Okay, we're recording. Please go ahead. >> Thank you. >> Um, Lynn, I can't hear you. >> I can't either. Can you hear now? >> Can you hear now? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> So, you can hear me. >> Okay. All right. >> We couldn't before. Yes. >> Holla, can you hear us? >> Yes. >> Okay. Got it. Thank you. Um, I'm going to start over. It's December 8th and this is a regular meeting of the town
council with one public comment period. Chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extended through June 30th, 2027 the ability of public bodies to meet in a fully remote or hybrid manner. This law allows us to continue holding meetings remotely
without a quorum of the council physically present, although tonight we have 10 counselors in the room. Please be advised this meeting is being held in person and that the remote access option is provided as a courtesy
only. In the event of technology issues with a remote connection, the meeting will continue in person as scheduled as long as there is a quorum of the council in the room or available by technological means. Given that we have a quorum of the
council present, I'm calling the December 8th regular meeting of the town council to order at 6:35. I'll call upon each counselor to make sure they can hear and be heard and we
will proceed. >> Pat D'Angelus present. >> Anna Develin Gothier >> present. >> Councelor Ete >> present. >> Lyn Griezmer's present. Councelor Hannah >> present. Bob Hegner, >> present. >> Councelor Lord, >> present.
>> Pam Rooney, >> here. >> Councelor Ryan, >> present. >> Kathy Shane, >> here. >> Andy Steinberg, >> present. >> Jennifer Tob here. >> Councelor Walker >> here. >> There's no chat room for this. Um, and
so please use the raised hand function. Uh, and let us know if you have any technology difficulties. In or order order to accommodate the posted time of the hearing of 7:00, we will be taking some items out of order. First of all,
let's just begin with announcements. We have a town council meeting next Monday the 15th at 6:30. And I also just want to mention that the school is seeking input on the names for the new elementary school and the sixth grade um
academy. Uh, and they are due by Thursday, December 1st. There is a link and >> I'm sorry, December 11th. I did have it right. Um, and there's a link where you can um, enter your thoughts and make
comments. You can see that link on the screen. We're going to go first to general public comment, which is a little unusual. If you're in the room and you want to make general public comment, please let uh Athena know. She's over
here. And if you're on Zoom and you want to make general public comment, please raise your hand. Now, >> Lyn, can I ask a clarifying question about the uh is there a a a direction you could point us? If we can't have memorized that link that was just up on the screen because it was 80,000
characters long. Kathy, can you give us news and announcements right on the town web page? >> Thank you so much. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you. Uh, is there anybody in the
room that wants to make public comment? No. Then in that case, I'll call on Darcy Deont. Please enter the room. State your name and approximately where you live. >> Hi. Can you hear me? We can. >> Good evening. My name is Darcy Dumont
and I live in district three. First, I uh would say that once again we have a lame duck council packing meetings into December and making decisions that should be made by the newly elected council. The new council should be
making any forwardlooking decisions. for example, on the housing production plan, the 2026 town manager goals, and the FY27 budget guidance. Mainly today, I'm commenting in support
of either passing or tableabling the two zoning bylaw proposals, articles 18 and 19, brought by residents and in support of the request to amend the housing production plan by including language that would encourage housing more
students on the UMass campus or to prioritize funding and staffing to develop or preserve existing housing for year-round residents such as senior workforce. and low and moderate income residents. Those are both needed to reduce or
eliminate the flow of yearround residents from Ammerst having been priced out by student housing. When I spoke to the planning board in November on behalf of the resident petitioners for zoning articles 18 and
19, I was representing the desires of a large swath of the town. In fact, one of the reasons for bringing the petitions was that there was so much support for the 2021 attempt to pass a moratorum on downtown building and that was before
people understood that the buildings were intended to house students only. There were more than 1,000 resident signatures on the petition in that case and only 30 on the petition countering the moratorum. When I campaigned for town council in
2018, the one topic most everyone agreed on is that they did not want those ugly buildings downtown. And again, that was before they understood they were intended for student dorms. I believe the majority of year-round residents agree on these things that
were addressed in the resident petitions. One, they want to protect the downtown from more undergraduate student dorms. Two, they want to protect their family neighborhoods from displacement of family housing by student housing. And three, they want more housing for
students on campus, which would obviously help solve both of these problems. Let's not use our precious staff to plan housing for students when building needed building needed housing for year-round residents should be the priority and when it should also bring
the town when it will also bring the town revenue. Thanks very much. >> Thank you for your comments, Darcy. Uh there are no other public comments at this time. So we are actually going to
move to act. There are there is no consent agenda. There are no resolutions and proclamations and there is no presentation and discussion. We therefore are going to action item 8A, propose zoning map changes for Main
Street BN District. And I'm going to start by reading the motion and seek a second for uh to adopt zoning map changes to parcels 14B-29,
14B-30, and 14B-31 from the General Residence District RG. G to neighborhood business district BN. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay.
Um Rob Mura is with us if we have any questions. Are there any questions from the council? Seeing none, we're going to move to a vote. Anna Delin Gothier >> I. >> Councor >> I. Then Griezmer is an I. Councelor
Hanicki. >> Hi. >> Bob Hegner. >> I. >> Councelor Lord. >> I. >> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> I. >> Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. >> Councelor Walker.
>> Yes. >> Patelos. >> I. >> It's unanimous. Um with all counselors present. Um, unfortunately we do not have
the staff present for agenda item 8B. >> Oh, we do. Greg Greg is here. >> Huh? >> Greg is here. >> Oh, yes. Greg is here is what you just said. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
Um, so, uh, we're going to go to action item 8B. It's And the motion is to adopt the housing production plan as submitted by Barrett Consulting Group LLC and adopted
by the planning board. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, Capam Rooney, >> I would like to present my motion, which is an amendment to this motion. >> Okay. Uh, Thea, you have a copy of the
motion. >> It's been emailed at least three times. Yes, we have it. Okay. Pam, would you want to go ahead and explain your or read your motion, please? >> I'll I'll read it and then short explanation.
>> Would seek a second first. >> Second. >> Let her make the motion, please. You see the motion first? Okay. Uh motion to amend the Barrett Group housing production plan dated June 2025 as follows. One, remove the following
comment bubbles. On page five, quote, one-third non- students may leave in 5 years. On page 31, 25% of college students want to stay in age in Ammerst. On page 39, 25% of families say they are
likely to move out of Ammerst in 5 years. On the following pages, add the phrase including on the UMass campus. Page VI D, the third B bullet to read, encouraged the development of student
housing, including on the UMass campus, while etc. page V III D1 to read encourage the development of more student housing, including on the UMass campus and workforce housing.
And page 137, strategies D1 to read, encourage the development of more student housing, including on the UMass campus, and more workforce housing. Number three on page six, copy the first paragraph.
Quote, Amoris has emerged as a model for progressive housing policy in the region. The town has actively worked to diversifi diversify its housing stock. That's a misspelling. Its housing stock and increase affordability through zoning
reform, building capacity, and targeted development initiative. The town has also embraced partnerships with regional planning bodies, academic institutions, and nonprofit developers to create affordable housing, particularly for low
and moderate income households. And insert this paragraph on page I I as the first paragraph of the executive summary. Is there a second? >> Shane seconds.
>> Okay. Please speak to your motion. >> Thank you. Uh, these proposals were put forward by other counselors. Um, and the more I thought about them, the more it it leaves me with a another positive way
to go forward. I would support this document with those changes made. The um the comment bubbles are sort of a an add-on. they really do not represent the data well. So, they're
just superfluous. Um, the encouraging the use of the words including on the UMass campus is simply the town saying, "We have lots of options, but please don't forget we
could actually consider encouraging the the the the university to do something on the UMass campus." I think that's just a very positive statement and needs to be said publicly. And finally, um, the paragraph that councelor Shane had
suggested get moved right up front as a as the first paragraph of the executive summary is a very, very strong, very positive, very encouraging paragraph that says, you know, Amoris, you really do do a good job. You could work a
little harder. we can make some changes, but but all in all, you're headed in the right direction, and I think that's really important for us to hear. So, that's why I support these changes. Thank you. Are there counselor comments?
>> George Ryan, I'm councelor Ryan. So, first is the question. Um, if this were to pass, and I hope it doesn't, um, would it then go back to the planning board for their approval? >> I'm going to call on the town manager.
>> No, I I don't think it would need to go back to the planning board. Um, I think the council this is this is be the the council's make taking an action whether to approve it with the adjust with the adjustment and that would be the final vote. >> Andy Steinberg.
First of all, uh with all due respect for the town manager, I did do research on this this morning and um the reg there are regulations of EOHCD and there is directive from EOHCD
that says that the um indication has to be that it was passed by both the planning board and by the U council. in our case and because they
would be different documents that were passed by the two bodies. Um it is impossible to say that the same plan that is being submitted is being submitted but on that has been approved
by both and um the from what I can understand of the regulations I think it is highly doubtful that EOHCD would accept a plan that has two separate approvals.
So I don't think that that is is possible but I am concerned that um there are grant opportunities that um we need to find out about but that we
would not be able we uh probably would not be qualified for applying for those grants during the time that it is delayed because that needs to be the same um document, same housing plan that
is uh approved by both bodies. Um and I also um don't think that any of the um changes are significant enough to warrant that kind of a change. Um, I
also am very uh much of a opinion that this is the town's housing plan, not the university's housing plan. And I don't see that uh there's anything to be um gained by putting that language in. I
think that we have uh heard um quite frequently that the university has no bonding authority capacity left for building new student housing. It's not something that we can assume is likely
to happen and uh to delay um this process in order to get um that statement included in the plan I don't think serves the purpose. So I'm going
to oppose uh the amendment. Kathy Shane. >> Um I I believe that um Greg Richie and Nate got these changes early on, you know, a week or so ago because one of the issues was would the authors of the
report be willing to make these changes and if they were willing then the planning board and the council could be voting on exactly the same document. So I don't know whether there was a discussion or not with the authors in terms of a willingness. I'm not saying
that they need to change them if we vote these down, but it's a there was some uncertainty whether they were already considered their work is done and they won't won't make any changes whether the council wants them to or not. So, it's it's a question toward you, Greg, on was
there a discussion and if if there were a vote to do this, would there be a willingness to make changes? >> Greg, did you have a comment? >> Um, sure. So my understanding uh is um
uh it would be conceivable to to make changes in a holistic way with with with the consultant but not in a peacemeal way that would uh kind of expose them. Uh b basically it needs to clear their bar around accuracy and data integrity
and and their standards. um um and assuming changes um uh uh but but I think that probably would require a change order and a proper re-engagement with the consultant um is is my best understanding of it.
>> Councor Hani, >> two things. Um if I copied the page numbers in the motion correctly, page 31 does not have a comment bubble on it. Are you referring to the comment bubble on page 32? Um, so that should be looked
at. Um, the comment bubbles, I don't understand what a problem with them is. When you look at appendix A10 that summarizes the survey results, the comment bubbles are accurate representations of the survey results. So, what's a problem with the comment
bubbles? um when they accurately represent the public engagement survey results of a 3300 and some respondents. Um you know I'm with Andy at this point I can't vote for the motion to amend.
