The language here could be clearer than because I don't, when I read this, I don't hear what you're saying. But that's, that's a good, very good point. I know what the others think that that's a good example of where a council committee has drawn on the expertise of town, multiple member bodies to the advantage of the miss, we think to the advantage of the town. So that's kind of what four is saying. And we could give that example. Or we could just leave the language as it is, or we could make the language a little bit more, you know, yeah.  Complement our work, you know, like tack has done. And, and that's advisory committee and so on. So maybe the language is fine as it is, because Maddie could just, I mean, we could point to that example and that would illustrate it. But he was looking for something more specific here. Can we help him at all? What did he say again? Where is it?  It's this, this is another goal that I, you need to expand that comment. Let's see if I can. And I'll open it. And the question he's asking us, there's some things from the, I mean, strategic partnership agreement's been taken out. Are there other things that we want to put in here. In this item. I'm looking at, I have a printed copy. It's usually, it comes down to DPW. I mean, people just complain about DPW. It seems to be the gist of it. And, you know, Which is where number three comes in, in some sense. Yeah, but I would, do people have a sense that somehow we need to wrap their knuckles or, or, you know, I mean. Oh, that's true. It was a lot about responding to residents. To close out. Questions and interactions. Almost right. I mean, I use C click fix, and it works beautifully. Until you don't know whether anything's been done with it. Well, it sends me notices. Well, actually, I'm not sure it does tell me, it doesn't tell me that the thing I complained about has been taken care of. Right. It just notifies me of stuff that's in my neighborhood that other people complained about. That's all it does. But when I go back and check, it's been taken care of. So your point, I guess, is the follow up where the letting people know, I don't know if it's been taken care of, but it's been taken care of. But my experience is limited as it has been, is that when you do ask them to look into something, they actually do. The two or three times I've done it. They have taken care of it. End of timely manner. But your point is that people don't know it. Well, in most cases, you know it because you go by and it's, you know, the light is now working or the. I'll give you an example. Go ahead. If someone doesn't want to like to work. You know what I mean?  You know what I mean? You know what I mean? Right. That the light is trespassing on their own ground. Is too bright.   Or this is how it could happen, but you need XYZ number of people that, you know, or the policy means we're just not changing it. There's no follow up. I mean, I think like that. I mean, that's the thing. I don't, you know, we're sitting here talking about, we're understaffed. We're understaffed. Right. And the other thing that's true is when people assume nothing's happened. That's not necessarily accurate. There are times. And I think. You know, there's a lot of people who have been in public meetings that are inaccurate. And he doesn't get called out on it. Now. At least to my knowledge. By Paul. So that feels like the issue, not whether or not. Paul or somehow rather is going to make sure that every. Citizen. Email call, whatever is taking care of. I don't know. I'm getting really tired because I'm really hungry. I've been in meetings since eight o'clock. So. I'm not sure there's any language we need to add here unless somebody has something specific. And we're not going to name a particular. Town employee. No, and I don't think we should. Right. So unless there's something specific people want to add. The answer I feel to Paul's concern here is that in fact, you're actually doing a pretty good job. And, you know, as far as strategic partnership agreement, that's been put in another part of the document. And we've asked you the specific thing that he may not be happy about is three, developing a list of future road inside of repairs. He may come back on Monday night and say, you know, who asked for that? Hand up. I just say, I'm sorry, I have to leave. To get somewhere by one. I understand. We're away over time. All right. Sorry. Okay. All right. So we're not voting on this or anything like that. We're just going to send this. Document on to. To the council council for Monday. I'm wondering if we should just clean. Just have it as a clean document. And take out. I'm not sure we want to have Paul's comments in there. No, we don't want Paul's comments. I think so. I think it should just be presented as a clean document. And people can then. Say what they want or make changes. That's my suggestion. Anyone. I did. Cause I've been keeping and tracking these changes on mine. I accepted all of the changes we presented to the council last week in the. Policy goals. And then have a tracked version of just what we changed from last week to this week in the policy goals. And then I. Tracked in the management goals, what we did today. Which means it's still, it's not a clean version, but it's a. Cleaner version. And it doesn't allow people to truly see what's different between last week and this week in a sense. Does it have Paul's comments? I can get rid of Paul's comments. I would take Paul's. Please. Yeah. I think. But good. So you have. Both documents in a version that. The counselors could read and work with. Cause what we have right now is kind of a mess. I mean, and I would just take what I have. I'll send you what I have after I remove Paul's comments. Okay. All right. And I will submit the other quick question before we go. Is, and we have still three people here. I'd like you to just approve. I don't know if we have to have a vote. Just allow. Just allow. To approve the final minutes that we have without us having to meet again to do it. I didn't even know if we need to do that formally. I'll make that motion. To just. Whatever. Whatever. Allow the chair to approve the minutes. The remaining minutes of this committee. Which would include last week's meeting and today's meeting. And then most have been made and seconded. I'm going to go to a vote. I don't know if we have to have a vote. Just allow the chair to approve the final minutes that we have. Without us having to meet again to do it. I didn't even know if we need to do that formally. I'll make that motion. I don't know if we have a vote. I don't know if we have a vote. I don't know if we have a vote. We will vote. Mandy. Hi. And Pat. Hi. The chairs and I. So thank you very much. Final thing. I don't think we need a meeting next week. Before we do that. Just note that there's no public in attendance for public comment. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Mandy. Why don't we keep it the meat. The next week's meeting on the book. And decide after Monday night. You're thinking that. After Monday night. That is true. Okay. Post. You could post it. Exactly. Of course. Of course. Of course. All right. Good. That's the answer. Just I will post it. And we'll see what happens Monday night. Right. Right. Other than fiscal, other than the manager goals. I'm not aware of anything else that we need to do. Well, then maybe we don't. We don't need to do that. So the only reason we do it on with the same agendas today, just in case. We need to come back with massive changes to the goals. Right. There's certainly a possibility. Good. That's what I will do. But I guess what I'm asking the two of you. And I'm sorry. She's not here, but also, but. Is there anything else you can think of that you want on a future agenda? I can't think of any. Okay. If you do, let me know. Okay. Good. All right. We don't need to discuss the goals again. Yeah. Okay. All right. I will get that from you later this morning or this afternoon, Mandy, and I will post a menu agenda for Wednesday, which hopefully we will be able to perhaps cancel. We'll see. All right. I thank you to both of you. And I'm going to declare this meeting adjourned. And Emily, again, thank you very much for your patience. I'm sorry we went over and the best of luck to you going forward. Thank you. Thank you. All right, guys. Take care.