Jennifer Tob. >> So, one comment bubble, I don't have the because the motion's not up on the screen, but I mean it said something like 31% of residents want something when in fact the data, and Kathy can back this up
because she researched it, the data is based, I think, on 62 responses. So it didn't even say 31% of respondents. It just said 32% of residents. So that's an example where
the the bubbles these particularly bubbles seemed a little misleading saying 25% of students want to stay. Is that a lot or a little? I mean they just there's a a random um quality to them which is why I think
it's just three bubbles that the um motion is asking to be removed. I do have a question in terms of this concern about the delay with getting the plan into the office, executive office of housing and livable communities. Is there a deadline? I mean, if it went to
the planning board with these minor changes, relatively minor changes, but I think substantive in in the extent that I think to say, well, UMass isn't going to build more housing, so we shouldn't even have that be something we would want to
work with them on. I don't seems very defeist. Um if the planning board they have another meeting before the end of the year were to accept the changes and it was on our agenda at our first or second meeting in January. What are we really missing out on grant
opportunities? That's my question. I don't think there was a deadline of the end of the calendar year to submit this. Um so I don't if in fact it has to go to the planning board. I don't see this being a a big lift for the planning board and I
would imagine I I I it's hard for me to imagine them objecting. So that's a question I have. What what opportunities are we really going to miss out on if it gets into the state a week or two after
the new year versus a week or two before? Thank you. >> Paul, did you have any comment on that question? I I don't know the answer to that question. >> Okay. Thank you, Kathy Shane. Okay. I
I'll try to explain on the comment bubbles the uh there is data at the end of the report, but the way they're popped in, it implies that uh the survey asked them um is housing costs the
reason you want to is the cost of buying a house or renting a house as opposed to taxes? It's plunked in the middle. but otherwise excellent report which is full of census data in in large groups. The
fact that students are considering leaving, students leave all the time because we have no jobs in town um that they or a minimum set of jobs. So again, it's not they're not being driven out of town. The question didn't say, are you being driven out of town because of the
cost of housing? That wasn't it. So I just felt that the report is so well done to put these in it makes it a more attractive very public oriented um but it's it's a survey at the end of of
about 300 people and I asked about for some of the I didn't even focus on some of the other subsets the disabled I asked them for subsets it gets in some of the bubbles get to very small subsets I just think um it was an effort to u
make the report more pictures and in that it's saying that we're the a housing crisis is driving people out of Amoris and I thought that's not really what was asked. So that was the reason I thought toning down some of those would
be helpful. And I just think that first the paragraph they already have in their report but you don't get it till the end much later sets a very different tone if a casual reader is reading this. So I'm not I I'm not going after some of the
other pieces which I think we're missing from the report. The rest of the council seems to be happy with it. We have a long list of possible strategies that can be used that we'll probably be debating forever. But but I I just thought um
I wish they had stayed with the data they had in the report and listed some possible options rather than going overboard the way they did in the executive summary. So I thought at least opening it with a more neutral paragraph would be a better way to start.
Councelor Ry. >> So, first again, we're dealing with an amendment that at least I've not seen until right now. Did I miss something earlier or was this in the packet a day or two ago and I just didn't >> could not go in the packet until the
until it was made on the floor. >> So, that's a problem. Um, and I think it's something that all counselors should keep in mind that when you're making these kinds of proposals, um, it would be helpful if we got them in advance. >> Secondly, we could word Smith. This how
many pages is I'm sorry. Somebody have a question? >> Excuse me. >> Hold on. >> Point of order. We've been told we can't share these in advance. >> Sorry. Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> All right. So we we just have to deal with it now and all the complexity etc.
>> That is the >> leave that aside. My apologies to my colleagues. Um there's nothing you could do. That's what you had to do. >> Um that puts us in a difficult spot. We're words smithing something. How many hundred How many pages is this document? >> Overund something. >> Yeah.
>> Um and I know we could word smith this forever. Um CRC had a chance to do this and it didn't. Um I don't know why and now we're trying to do it and was to say that uh if we push this off into the next council um there'll be yet further
word smithing opportunities. Um the document has been stated by one of my colleagues is perfectly acceptable but they have some problems with tone. They have some problems with bubbles and they would like to insert a statement about UMass. Um I think they always have the
option if they wish to vote against this. Um, so I I can't support these changes. Um, and I certainly don't have the time or mental energy to to sort through them now. Um, this report was done by a group of consultants. We paid them a fairly substantial amount of
money. Uh, I assume they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. Um, CRC had a chance to revise this and that didn't happen and I'm certainly not in the position to do it here and I don't think any of us are. So, I would urge my colleagues to support this and let us then focus on I'm sorry to vote against
it, but focus on what some of the options are to try and address the housing crisis that really does exist in our town. >> I'm going to go back to councelor to Pam Rooney. >> Thank you. I appreciate the concerns
that people have. The the tone of of these suggested changes uh in my mind is a very gentle way to
tweak this document in very very minor ways that allow me to feel better about accepting it. I would I would like to think that the council could stand behind this
document. Um and with these couple of very very very modest um adjustments I could stand behind this document. I I am really disappointed to
hear that folks don't want to at least publicly say that it's okay for us to make a statement about the University of Massachusetts. every every conversation that not every
but majority of conversations that I had in my district people always bring up you know why can't the university just bring more build more housing they just did the fieldstone one that was a private partner public private
partnership that worked very well encouraging the university to do more of that is simply on paper, we are not directing the university to go build housing on its campus. We're suggesting that that might be an option. It's a
very very modest suggestion. So, I would I would ask that people do support these modest tweaks, making it a document that is more
comfortable to all of us or most of us. Um I I would be disappointed if it was a split vote on the document itself. I think that's probably not the tone we want to go forward with um for the
state. Using my privilege as a counselor, I'm going to speak as much as I think that the consultants did a fairly decent job. I do not like nor would my dissertation advisor have approved of several of the
ways that sentences were written in the interpretation of data. Uh and in addition to that, having written more executive summaries than I ever want to talk about, this is not one of the best ones I've ever seen. However, it is the
report before us. And in order for any changes to be made, all bodies involved in approving it have to be given the opportunity to make changes. I find that that is a little bit burdensome and should have been done during the process
of the development of the port, not when it comes to the council for the final approval. This is my personal opinion having spent many years in a consulting capacity. Um, Jennifer, >> yes, thank you. So, I also think that
these are very gentle changes. I think they're not I think they're changes that we could absorb and process in a council meeting that it's not something we need weeks to really go and ruminate about. Um, and as it's we're not allowed to
share the motion before you can't see it until the council meeting. And again, I don't think these are I mean, it's basically trying to make the same wording changes in three places, moving one paragraph, and taking out some thought bubbles,
which is, you know, not even part of the body of the report. But I I don't see how that is um really ownorous to process and vote on uh in a meeting. Um I and I agree with councelor Rooney that
for us, you know, again, just to say, well, the university doesn't want to build more housing, so we won't even we're just going to take that off the table and the town will take on the responsibility for building all the student housing that is not going to be
built on campus. Does not seem like that's really the council um exercising uh uh leadership. And um again I don't see how a couple of weeks Oh I did want to respond to about CRC
when CRC the vote from CRC was two members voting to approve as it was one member abstaining one member voting no and one was absent. So of the five
members of CRC two voted to recommended to the council to approve it as it is. So we discussed this quite a bit in CRC but that's where the vote took us. So um I don't think that CRC reneged on its
responsibility. Um, and again, I don't, you know, um, at least, uh, three of us that have spoken in support of the motion have said we are happy to vote to approve and
recommend the housing production plan just with these minor changes. And I I don't I guess I just fail to see that these changes are so ownorous that they would be rejected. Thank you, >> Tanggeles.
>> I don't have a lot to say. Um, I'm going to read a quote from a friend that I read last week. Does the housing production plan meet the state requirements that will allow the town to be eligible for grants? Yes, it does, as
is. But the thing I want to speak to this week is tone. Tone is so incredibly subjective. And to imply that because you interpret
one interprets it one way and someone else interprets it another that you're right and therefore something has to change reflects a problem I have in my 40some year relationship with Carol
because we talk to each other and then your tone you you met in M and we get entangled And that's exactly what's happening here. Because a few counselors don't like
um aspects of this report, you're trying to amend it to change the tone to feel comfortable to you because and because these are all gentle, modest tweaks, we should go forward. We should
not we should vote the plan as is. and this amendment needs to be defeated. >> The motion's on the floor to amend. The motion's been made and seconded. One more comment. Councelor Ete, >> I'd like to call the question.
>> Okay, we're moving on to the question. Um the first vote is on the motion to amend. We'll start with council. >> No. >> Lynn Griezmer is no. Councelor Hani, >> no. Bob Hegner,
>> yes. >> Councelor Lord, >> I >> Pam Rooney, >> yes. >> Councelor Ryan, >> no. >> Kathy Shane, >> yes. >> Andy Steinberg, >> no.
>> Jennifer Tob, >> yes. >> Councelor Walker, >> yes. >> Patelus, >> no. >> Anna Delin Gothier, >> no. The motion to amend fails with a vote of
six in favor of the motion and seven I mean seven opposed. We move now to the original motion. The original motion is to adopt the plan. We begin in this case with Lynn Griezmer and Lynn Griezmer is an I. Councelor Hani
>> I. >> Bob Hagner. >> Yes. Councelor Lord, >> I. >> Pam Brunie, >> no. >> Councelor Ryan, >> hi. >> Kathy Shane, >> no. >> Did you say no?
>> I I said no. Sorry. I >> Thank you. Andy Steinberg, >> yes. >> Jennifer Tob, >> no. >> Councelor Walker, >> yes. >> Did you say yes? >> Yes. >> Thank you, Pat D'Angelus.
>> Hi. Anna Delin Gothier >> I councelor Rete >> I the housing plan is adopted with a vote of 10 in favor and three opposed. We're going to move directly into the hearing.
Um and the hearing in this case is with regard to sorry um the property at 457 Main Street and the declaring it a surplus property. I'm
believe we're going to have an initial brief presentation then an opportunity to ask questions and any comments. There would be a special comment period for this if anybody would like to make a comment in the audience. Uh Paul, I'm
gonna turn to you. >> Actually, I think Greg is going to make the presentation. >> Okay, Greg. >> Uh for sure. >> Uh thanks Paul and Council Member Griem. Um I'll be brief here. Um and really the details are in the memo in your packet.
Um and just uh sort of re uh rephrasing that this is a ministerial action to fulfill the original intention that the council had uh when it made an order to purchase this property. Um uh and most specifically um this particular action
of declaring the property surplus is a required step um uh that the state uh requires the the council to to enact um in order to empower the town manager uh to uh at a much later date. in this case
uh uh you know sign a contract um to dispose of the property uh you know in accordance with the original order um behind the purchase as well as the uh federal ARPA commitment um which are the funds that um obtained the property in the first place. Um so um basically it's
a it's a a ministerial action. Doesn't mean we're selling it or um leasing it anytime soon. U before we did that we'd go through a extensive RFP process and then a contractual process after that. Um, so that is kind of the quick uh overview. Um, I'm happy to drill into
any of that uh or answer any questions. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to see if we can put a motion on the table and seek a second. >> We're in the middle of a hearing. >> A point of order. We're in the >> Oh, that's right. We can't do that yet. I'm so sorry. Okay. Uh, are there are
there counselor questions? >> Yes. Pam Rooney. >> Thank you. Uh I I was trying to make the connection with why the need to dis to declare it surplus if in fact um on page
two it says that the town will maintain ownership um if if the town maintains ownership, how are we able to then tax it as um the north uh what is it? um 128
Route 9 uh Northampton Road is taxed at a modest rate. >> That's a good question. Um uh and and and probably a good catch, too. Um so, I guess that's a two-part question. So, um, my best understanding and from the
guidance I've received is, um, whether to do a long-term lease or a sale, a surplus declaration, um, is indeed required, uh, because it would be putting it to work, um, for purposes sort of outside of the core business of the town. Um uh and so in in
order for the town manager to sign such a contract um the um the surplus declaration would would need to be there um before we can in fact before we can go through with the the VFW pro sorry the uh disposition process
or the the RFP process uh the guidance that I have is that we have to do a surplus declaration before we can make that um uh before we can proceed with the RFP process. Um and the tax question is a good one and in fact the um this has gone through
a few different variants. Um and um the current draft of the RFP suggests a uh a long-term lease. Um and previously there was kind of two options on the RFP on the draft RFP which isn't public but um so that's that's a good catch and in
fact the tax revenue uh my guess is would probably that probably wouldn't be an accurate statement. I apologize for that. in the if if if it ended up being with a lease, we could end up swapping the RFP back to a sale. Um, in which case perhaps it
would result in that modest tax income. >> Do you want to follow up with that? >> I Yeah. Can I um ask for clarification? So in other words, if we lease the property, then we don't collect taxes on
it. >> You know, I probably I I hesitate to sort of answer that in a um a very authoritative way. Um my sense is if it is least, probably not. But um um but I think I'd probably want to check with the assessor uh and take guidance
from Paul to to confirm that >> because the other experience that the town has is if we don't lease the property and in fact we donate it toward its purpose, then the people that build on that property then go ahead and pay taxes. That is
>> correct. That that's correct. Yeah, it's the lease question I'm I'm more hesitant about. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh Nate, you have your hand up and I'm wondering if you wanted to speak to this. >> Sure. Thanks, Nate Mallaloy, a planner with the town. So, you know, uh we have
long-term leases with other developments that pay property taxes. So, my understanding is they would I mean, we could look into the specifics of something here uh given how it could be operated or used, but you know, Olympia Oaks, for instance, uh has a you know, a
ground lease um and they pay property tax. Okay, thank you. Does that better answer your question? Okay. Uh Kathy, um I'm going to ask sort of a similar question but in a different way.
>> Um do we have to do a lease or could we do a sale? Are we when we declare surplus is that just is that a separate issue for what we then do with it? So, are those separable? So, we could we could vote to declare it surplus and
then decide later whether to lease or not lease? >> That's correct. Yeah. >> So, so I don't Lyn, I just don't have the wording of the motion in front of me on whether it has lease in it or not because I'd like to not have the motion
have the lease to have it be separate. Um so along that line um to the later in one of the documents that I read said lease it for a dollar. Are we are we um
restricted to only a dollar? You know is is there already a decision it will never be more than a dollar if we lease it? So, it it's a question I have of the long-term viability of the project because we've been assuming that we could do what we're doing if we get
large state grants and subsidies because we don't have the money to do it ourselves and seeing the assessed value of the property is nearly a,900,000. If we uh three years down the road have not been successful, I'd like to think
that we at least have the option to sell it to a developer for housing. Um you know that it could be housing. I'm not saying it wouldn't be housing and we've left it to be affordable housing uh transition. So I don't want to have the
decision for surplus to tie the hands of what ultimately happens lease or not lease and the price tag on the lease or the not the lease. That was my concern with what I saw in other writing.
>> Thank you uh councelor Ryan. >> So maybe connected to Kathy's question. I'm not sure, but I have a question about what's called al alternative uses. Um, if I read this memo correctly, um,
given the whole intent behind this, um, this is really restricted to some form of of affordable housing or at least some kind of project that addresses quote negative economic impacts unquote. Um, obviously we intended um or have
intended it to address housing insecurity. Um, and we've asked the town manager to pursue this as part of his goals and it's part of our larger housing plans. Um, if this were not to come to fruition, um, it still seems
like it would have to be something that would still meet um, at least the ARPA guidelines. And the way it's stated is other types of affordable or mixed income development likely fall within ARPA guidelines. I take that to mean
obviously an affordable development would still but a mixed income would also be an affordable at some level considered an affordable development and still could be so we could sell this to a developer who would do a mixed income development and you think that that
could still fall within the ARPA restrictions or guidelines? I do assuming it was um of reasonably substantial size. The goal the I think the sort of navigating the weeds here, but
the requirement is that the original purchase price um can be applicable to affordable units. Um and so you would and then probably you know probably some further calculations on top of that. So,
as long basically as long as you have uh $787,000 worth of affordable units in an uh hypothetical mixed income, it would be okay. >> Councelor Hanaki, >> similar question cuz um because your
memo or the memo we received says the ARPA funds were tied to the expenditure category of quote long-term housing security services for unhoused persons. So if that was the spending category, unhoused persons, not just affordable housing, is it does that 700 and some
have to be tied no matter what um to unhoused persons or is it just because our our council order in 2020 in FY23 said for sheltering, affordable housing, supportive transitional housing, and or supportive services that it can be tied
to something a little broader. Um so it can tie something broader. So I think that is our label that is in um so I guess we made up our own category in the ARPA reporting that I found. Um uh
but there's a bigger bucket that that's within which is um uh which is the uh shorter phrase the negative economic impacts which is actually quite a large bucket um and it's been a few weeks now but the basic concept is if we're within
that lane there there we might need to adjust a reporting thing um but it wouldn't be a fundamental change um as far as the guidelines that I found if if we wanted to sell it for revenue to fix a sidewalk. That would be a fundamental
change um and would require some pretty messy unwinding. >> Okay. Uh councelor Ryan, do you have your hand up still? It's okay. Are there any other questions of the council?
Seeing none at the moment, I'm going to ask if there's any public comment with regard to this issue either in the room or people who are on Zoom. Seeing none, I'm going to come back to the council and ask if there are any further questions that you would like to ask during the hearing. It will come up
for a vote. At that point, we'll look at the motion. Seeing none, then I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing. Is there a second? >> Second. Okay, we're going to begin with councelor Hanaki. >> I >> Bob Hegner. >> Hi.
>> Councelor Lord. >> Um Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. >> Councelor Walker. >> Yes. >> Patangels. >> Hi.
>> Anna Deon Gothier. >> Hi. >> Councelor Ete. >> Hi. and Lyn Grace is an I. It's unanimous to close the hearing. Coincidentally, we now actually move to action item 8C.
And I would like to have the clerk of the council please put the motion on the screen since I think there may be some edits to it before we make it. Okay. Councelor Hani, I know you had some concerns and do you have some edits
you want to make to this one? >> I don't think I have edits. I just had a question um which Athena did answer, but maybe others have the same question. So, I thought I'd bring it up. The memo that we we had had an attachment number one that said 457 Main Street disposition
order, and the motion doesn't mention that disposition order at all. So, are we adopting the disposition order? because that order is slightly different than the motion um in terms of what it references um in my it's got more language. So what what's with the
disposition order versus this motion? >> Athea, >> my response when councelor Hanniki emailed about this question was that I believe the motion that's on the motion sheet allows the council um president and another council member to member to sign the disposition order.
>> Okay. Thank you. And does that satisfy your question, councelor Hley? >> Um, so I guess the next question is the disposition order says it's a two-thirds vote. So does this vote then on this motion two/3s? >> Yes. >> Okay. So the motion then is that the townowned property located at 457 Main
Street acquired by the town pursuant to the deed recorded with the Hampshire Register of Deeds in book 14792 page uh 159 for sheltering affordable housing support transition housing andor support
services purposes is surplus to the needs of the town. It is available for disposition for sheltering, affordable housing, support transition housing, andor supportive services purposes, and that said property may be conveyed for said purposes on such terms and
conditions as the town deems appropriate. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Councelor Ryan, >> if I may just for a moment um to give this some context. This for me is a
very, as it says in the memo, an important step in something that has been going on now for a number of years. When we first put the goal of trying to create a permanent shelter to address the issue of housing insecurity in our community, we put it in the town
manager's goals. And I'd like to acknowledge the work that he and some of his staff have made over the last few years to try and make this a possibility. I think councelor Shane's absolutely right that um there's still a lot of questions about how this can be funded, but we can't get to the answer
those questions as we take this important step. I'd like to remind people that in this town we have for many years now provided some form of shelter for those who are unhoused, but almost every other year, every few years has had to move. Currently it's in the
uh the Lutheran church. Um before that it was uh um you know in in the Baptist church. Um for a while it was at the Unitarian Universalist Society. So the hope is that we can as a community can bring this about. It's going to take a number of more years. Um but I think
this is an important step and I would like to express my thanks personally to our staff and to our manager for pushing this along. Um and I hope this vote will be unanimous. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments?
Seeing none, Bob Hegner. >> I'm sorry. We >> We're going to the vote. >> Yeah. I >> Councelor Lord. >> I. >> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg.
>> Hi. >> Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. >> Councelor Walker. >> Yes. >> Patel. >> Hi. Honor Develin Gothier. >> Hi, >> Councelor Ete. >> Lyn Gre I. Councelor Hani. >> Hi. >> In fact, it is indeed unanimous.
Thank you. The next item on our agenda actually is the two items come together and it's article 19 and 18. Let me just mention um we will hear from um Nate Mallaloy on behalf of the planning board. Uh Kitty
Axel and Barry is here as one of the petitioners. But I just want to mention a motion to not adopt or a motion to reject would be out of order for the council as we have not held a hearing. Normally if we had it would have been
referred to CRC and CRC would have held that hearing. The planning bird board did he hold hearings or hearing for the council to adopt the amendments. They would need to be referred for hearings which the council chose not to do when they were
presented earlier in the year on Monday. The council could re on today the council could refer them to CRC. We could take no action or we could table them indefinitely. Those are really our options. Okay. So, uh, with that, uh,
planning board report, uh, I guess Doug Marshall is with us and, um, Doug, please unmute and go ahead. Doug is the chair of the planning board. >> Thank you, Lynn. Um,
so you want me to talk about both at once? I I think that would be fine. >> Okay. All right. So, um so on November 19th, the board voted
six in favor and one against to uh not recommend proposal 18 for the for bylaw section 18 to council. And then likewise for number 19 it was six in favor of not
recommending and one against. So uh the board uh received the presentation from the applicants for both uh both both proposals. I'll talk a moment first
about number 18 which was the moratorum proposal. Um, first of all, the applicants said they were not aware of any imminent projects that would be coming to the board or proposed otherwise uh in the
next year. The the one-year duration seemed rather short to uh to members of the board. Um, we also felt that with the design standard
process that has been underway with uh the planning department and an outside consultant that we we felt that that those standards are very close to being public. uh although they may not be adopted for quite some
time and that uh we could probably use some some parts of that in our deliberations over the next year even if they haven't been adopted we could refer to them and consider some of the recommendations. Um there was one comment that uh one
member felt that the proposal was misaligned with the housing production plan um particularly around whether to include student housing in the uh objectives and goals for the town uh in
addition to other housing which was not in in contention. Um so in in the end we didn't really feel that a moratorum was necessary to advance the petitioner's goals
because we have design standards coming we have our meetings we have our subcommittees meetings um and we felt that uh it was it was unnecessary for us to recommend a moratorum
regarding number 19. Uh that that proposal had specific proposals for uh discouraging the purchase of houses and for uh for renting to uh student local
students. Um we all felt that the proposal was not really ready for incorporation as a bylaw. The language was not yet definitive enough. Um there were there were three sort of there was
the first part has to do with the definition of a student home which we had deliberated on before and had actually recommended uh to the board uh back in the summer. And then there were three proposals three three methods which were proposed
to discourage the conversion of houses to student homes. one which was a minimum distance requirement, one was what they called consideration of rent stabilization and the third uh
was the limitations of student housing to main arterial streets only. So um under the m for the myth for the first one we questioned we had we had heard that there was some question as to
whether that was legal that that whether that ran a foul of chapter 4A section 4 which requires that uh the requirements in a zoning district be uniform and uh a minimum distance
requirement would allow some people to uh rent to students and would prohibit others within, you know, next door not prohibit them from renting to students. So, we questioned that. Uh the rent stabilization
uh aspect right now it's it's illegal in the state of Massachusetts to have rent control. And so, we didn't think that that was likely to go anywhere. Um, I know there's a a voter referendum coming
up uh about that, but right now it's not a it's not an option. And then the third uh regarding the single f single and two family homes on arterial streets that
was a a a consideration that we had talked about uh back in the summer probably um when we were considering the proposal that Pat D'Angelus had brought uh to the board for consideration.
Um, so there were a couple those those were were some of the issues and and the other aspect of this is that things like the the limiting housing to arterials
felt felt to us like some of the we're already talking about a lot of those things and I think some board members felt like this proposal was sort of interrupting the conversation that we've had over the last more than a here about
trying to uh put some limitations and how to deal with student housings. So, we we felt it was sort of a a distraction um that it would absorb a lot of board time and perhaps council time to
uh sort of hammer this proposal into shape where it was actually uh able to be considered as an actual literal bylaw. So, all of those things contributed to the board voting to not recommend it to
the council. uh we did uh you know there were several points in the conversation where the petitioners said well we're not the experts and we're just trying to have a conversation. Well, we ended up recommending that they come to our
meetings and they come to the housing subcommittee meetings and that they engage in the conversation that we've been having for quite some time. And um I think I know I know that in the end uh in the housing subcommittee meeting that
they have that we have held since this vote the the petitioners came to the meeting participated in the meeting and in fact took on some of the research responsibilities that uh we that committee had been trying to get to for
some time. So, we felt like uh we heard what they were were asking for. Uh we invited them into the conversation that we've been having and hope that they will uh attend and be part of that, but that neither of these should continue as
a bylaw proposal at least at this point. I'll stop there. >> Thank you, Doug. Uh Kitty Axelenberry, who is um one of the lead petitioners, has joined us. Kitty, would you like to go ahead and say make some comments
if you need to unmute, Kitty? Okay, thank you. Uh, Kitty Axelson Berry from um Stony Hill Road, which is in Echo Hills South. Um, so as as Doug pointed out, yeah, um, I
have mentioned before, and it's true, I'm not a professional planner. Um, neither is Darcy Dumont. I'm a resident and after repeatedly hearing concerns about the imbalance between people who see themselves as really living in Ammerst and people who
see themselves as going to school in Ammerst and living here while they're in school. I joined with Darcy and we convened a group of residents to jumpstart doing something about this issue beginning with acknowledging it. And I do under I
do hear from Doug that it has not only been acknowledged but um people are working on it. We just want to um have more work on it. Um so thus the zoning amendments before the town council tonight. The first proposed amendment
focuses on downtown which not so long ago was a year-round center for all ages and incomes. The second focuses on residential neighborhoods where family and families and people of all ages and incomes whether they live in single family houses, duplexes, triplexes,
co-housing communities or ADUs, feel welcome and valued. After attending numerous council meetings, I've observed a pattern. Even though I'm not a professional, zoning proposals, especially those with a lot of details, are sent for
processing to the planning board, to the town council committees, to the planning department staff. They're explored by town manager committees. Outside experts, are brought in. Members of the public, many of whom are also experts on the matter at hand, comment copiously.
Sometimes details are rethought, new drafts are drawn up and replace each other. Um, many new drafts, many new versions, many new details. Ultimately, they fail quite often.
Recent examples are the proposal to provide more off-campus student houses and neighborhoods and the proposal to darken municipal streets and sidewalks. These proposals are different. Rather than laying out details and being, you know,
uh, what do they call it? Shovel ready, they get the town to explore options about an issue that residents really care about. It's true that these proposals are not fully fleshed out. Our intention is to let the professional planners and the
council do their work on it. What's important at this moment are not those details. It's the question, is this issue important to us? Is it important to you? Do you want it to be addressed? Do you want it to be addressed soon or do you want to stall it? Leaving it up
to the real estate industry and property owners in the downtown bid is not the answer. And I've been told several times by Chris Breastup, the former head of the planning department, that the planning department does what it's tasked to do. That's a
bit of a tongue twister. Tasked tasked to do. and it's it's they're overworked and they don't do more than what they're told to do. So, it has not been tasked to address the problem of inadequate
housing for yearround residents. What is the issue that I'm talking about? The issue is that Ammeris is a college town, but it's an unusual college town, and there are indications that it might even be unique. We have the distinction of being a very small
host community to a very large university. We're not a small town with a small college nor a big city that can abley absorb a big university. And we have a disturbing imbalance between our quote permanent population and our quote
student population. And you know there are no perfect simple words for any of these things. yearround population, maybe use the word diverse population, resident population, host population. And there are no perfect simple words for students, maybe seasonal residents,
short-term residents, partial year residents, or guests. It's like student home. Everyone knows what a student home is, but no simple definition covers it all. or a definition of student could be a graduate student who's here for years.
Could be an undergraduate student who's here for not so many years. So, this might not be what the university wants, but it's in the best interest of the town and the people who live here for whom this is home, not where they live while they're in college. With a median age of 21.3 years old, it's no wonder
that the town's focus is on 18 to 24 year olds. With a population, according to the housing production plan data, a a resol a population that's down to only 13,000 yearround residents, it's no wonder that town manager Paul Bachelman
has so much trouble getting together a sufficient pool of candidates even for the town's many committees, boards, and commissions. And instead of deferred maintenance, paying for its roads, DPW, fire department, libraries, and schools,
as well as initiatives like Crest and a resident oversight board, these services are mostly important for quote permanent residents. We're suggesting that you, the outgoing town council, think objectively about the need to alleviate these pressures on housing for young
middle-aged seniors, old and old yearround people. Age groups defy simple categories and definitions just like student, student house, etc. We're suggesting that you think objectively about housing construction for all,
not prioritizing students. We're asking you to think objectively about the need to acknowledge and support housing for all. And when it comes to the argument that student housing benefits the municipal uni municipalities coffers,
but housing for other populations would not benefit the municipalities coffers. It's just not logical. developers make the most money from students, but unless the town was to adopt a differential property tax system, the town does not
benefit or I don't think it does more from student housing houses than from family or workforce housing or houses. If the town cares enough about incentivizing housing for all, real estate interests will be there to build
it and employees at the colleges and UMass would love to live in it. It's well documented also that good housing opportunities and a good public education system are an effective lure for colleges to to um attract potential
employees including faculty. Retired people are another example. They would flock here if only for the reputation of the town, the culture, the arts, the eeries, the forests and trails. It might not be what the university wants, but it's in the best interest of the town. Sorry, I repeated
that. I'm asking you to support the proposals or ta or or table them or what did you say? Um uh there was another action no action I don't know to put a focus but to put a focus on alleviating
these housing pro pressures on diverse residents and improving the imbalance between students and non- studentents here. So please keep keep both proposals in your mind. Even send them forward for their
thousand changes like the night sky proposal and other proposals that got thousands of changes. Task the planning department with this effort um by supporting the proposals actually help the planning board and the committees
respond on behalf of residents and the town's health to this need. Thank you. Thank you for joining us, Kitty. So, as I mentioned before, the options are to refer this to CRC,
take no action, or table indefinitely. Councelor Hanaki, you have your hand up. >> Um, we're on D. >> Yes. >> I move to table indefinitely the proposed article 19, zoning for livability, affordability, and balance in single and two family home
neighborhoods. >> Second. >> Okay. Are there any questions or comments? See none. I'm sorry. Councelor Rete. >> Um, point of order. Uh, councelor Hick, you might want to speak to the motion since it's optional.
>> Yes, please. Councelor Hani. >> This motion is the cleanest way to clear up whether the council is taking action or wants to take action or not on this. >> Great. Councelor Anna Develin Goth here I'm sorry did you have more that you
wanted to say >> I had a question so there are two options one is to table indefinitely which you raise and the other is to take no action what would be the difference in consequence for either of those options
>> if the council were to take no action it would have the same effect as tableabling indefinitely tableabling indefinitely is a formal action the council could that indicates that it's not going to move forward with these proposals rather than just not making any motion or taking any vote. There are
other options for the council to take on these petitions. Um they would need to be referred to CRC for a hearing where the council could hold a hearing if it wanted to vote to adopt or not adopt the amendments. >> So tableling indefinitely.
Does that imply that in some possible future so it's gone? Okay. >> Okay. Um Pam Rooney >> I was going to act actually speak to the
conversation not necessarily whether to table it or to take no action. >> Okay. Please go ahead. >> Okay. All right. Um, I was I was disappointed actually when I listened to the planning board discussion of this when they held their
hearing and it's something that Mr. Marshall brought up again tonight and that was that there was this reaction from one of the board members that this petition seemed to somehow interrupt the planning board conversation. It was a
distraction to what was trying to take place already. And I that really it really set me back because it's called citizen participation. It's called a citizen petition which is
allowed by our charter that clearly the people in town felt that not enough was being done to address this issue. So I'm I'm very sorry that the planning board reacted that way. Um, I understand in the
discussion about article 18 with a temporary pause that there are reasons for saying maybe we're maybe we're already making some progress on that number number 18
tonight. We just passed the housing production plan. the design standards hopefully will be coming soon. Perhaps at this point given those situations that the moratorum itself for for one year is is maybe not the
tool to use but I appreciate the fact that they brought it forward. I understand the the subcommittee of the planning board is continuing the conversation about how to how to um
enhance opportunity for I'll just say permanent residents, year-round residents in our neighborhoods. And what I would like to do is add support to uh that work in
some shape or form. And and nothing that we have on the table really tonight um does that except perhaps to refer it to the CRC. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong on that. >> Thank you, Jennifer.
I the question might have been I had a similar question to um to councelor Ete if if we table this I I mean it's not like um going before the planning board uh a developer
withdrawing a an application without um prejudice. I mean, if the next council wanted to take it off the table and have this same discussion about whether to refer to CRC, could we do that or is it literally
>> dead? I guess tableabling doesn't sound like you've killed it. >> Um, it depends. If the council were to want to reconsider these amendments, um the
planning board would have to hold hearings again. The council would need to refer them again. They would need to be reintroduced. Um what this action does is indicate that the council does not wish to pursue these amendments. >> Now, could we vote to refer one to CRC
or or not table one and table the other? You can if the council wanted to, it could vote to table one and refer the other to CRC for um hearings and recommendation. >> Because I would have and if that's what you want, the motion that's on the table
is to table it. So, you would vote against that motion because you want to make a different motion. >> Okay. because I agree. I understand with the amendment 18
um because I too am uncomfortable pausing uh you know any movement downtown for a year. Um although I appreciate that was brought forward to begin the conversation and if it gets us to adopt
and implement design guidelines sooner, accelerate the pace, I that's a good thing. But I do think that amendment um or proposal 19 really and I I know as it is, you know,
that yes, rent stabilization, rent control are not legal now that town might want to take discussed to taking a position in support of that because it will be being considered as I understand by the legislature. But the concerns and
the issues raised in 19 I as I went doortodoor during the campaign whether my district includes houses that are a block from the UMass campus and all the way on Strong and Northeast Street far
from campus. And that was the most consistent concern I heard from every resident no matter where they lived in the district. the concern that families were competing with investors
for single family homes, that all the building is being priced for residents that share expenses and that and a concern that the non- studentent house population in town is rapidly
declining and that neighborhoods are changing in that way. So, I think for the council to say we reject this, we don't we don't want to take this up is really not being responsible to many, many of our constituents.
>> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Lord. >> First, I want to thank the residents that have put so much time and energy and work and passion into this. Um, I do have a question about Mandy's u motion. Was it just for 19 18 for both?
>> Yes. Oh, wait. >> Well, two we'll do 18 separately. >> Okay. So, this is just for 19. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then I will be voting no because I this one I'd want to refer but
just Yeah. So, thank you for clarifying. >> Okay. >> Councelor Hani. >> So, everyone keeps saying there's no direction to the manager or staff regarding zoning bylaw planning and development. um our goals for the
current fiscal year and the proposed goals that are on the table for the next fiscal year have a action item that says proposed revisions to the zoning bylaws that would reduce the time and cost of developing permitting and building housing on parcels in Amoris with the objective of increasing missing middle
housing development potential. Um, many of us have seen that as addressing the very issues that have been talked about in the citizen petition about housing. Um, we
keep asking the manager to develop some zoning bylaws. As the planning board chair said, the proposed article 19 has some severe deficiencies in adoption as an actual bylaw. We're not talking about talking
if we send this bylaw to hearing. We're talking about adopting it as written, which says something about rent control, which is currently illegal. It says something about minimum distance, which is highly possibly possibly illegal. And that's how it's worded right now. It's
not and and it's vague and unclear because it's so general. As the petitioner actually said, we tried not to get specific, but laws need to be specific. So referring this for a hearing
is not going to solve the issue. This proposal should be tabled indefinitely. And if people want CRC to discuss the issue of addressing housing in neighborhoods to get that cheaper and
more livable for non- studentent residents, then we should have a different proposal that says, "Hey, go talk about it, CRC." But this bylaw request is not the means of doing that.
We should talk about doing it and saying and suggesting in some of the strategies of the housing production plan that was just adopted propose say something to the council that says send to the council refer to CRC to develop a bylaw
that complies with strategy X Y or Z in the housing production plan. Sending this to CRC doesn't give CRC any direction at all. I'm in favor of tableabling indefinitely and bringing up at the next
term housing plans and proposals that give CRC actual direction. council at time. I'm also in favor of tableabling this indefinitely, but I want to speak
generally beyond just this amendment as it is to the fact that we have as citizens an opportunity to petition to have
some kind of action taken for the town. But we should not mistake the fact that the result of the petition means that the petitioners speak for the town. If that is the case, then I think the
best thing that we could do is since the petitioners are not experts, find a way to bring in the experts, which in this case would be the planning board or the legislative experts, which in this case would be the council and not find some
workaround to have some proposal that isn't baked enough and wouldn't pass muster. I think this is a shortcut we shouldn't follow and I would encourage everyone not to vote for this particular
amendment. >> Andy Sternberg. >> Yes. Um I think the the proposal and I appreciate the spirit with which it was brought forward to
call the council's attention to this but as councelor Hani has pointed out um it needs um to be really worked on through the planning department and the planning
um board to develop an appropriate uh bylaw that would be able to achieve the results that are being thought about. And uh to continue to work with
what is uh been put on put forward through the petition process is not going to actually get to the intent of the petition process as it was put forward. Which uh brings me to one other comment that I have to make I guess
since this is my second to last meeting. And that is that I spoke earlier um about the whole question of um housing on campus and the unlikelihood that the university has the financial capacity to
build new housing. But I do think that it is an important issue and I don't want to create the impression that it's not and so sort of in a way speaking to the next
council. Um I think that it is worth um thinking about some sort of resolution or petition that will sort of communicate a message that we would like to engage more thoroughly in this
discussion between the town and the university about the housing problems that are created when you have a university of this size and a community of this size. uh that is an important issue and one
that needs to be pursued. Uh but we need to find a positive way to move forward with that conversation and part of it uh needs to be with continuation of the strategic planning
process uh between the university and the town. Um and part of it just is what we say. Um, so these are issues that are important. Um, but I'd have to separate
that out from the particular u wording of the petition article as opposed to the intent of the petition article. Say that tableabling is the appropriate step for that reason.
Councelor Ryme, >> it seems like everyone would agree that the wording of this is problematic, but I'm trying to understand what the harm is in sending this problematic
bylaw to CRC for its own discussion and comment. They we're not endorsing it. We're not saying that this is, you know, but what's the harm in sending it to CRC for further discussion? In parallel with what we hope will be
happening with the planning board, I I have to agree with councelor Tob that that the concerns that are in this behind this are things that I've heard too. Um, and while I don't perhaps endorse maybe any of the suggestions here, I I at this point I really don't
know. I have some reservations about a number of them, but I guess if the those who support tableabling indefinitely could help me understand what the harm would be in referring it to CRC for further discussion and public input. Um,
that's where I'm kind of caught. Um, I think it's clear that the first article 18 should definitely be tabled and definitely, but this one I'm not convinced. So, if someone could convince me that sending it to CRC would actually
be harmful or detrimental, that would help me. >> I'd like to make a ask for a point of clarification. If a if this were sent to CRC, am I correct that it is the bylaw as it is presently written that is sent to CRC for the purposes of hearing?
>> Yes. >> Thank you. So, the reason I asked that, councelor uh Ryan, is because CRC certainly could take up a discussion, but to take up a discussion
about this particular bylaw, that's not the option. The option is this is the bylaw that's being proposed, and they have to basically hear this bylaw just the way the zoning uh lead planning board had to hear this bylaw.
CRC could come forward with a different bylaw that tries to address some of these things and that can come to the council and be referred for hearing all over the place. >> Yeah, please. Uh, councelor Hanaki. So, if it's referred for hearing, any
changes have to be within the scope of the bylaw as written, which means the conversation by default is stuck in the scope of the current bylaw, which is a definition of student home, minimum distance
standards, rent control, and arterial road student housing limitations. it. There's no other scope it can expand to to discuss potentially other options for dealing with the issues that are of
concern. It's limited in scope to what's written. Even if you make some changes, it still has to be within because it's a public hearing, the notice is on what is the language in the document. >> Thank you. So, if I may then I guess the
question I would have for the those who would like to refer this to CRC is how they would respond to that because that would seem to be um a pretty I this is helping me at least get some clarity. I don't know about anyone else. Um but given the fact that the scope would very
narrow and I think most of us agree this has a whole host of problems in it. my sort of dream that they could sort of take it and word, you know, make lots of wonderful changes to it seems not not viable. So I guess the question for those who oppose tableabling
indefinitely is then what's the point of sending this to CRC? It seems not to be it's just not fit for prime time and other efforts need to be made maybe by other counselors for the next council maybe by CRC in the next council but
this mechanism this vehicle apparently is just not going to do it so people can see a way it can do it I'd like some help but right now I guess I find I'm leaning towards tableabling >> a point of information >> yes >> um counselors can bring a new petition a
new zoning petition to the council for action in the new term. Um, that could be a modification of the one that's before you tonight. Um, councilors could also refer to CRC development of a zoning bylaw like they did with the solar bylaw if it doesn't doesn't feel
fleshed out. Um, like the solar bylaw, it would then come back to the council for consideration and referral back to CRC and planning board for hearings and so on. But at any point a counselor could restart the zoning amendment process on a um an idea like this. Um
but referring it to CRC at at this point tonight leaves it in the form that it is. There's not a we're not in an amendment um situation. >> I think that's a helpful discussion, but let's keep moving on. Jennifer,
>> um yes, I guess this is more a response to comments that have been made. Um, I appreciate citizen petitions uh res that come from residents and I don't think that just because we happen to have
decided to run for the council and got elected that that makes us experts. There's I mean so much I'm not an expert on that comes before the council. And I know uh Kitty Axelrod and Darcy Dumont.
Darcy was on the council. She has great expert. I mean you both have expertise. Um but Darcy also brings the experience of having been a quote expert like one of us. So I would never I and particularly in a town like Amoris where we have so many experts you know who
spend their careers teaching economics and you know community planning that I would never I wouldn't want to discourage any residents from bringing a petition to the council because they are not the experts and we are because we for the most part are not. Um, and I I
also want to, you know, yes, we in our town manager goals, it says we, one of the goals that's being proposed is to expedite the permitting process so that we can build more missing middle housing. And to the extent that if we're talking about missing middle, there's
missing middle residents who can't afford top market price but may not qualify for affordable housing. That's sometimes referred to as the missing middle, but I think the missing middle that um councelor Hanniki was referring
to is housing units that are between single family and large apartments. So, we can change the permitting. We can put what what we want in the town manager goals about how to make it perhaps easier um to build more of that uh
duplexes, triplexes, um forplexes, uh you know um townhouse developments, what they call around courtyards. But what we have seen is when is that housing is built and priced at the
highest point. I must say this many times every council meeting. I know you're tired of it, but just to say we're going to change our permitting or make it easier to build a certain type of housing, if it is priced at the highest price point the market will bear, that is to students who share the
rent. And you know, the protected use ADU, that seems like a great way to provide more housing for people who are not, you know, for for workforce housing and for year non- studentent households. But that is not what's happening. I
mean, every week and month in my district, there are ADUs being applied for and they are all a they are all accessory to primary dwellings that are rented to students and the ADUs will be rented to
students and not at a price that a non- studentent individual or household can afford. So the goals that we give the town manager may give us more multifamily housing, but it's not going to be priced for the constituency that
we really need to provide housing for. >> I want to remind the counselor that the motion that's on the floor is regard to article 19 and the motion is to table that article. Um, Anna, >> so first off on that last point, and I I
surely do not speak for councelor Hani or or councelor D'Angelus here, but when we refer to missing middle, I think everybody is talking about the same thing. Uh, I think that when when counselors Hani and D'Angelus proposed those changes, they did. It was because data shows that that type of housing is
more accessible to that missing middle. I think everybody's understands what the missing middle is. I think we're all using the same definition. Um, I also want to recognize the concerns that drove the petitioners to create this these documents and and I do appreciate their efforts to gather the over 10
signatures required by the state and everything, but I do not believe that the methods they are proposing are in support of our housing goals and needs. And frankly, part of me was almost inclined to vote to send this to CRC so that we hold a hearing and could reject it outright. Uh, I do not believe I
think that these bylaws are problematic. Uh, I think that they're going to do more harm than good in our community and I think that they have pieces that would open us up for a number of lawsuits. There's so much on our committee's plates starting off the year in the next term. I would rather see members of the
next council take and learn from these proposals the elements that they like and craft a better bylaw which addresses the needs that are represented here in more effective and net positive ways. because we have to look at the bylaw as written in the hearing because we can't
edit it and then take it to a hearing. I don't think that this is a good use of the committee's time. These documents are public. These documents have been discussed and I believe that uh if counselors would like to take this up as their issue as something they're interested in that they could take this
and and um take the ideas that are behind it and improve upon them and bring those forward. >> Thank you, Councelor Ete. Thank you. Um, a lot of the discussion has provided clarity on what I was trying to say. So, I'll speak briefly
about what I meant by expertise. I put a word before that which is legislative expertise. There is a council with counselors who are reacting to what the public wants. That's where the
legislative expertise comes in. And so when you have a petition, what the petition does and should do is it should signal to counselors that there is an issue that the public is concerned about
that it has done. The product of that petition as is also a shortcut which I think is the wrong way to go about it. The shortcut is we are left now if we send this to
CRC with a document that we only can look at based on what has been written. Petitioners who are concerned about this issue and clearly there is concern about housing can now speak to councilors
about what they would want and with the new council coming in there is a possibility of those changes coming in. So I support citizen petitions. I rather think of citizen petitions not as the
public speaking but as a signal that a segment of the public wants the council to get something done. The council should listen and get something done but should not be railroaded into passing what we have right now.
>> Pam, thank you. I I don't feel railroaded. Um I want to though speak to the process if so two years ago um a document was
referred to the CRC which was called the solar bylaw and in fact there have been many many many changes made to it in the ensuing time period. It didn't come in.
It's It doesn't It doesn't say to me I'm I'm not one that just loves rules. Uh and and to have someone say, "No, you can really only talk about this, this, this, and this. You can't change it. You can't
build on it." I think I'm a little unclear on >> why that was being said. >> Point of information. Yes, >> the solar bylaw was referred to CRC for development. It wasn't referred to CRC for public hearing.
>> No, this would this would have to be it's this is proposed as a bylaw. Therefore, it would have to be referred to CRC for hearing versus being developed. Okay. Councelor Hani, again, I I just want to point out the motion's on the floor.
This been made and seconded. Councelor Hannik, >> I just wanted to clarify the planning board has already held a hearing on this. So if it goes to CRC, it's for hearing in the process of getting to that. Whereas as as our clerk pointed out, the solar bylaw went has never even
been in the planning board. It went to CRC for development. No hearings have been held. That that's the big difference. >> Okay. Pat D'Angelus >> calling a question. >> Moving forward. Thank you. Um, are there any,
excuse me, the motion on the floor at this point is to table indefinitely the proposed article 19 point of order. I think our vote now is to call the question. >> So, I'll second the call to question motion then. >> Thank you. All right, the question's
been called. Councelor Lord >> I. >> Pam Rooney. >> No. Councelor Ryan >> I. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Tob.
>> This is the vote on calling the question. >> Yes. >> Councelor Walker. >> Yes. >> Patels. >> Hi. >> Uh Devlin Gothier. >> I. >> Councelor Rete. >> I. >> Lyn Grem. I councelor Hani. >> I.
>> Bob Hegner. >> Yes. >> The question's been called. That motion has passed. 12 in favor and one opposed. We'll move immediately to the question. And we'll begin the vote on the question, which is to table article 19.
Uh Pam Rooney, >> no. >> Um councelor Ryan, >> I >> Kathy Shane, >> yes. >> Andy Steinberg, >> yes. >> Jennifer Tob,
>> uh no. Councelor Walker, >> no. >> Pat D'Angelos, >> yes. >> Anna Delin Gothier, >> I. >> Councelor Rete, >> I. >> Lyn Gremis, I councelor Hani,
>> I. >> Bob Hegner, >> I. >> Councelor Lord, >> nay. The article 19 is in fact tabled and the vote was nine in favor of tableabling and four opposed. I'm going to take up
article 18 since we're on the topic. C um um councelor Hani, did you want to make a motion? Um, I move to table indefinitely the proposed article 18 temporary pause for one year on applications for building permits for construction of residential buildings
with four or more dwelling units pending completion of design standards, adoption of a housing production plan, and related actions. >> Is there a second? >> Yes. Motion's been made and seconded. Any questions or comments? Would you like to speak to your motion, Councelor Hani?
>> Um, I think what I said last time applies this time. >> Okay. Any other questions or comments? Council Anna Deong. >> Sorry, I have a procedural question. I'm I'm trying to read MGL as fast as I can here. So, we have to vote to table
because we cannot vote to reject outright because we have not held a hearing regardless of the fact that planning board has. Their hearing counts for nothing. >> Why are we having them hold a hearing anyway? >> Like, um, we actually referred to them for review and they chose to hold a
hearing instead of just review. Thank you. That answers my question. >> Okay. Thanks. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Then um Pam Rooney, we're going to begin. This
is a motion to table article 18. Pam, >> it's me. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm out of order. It's >> quite all right. >> Councelor Ryan. Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes,
>> Jennifer Tob. >> Yes, >> councelor Walker. >> Yes, >> Patangels. >> Hi. >> Anna Delon Gothier. >> I >> councelor Ee >> I.
>> Lane Gmerson. I councelor Hanaki. >> I >> Bob Hegner. >> Yes. >> Councelor Lord. >> I. >> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. We're going to take a 10-minute break and re reconvene at 8:30.
Please turn your mics off and your picture and turn them back on when you return. Thank you. We have two minutes before we reconvene. >> As you return, please turn your video back on. We have one minute before we're going to
reconvene. >> That is hard to probably. >> All right, we're going to uh pick up on the action items where we left off. We're going to action item F, transportation and parking commission
charge and also the amendments to the um policy of the control and regulation of public way and um the designation of the parking commission as special employees. Let me just mention there are several motions with this. Um but in addition to
that um the TSO has spent some time making amendments to the uh document that we saw in the first reading. So this motion is to adopt the transportation and parking commission charge as amended. >> Okay.
>> Um it's as presented by the TSO committee. Now there have been no amendments tonight yet. >> I was going on the fact that we had already seen it once but >> Okay. Okay. >> But it's I think >> as presented tonight >> as presented tonight. >> That's fine.
Okay. Um I'm going to just very quickly point out >> I'll second that motion if that was intended to be a motion. >> Thank you. Uh so um Andy um
do you have comments you want to make at this point? I think well I'm going to make it just a general comment about the process that we engaged in after the first reading
and uh then uh let questions come as they as they will but the uh committee uh worked u very hard on taking the prior version
and uh it was presented and we've discussed at first reading and to take in and the notes that we took from that discussion and to make uh what we thought were um the appropriate changes
to respond to the comments and questions that were raised. And that's all presented in the final version of the committee report. And there's a little bit of confusion about process
u because uh we were under the unfortunate circumstance that was only a week in between in a Thursday meeting uh and trying to adhere to the principle of uh getting count getting comments from
members of the committee before making a final uh report. um inadvertently you were provided with a copy of a first draft of what was not even the major one that we discussed at the meeting. In any
event, um I think that we have uh addressed um most of the questions that were raised. I think that uh I expect tonight there will be questions about some of the other any of the changes
that were made or changing that you think were not made. And uh but um we had a really uh solid discussion about it. And uh um what we present tonight in
two versions uh the track changes so that you could see from the original what changes were made in the final is uh I think what speaks for itself and uh just you know the committee looks
forward and I will engage members of the committee to help me with the responses. >> Okay. So, um, the motion's been made. The motion has been seconded. Councilor Hanaki. >> Um, yeah, two questions. Um, the first
one in the in the draft or in the clean draft that's presented, the number of voting members still has some lines out. So, I think that's just a clerical thing. I I think it was instead of an attract change, it was actually a score through because it reads seven nine nine seven.
So, if we can fix that, I've corrected it. It's packet. >> Correct. >> Excellent. Um and then um really my only question on this is then um
are is the intention to disband TAC if this passes and if so do we disband TAC immediately or do we wait until the manager uh appoints new TPC members before
disbanding TAC. And what's that motion look like? >> I'm going to turn to the town manager. So if if the council creates this news new committee then I would come forward with a depending on how TAC was formed
with a request to unform uh TAC basically >> dissolve dissolve >> dissolve. We have to investigate how it was formed. Okay. >> Um are there >> but is the intention to then dissolve TAC? Yes. >> Okay. Yes.
>> Absolutely. >> Um okay. So um did you have any other um motions at this point? >> Not on this motion. >> Okay. So this motion is to adopt the transportation and parking commission
charge as presented tonight. The motion's been made and seconded. I believe I'm at Kathy Shane. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you, Kathy. >> Yes. Andy.
Yes, >> Jennifer. >> Yes, >> councelor Walker. >> Yes, >> Patangels. >> I >> Anna Devlin Gotham. >> I >> councelor ete >> I >> Lyn Griemer. I councelor Hani. >> Hi.
>> Bob Haggner. >> I. >> Councelor Lord. >> I. >> Dam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> I. >> It's unanimous. Next motion is to designate transportation and parking commission members as special municipal
employees. Is there a second? >> Second, D'Angelus. >> Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? Then we start with Andy Steinberg. Okay. >> Yes. I'm sorry, Bob. Go ahead. >> Some of uh
>> some of the members are already town employees. >> Very good point. Um, is there a Yes, Councelor Hannick. >> So, I believe there's a memo that could be unearthed from five or six years ago
with enough time. Um, that says, you know, you have to designate a whole committee. You can't just designate portions of the committee, but if you're not allowed to be a special municipal employee and you're on the committee, you do not become a special municipal employee. So basically the only ones this would apply to are the three
residents, none of the counselors, none of the staff. >> Thanks for the clarification and the history. Okay, any other questions or comments? Andy Steinberg, we're moving to the vote. Andy Steinberg, >> yes. >> Jennifer Tob,
>> yes. >> Councelor Walker, >> yes. >> Patangelos, >> I. >> Anna Delan Gothier, >> I. >> Councelor, >> I grie. Councelor Hani. >> Hi. >> Bob Hegner. >> I. >> Councelor Lord. >> Hi. >> Pam Rooney.
>> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> It's unanimous. The next one is to resend the town council policy on control and regulation of the public way and replace it with the policy recommended by the town
services and outreach committee as presented tonight. >> U point of order. The motion now reads on the motion sheet to resend the town council policy on the control and regulation of the public way and replace it with the policy recommended by the town services and outreach committee on
December 4, 2025 and as shown on the document titled town council policy regarding the public public way as amended by TSO 12425 clean as presented. >> Uh so moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you.
Okay, hold on. Councilor Hanaki, you have your hand up. I move to amend the document um to delete from section three, oh
sorry, F 3 H I uh the phrase street lighting, F3 H I it's on the fourth page.
Okay. And is there a second? >> Second, Dean Gothier. >> Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? And would you like to speak to your motion? >> Yeah. So, street lighting, as we've seen, is not necessarily as straightforward as crosswalk placement
or bus stop additions and deletions. It more falls in line with mini roundabouts in a sense in that um some people love them in front of their house, some people hate them in front of their house. And so it's one where without
really clear policies and without a lot of public say, it's really hard to determine whether one is should be there or not. And and beyond that, street lighting deals with not just the placement of streets, but how high they are, the the temperature, the
strength, you name it. And so I I don't think the reference to street lighting here, it's sort of different from everything else in this section. Um, and a little more vague in what they would be dealing with than say crosswalk placement, which is fairly clear. Um and
the the fact that TSO moved many roundabouts from this to keeping within the council's full purview um couple numbers down um the major roadway now includes many roundabouts too. Um I I
think shows that street lighting is sort of an anomaly here and should be removed from this for now. That doesn't mean if the council can finally adopt something clear regarding placement of street lights or zoning that is clear as to how
to make a decision on where street lights go that it doesn't go back in here for TPC. But at this point given the status of policies, I think it's not appropriate to be within the TPC. >> Okay. Thank you, Pamon. Um I I actually
think it makes sense to have it here just because it's uh in in many cases street lighting is used as a safety measure at particular junctions or or it you know u at particular intersections.
So it I if I were to choose a group in town to deal with street lights, this this group seems like a really valuable place to start. So, I'm I'm a little worried if we take if we take the street
lighting out from their conversation, uh, it gets lost again and um, no clear policy gets developed. >> Councelor Ryan. >> So, I I I think I share Councelor
Rooney's concern. Um, if we take it out, it just it's in limbo. Um, and I guess you're assuming that what I'm not maybe I'll ask you to help clarify where you think then it would fall. Um, or maybe you don't want it to
fall anywhere. Um, I would think that most if not all concerns that residents have related to street lighting are in fact related to safety and um, they often are frustrated. I know on my street in particular, light has been out
for many years now. Um, I have to actually stop at night at the bottom of my driveway and just wait for about 10 or 15 seconds because I cannot see anyone in the dark. Um, so I can imagine reaching out to town hall, reaching out
to DPW and my experience of other people's experience has been nothing happens. That light has never been changed and maybe never will. But if this is goes before TPC, at least I would then know as a resident to whom I could go. If there'd be a record of it,
there'd be discussion. We would hope and a resolution, yay or nay. But if we take this out, what happens to it? So, I guess I'd ask the sponsor to help me understand what she thinks would happen um if this were taken out and whether she agrees with me
that I think the vast majority of requests would be safety related, the kind of thing I just described. Um >> going to take a few more yes, please. >> So, I would disagree that the vast majority are safety related. Um, my
family in particular and many people on my street have requested street lights be turned off because they harm people's sleep at night, the artificial light at night issue. And that is not necessarily the safety issue you're talking about. That is a interference with sleeping
issue. Um, and that's that's the big rub between quote people who want street lights and people who don't in any one particular area, whether it is disturbing their habitability of their home or whether someone believes it is a
safety issue and and there's differences of opinions there. Um, one thing I would be willing to do to be clear, I think it would stay with the council. Um although in seven years the council has never dealt with a request to turn on or off a street light. Those com complaints go to
DPW right now. But I would be happy to if if my second is it move street lights into the after intersection control strat light traffic lights in section F3 H2.
Um just the one below. put intersection control, traffic lights, comma, street lights, comma, and other public way requests relating to roads if if that would be more clear. And then TPC is holding a public me so so it is clear
where it goes, but it comes to the council for final vote on some of that. Um >> um >> are you making that motion, counselor? >> She was asking her second whether she would go with that. Let's make sure we
know where it's going to go. Can you show us? >> I'm looking for the section. It's section two here after intersection control. >> Right after the inter intersection control is where I would propose it if my seconder goes for that. >> I agree with that.
>> And remove it from above. >> Yeah. >> Okay. The motion has been a friendly amendment's been made >> by the two people who made the motions. Okay. Are there other questions or comments, Anna?
>> So, first, George, to your concern about the street lights um and requests to have them fixed, I don't read this policy as that would go to the TPC under the the way it was written because this is talking about permanent changes. Um this wouldn't be repairing an existing
street light. That would just be something they would still have to go to DPW for. And frankly, I'm I'm glad that you have to stop at the bottom of your driveway for a couple seconds to make sure no one is there. I think that's okay. Uh so, Street Lights is not in limbo. Uh
it's currently, I believe, sitting in one of our council committees with the with the manager. This is not something that's kind of just vaguely out there. This is something that the council has been uh has on its radar. Street lighting is used as a safety measure, but it also has so many implications that are unrelated to the charge of the
TBC. And I believe it needs to primarily remain with the council because it is critical for bodies such as the conservation commission and the board of health to weigh in on permanent changes with street lighting. Um, I would see this as one of those issues and I think that this I wrote my note before we made
that change. I see this as one where the the council is holding the conversation and consults with the TPC along with other relevant bodies. But again, just to reiterate, this is discussing permanent street lighting changes, not turning on an existing light or repairing it.
>> Thank you. Um Andy, >> yes. Um and I guess I'm mostly speaking from the committee point of view, but I'm also speaking as an individual counselor. And part of what I'm going to say um the uh
uh couple of counselors and they happen to be counselors Hanicki and Devon Gower brought a proposal in the last term of the council for uh the development of a street light policy and I'm the only
person who's actually have who's been on TSO in both of those uh council terms. And uh what happened in the last council term was that it was an extraordinarily complex proposal for the committee to
deal with and in the because it involves a lot of both technical issues which um I think that uh at the last meeting there was some reference made to it and uh there was uh questions of cost and
other issues. And uh we left it at the end of that council term that the uh superintendent of public works and town manager would come back with a uh um a policy and it
was put in the carryover memo to that effect. Um, and it just was one of those things that uh with so many things happening in town uh generally and with public works um it didn't um get to that
stage. um we are going to put it into the carryover memo so that um there's a reminder to the next TSO about the need to consider whether there should be a policy because it has never been ended
really um in any formal sense. Um it's also a possibility that um uh any counselor could bring a new proposal um for either a policy or a bylaw. Some
communities that have dealt with this issue have done it in the way of bylaws or ordinances. And uh which then gets me to the point of um changes that you to the version that you're looking at. If you look at
the very beginning of the policy under C there's an addition of four which is >> Andy your your microphone please. >> I'm sorry I my finger slipped. um uh in
the policy um C4 is new. The TPC shall consider any relevant zoning or general bylaw or council policy on all matters which it must make a recommend uh finding or recommendation.
And uh the um thought with that is that if um through any of the processes that I just described that there is a policy developed about lighting um that um there is that reminder to the
TPC and the requirement of the TPC that um any actions that they take must be consistent with the bylaw policy. that is adopted. But that's just a common sense thing and it was not written specifically because there's
also we've been talking about um further enhancements to complete streets and uh we want complete streets to be considered also. So um it it was uh um the thought of the committee um to
include that provision and uh to make it general Okay. Uh, George Ryan, Councelor Ryan, >> just a quick question actually for my colleague. Um, this proposed lighting policy would
potentially include something that would address what I think is a common concern that many residents have that questions about lighting just go into, shall we say, a black hole and never reemerge. So is that the also part of the intent of
this policy or is it strictly related to um health and such matters >> or do we know? >> Are you talking about this policy? >> Well, we we've been told that someday there's going to be some kind of lighting policy that will be developed
um and it involves town staff. And my question is whether that policy and maybe there is no answer because there is no policy. um whether that policy would also consider the issue of what residents do when they have a question about lighting on their street other
than the answer which is currently you reach out to DPW and what that means is you never hear back >> and George I want to just say I totally agree with your point but that's not this is not the discussion at hand >> it just affects my vote that's all
>> okay Bob Hagner >> yeah I just think of of Athena, if you can scroll down just a little bit. What we're if we make this change, we're basically committing the TPC to have a
hearing on every request and for them to come back to the council to make a decision at every request. So, so the council has to make we're we're moving the >> the decision-m out of TPC and moving it to the council, but we're putting
>> uh a burden on the council to have to act on each one of these thing. I mean, we can do it either way. I'm just saying that's >> Bob my question it point was ma well made that this addresses only permanent changes and so the point was made that
in my particular case and others like mine which are many um you still would go to DPW it this it wouldn't go to TPC you were suggesting clearly that given the way the policy is written the issue that I'm raising I would not go to TPC
with it because it's not a permanent change you would tell me and I would tell my constituents, you have to call DPW and say, I live on X Street and this light has been out for teen years. Would you please repair it? >> Yes. And paving is another thing that we
>> So that's not included as part of the TPC. >> So my question was whether this policy someday might address that as well and create some kind of but okay. All right. >> Okay. I and George, I totally share your frustration and my constituents would be
absolutely appalled if I didn't bring up unlit street lights that have been in many cases, including the poll gone for over three years. Uh Bob Hegner. >> Okay. Councelor Hani,
>> I just want to address George's comment. Um the policy draft policy that was referred to Paul for the manager two plus years ago um for development included it would need modified if we create a
TPC but included requests to inst a section that was titled request to install, remove or modify street lights. Those are sort of the permanent changes to the public way street lights. um and gave a where it goes and how it it sort of set
forth a how it would be take place. So the policy did the draft policy did um try to deal with it for before we got this TPC, right? And so um if that policy comes back presumably it would be in conformance with something. The
policy also included better standards for where permanent changes were. the policy, draft policy had things like what the request needed to include um and what the council would do when it receives the request. Um so those things were considered in that. So if we do
finally get a proposed streetlight policy, that would be in there. And maybe we could change this back to potentially TPC. But at this point there isn't enough standard determinations for
permanent public to the standard um guidance for permanent changes to the public way that I believe there isn't enough for it to go to TPC instead of stay at the council. >> A motion to amend the original motion is on the table and
it's up on the screen. Uh, council uh, Anna, >> I just wanted to point out that permanent changes to street lights as it exists right now uh, would be a permanent change to the public way and would come to the council and in in my entire time on the council, we have had plenty of poll hearings, but I have had
we have had no hearings about street lights. So, I don't think this is a major uh, a major issue that we're adding burden to the council time. Are there any other questions or comments? Okay. The first vote is on the
amendment as you see it on the screen. Okay. And in this case, I guess we're at Jennifer. Uh, yes. Councelor Walker. >> We're voting to take out street lights.
>> We're voting to move it from above to down below as it's on the screen. So it would be moving from HI to H 2I. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Pat D'Angelus. >> I >> Anna Delin Gothier. >> Hi. >> Councelor Ete. >> Hi. >> Lynn Griezmer. I councelor Hannah. >> Hi. >> Bob Hegner. >> I. >> Councelor Lord. >> Hi. >> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Um
Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> Yes. And the motion to amend passes. We're going to go to the original motion. Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, uh we're going to begin
with councelor Walker. This is the motion to resend the town council policy on control and regulations in the public way and replace it with the policy recommended by the town services and outreach committee. And then it's
various dates where it said and now it says as amended. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Pat D'Angelo. >> Hi. >> Anna Develin Gothier. >> I >> councelor >> I >> Lynn Griezmer is an I. Councelor Hanniki. >> Hi. >> Bob Haggner. >> Hi.
>> Councelor Lord. >> Hi. >> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> I. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. Well, I want to say congratulations to TSO. You did it.
Thank you. >> Yeah, it did. All right. Uh the next motion is to adopt the 20 the FY2027 financial guidelines as presented. >> Point of clarif budget guidelines is what their title is. Uh
>> thank you. Well, the motion sheet was amended very late because of that. So, the 20 budget guidelines, right? >> Yes. It should say FY27 budget guidelines. >> Thank you. Yep. >> I'll second the motion.
>> Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? Honor Delin Goth here. So, one of the questions that I had was when we're looking and I'm sorry, this packet is so massive that I'm trying to pull up the dang correct thing right now. But, um, one of the questions that I had was
around the specifically the middle school roof. And I know that finance discussed this, but I'd love to hear a little bit more about um, why not contribute more from Ammerst towards putting the auditorium roof in with that same bid and getting that that completed
at the same time. It feels like something that, you know, the town is able to utilize for uh for a number of our events and and and the like and town goings on. I'm not phrasing this right. I swear the time gets earlier and earlier where my words start fading, but
um I'm curious why we don't utilize some of the free cash that we have to complete the auditorium roof with the rest of that roof improvement. It feels like something that Ammerst could work with the schools to then say, you know, we can utilize the auditorium as we
continue to do this time without having to pay. Um, I'm just I'd like to know if finance reached out to the schools to get more information on this and what the results of that conversation were. >> Kathy, um, we the discussion we had um, and when I came when we started talking
about this is all in the context of certified free cash. Okay. a recommendation on what to do. So right now that recommendation um is get to the target that we have on roads using all the available and otherwise put it in the capital reserve
fund. The middle school roof I had suggested initially that it also be considered for an allocation but if we don't have a proposal from the regional school committee it would be Emir saying
here is a gift basically a gift to do the middle school roof now I actually would be in favor of doing that it's that you know we will be about 80% 78% of it one way or the other um and the
Other towns have stretched to even do the main part of the roof. Um they've told us they've dipped into free cash, so they may not want to come and do the auditorium roof. But meanwhile, um if anyone has seen I can share the report
later. There is a report that was done a couple years ago on how badly it's leaking. And this is the roof where tile fell on a student's head. Um and you can visual see it. the idea that you would set up to do the whole roof, the crew would come, climb up with all the
scaffolding and not do this piece of it. So they So honest question is why not? I think you're asking why not put it in in line for if they're certified free cash, consider um basically gifting it that if we we'd still have to get a request from
the school. I mean, we we would have to have them say, "Here's the price tag." and they would have to put it in the bidding document then as in addition to the rest of the roof. So I think that's what your question is and is that correct? >> Yeah, I'm I'm curious why not put it in
as a gift and I'm curious if anyone reached out to the schools to ask if they would consider submitting that request. >> Councelor Hani, go ahead. Yeah. So, one of the things I think that was reported to the finance committee because this was part of the discussion as Kathy said
um was that it is unsure at the region level whether they can actually combine the bids under MSBA guidelines. So it's at this point they don't even know whether they could do both at the same time even as a ad
you know option ad or whatever it would be as part of the MSBA project say oh but we want to do this at the same time so there was a lot of uncertainty around whether it would be any potential possible um and so that that was one of
the things to say well we don't even know whether it would be possible if it was it would be part of the bidding We don't know what the cost is. We don't know what it would be saving. We don't know. There's just too much uncertainty. And if it's booked into capital um in the capital stabilization fund anyway,
you can still pull that out for the middle school roof if we were to get a request, but but it was eventually determined that it would be better to wait for a request and have the money potentially in the capital stabilization fund. So that's why the recommendation
ended up being this way instead of specifically mentioned. I think there's a mention of the roof in here, but not like save it first because it we're looking at January bids might not be out yet. There might not it it was just too much unknown,
>> you know. So, Mandy, the other discussion was whether we're talking about adhering to the regional assessment method, right, which would have us paying 78% or 80% of it and the other towns a share versus us paying all
of it. And so I think um that's I guess that's a decision that I think I would like to have it be open to considering doing that if we can get over this hurdle of are they even going to propose it to us on a you know that was the I
had originally thought from the first discussions with Shannon they got an estimate of about 1.2 2 million which was uh uh based on square footage and so I had thought it was a go and even if we have to bid it separately to to combine
it in a big project MSBA doesn't care they're not going to spend any money on this but you know if we want to get the work done so maybe we can it doesn't have to be in the guidelines now but once we get certified free cash if the
middle school Shannon people know that Emer might consider and I'm just remembering back to track and field where we literally gave a million dollar gift toward track and field because we had certified free cash and we wanted to get the project done. So that was the
that would be the precedent here. So I I think maybe what we're hearing is we um we're we would pull it out of the it's written now is we would pull it out of the capital fund to fund it. So if the council, and not everyone here will be
there, if people would be willing to talk about as a gift, it potentially isn't an 80% share. It's a 100%. So it that could be conveyed to the school that at least that's a potential. Anna, any further question?
>> Oh, other folks, you had a hand up. Is it is it about this? >> Did you have any further questions? Well, I'm behind you, so I wanted to let you >> Oh, no, that's fine. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I think my concern is that we're trying to
push our capital to 10% and you know, if our allocation or the entire thing coming from capital, that's that's significant when we know that we have a lot of other capital requests coming down the line. Um, I would rather utilize free cash and kind of name it
upfront and utilize free cash as a gift. I think that if we do it as a gift, we're able to, my understanding is not mess with the regional agreement as much. And um like Kathy said, we know that the other towns are uh not a what
they have communicated to us is that they are not able to utilize their free cash in the same way that we are for this type of project. Um I'm curious if there's a way to get consensus on moving that 1.2 specifically from free
cash to capital. I I'm not I'm I'm trying to figure out how to frame this and I'm not totally positive, but what I I want to make sure doesn't happen is that we end up pulling that 1.2 from our 10% that's going towards capital. I'd rather increase capital and include that
1.2 million in the percentage versus having to pull it from the 10% total, if that makes sense. >> Okay. >> At this point, however, you're not moving to amend. Well, I don't I'm I'm open to discussion from the council because I I'm trying to
I'm struggling with the language here. I think that the language that says uh hang on, I got to search back through roof roof roof. Um the language in here says uh fund the be prepared to allocate funds. I think
that I would I wish I I I wish that language were a bit stronger. And so I'm trying to think about um if it could say be prepared to allocate funds if the regional school committee seeks to fund repairs to the uh sorry backing up it
specifies capital improvement plan or capital stabilization fund. We could add the words or free cash to that. Um and that would maintain that option I think. So the motion would be to amend
the sentence. Um this is on second page >> bottom >> right there. Stop right there. And it would be to amend it to say capital improvement in the last bullet before budgeting surplus >> included in certified free cash.
>> Yep. And it would just >> So after capital improvement plan would be a comma and then >> sorry which bullet >> right there? The one you have your arrow on >> starts it starts with be prepared, >> right? Comma
>> just before the budget surplus is the large bullet, >> right? Put a comma there. Then take away or >> and then No, no, no. And then go >> the ore would stay after the comma. You just put free cash.
>> Oh, or free cash. Okay. Uh, so leave the ore in and then comma. Actually, I was going to put it at the end, but that's okay. There you go. >> Um, point of clarification. >> Yes,
>> it needs to be added for consistency purposes on page seven, too. >> Thank you. Thank >> on the second to LA, write the paragraph above budget surpluses on page seven. Yep.
>> Funds as necessary through either capital improvement plan, free cash, comma, or cap capital stability. >> Okay. Okay. So, the amendment's been made. And is there a second?
>> I I'm wondering if it can potentially be a friendly amendment. >> I'm so friendly. >> It's so friendly. I'm so >> I would I would take it as a friendly picking this as a friendly amendment. >> Lynn and I second Lynn and I had to do it and so I'm proposing to do it
friendly as the seconder. >> It's a second it's a friendly amendment. Thank you. Uh on it. Is there any other question or comment? >> Uh no. I believe that covers what I was >> councelor Hani. >> I just want to say I'm not going to oppose this obviously. I just said it was friendly, but I think one of the
reasons we didn't list that was because we expected all the financial orders to have already taken free cash to 5%. Um, by the time we would have any of this. So, um, but it I'm not opposing it because it still gives the option and we clearly sometimes do take free cash
below 5% with various things. So, um, I think it would depend on the amount that came through and all. So, you know, um, but I think that's the reason we didn't include free cash was because all the free cash transfers would already >> and I would just say if they could act
fast, we don't have the certified free cash in front of us, but we will have by the end of January. So, there is there's there's a window between now and 30 30 days from now or, you know, 40 days from now. Yeah. >> Jennifer Tob.
>> Yeah. I was just going to ask you probably do it when we vote, but those of us remotely and the residents tuning in can't see the changes. >> Thank you. Um, okay. My question is about the following line and it's on
page two and then it appears later. Uh, and that is under >> a point of order. Is this related to the motion that's on the floor? It's related >> that was determined to be just a friendly amendment. Yeah. Thank you. So, under expense projections
um on on the second page where it says increase town budget expense lines to reflect current actual spending. I just want to make sure because in BCG there's been a discussion about having level
funded level budgets for library and the and the town as well as what we expect to see from the school. And in this case that only this only addresses the expense side not the personnel side.
Is that correct? >> Yes. And and I think Lynn asked this question uh everyone I think if we said non-personnel expense it would be make it clear this is an issue that's come up with the town
budget for uh DPW fire and police that the expense operating expense not personnel line was frozen over a number of years and actual always was coming in higher because electricity costs went up
utility costs went up you So we want it to get to more actual but if we put the word non-personnel it might make it clearer. >> So in after the word budget you would insert non-personnel. >> Yeah. >> Please tell me the page and paragraph. It's the second page.
>> Scroll up to the top and then now come down. Okay. It said you see where it says increase town budget expense lines. If we made it non-personnel expense lines, I think that addresses your concern.
>> What? >> Also, >> and then and then and then the same thing would be later. And where can you tell us where >> right in there someplace toward the Okay. Uh, stop stop.
So go the object. It's on page six, the second paragraph. >> So I think >> yes, that's the correct point. >> Will you accept that as a friendly amendment? And I think that addresses your
question, right? We were Yes. >> Well, it addresses my question. There's a whole another issue about how to come up with these estimates and how to make them actually real, but that's not part of the financial guidelines. Okay. Are there any other questions, comments,
amendments, suggested amendments, friendly amendments? >> Kathy's hand is up. >> I'm sorry. >> Kathy's hand is up. >> Oh, I didn't see it. Kathy. No, it's not. >> So, the norm personnel, I didn't put it back down. Sorry.
>> So, the motion's been made and seconded. There's been two friendly amendments. Those were we don't need to vote on. Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I'm going to start with Pat D'Angelus. We're voting to adopt the
financial guidelines. And I want to just be very clear, the new council can always bring these back up to discuss. And there is a provision here that in fact it would be looked at again in February or before round on or around February 15th. Pat D'Angelus
>> I >> Anna Develin Gothier >> I >> council >> I >> Lyn Grie I councelor Hannik. >> Hi >> Bob Hegner. >> Hi >> Councelor Lord. >> Hi >> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> Hi >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg.
>> Hi. >> Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. >> Councelor Walker. >> Yes. It's unanimous. On the next item, it's to >> one s I have one suggestion. Since we just made two small changes, the date
should probably be today's date, December instead of December 2nd, it should be def December 8th. So, we just have a record. It >> should be anyway because that's when we >> should be I mean, we're sending this out. So, it's >> if there are no objections, I'll just make that change.
>> Right. Um Okay. The next motion is to adopt the 2025 town manager performance evaluation as presented in the evaluation memo. >> Uh, no, that's not right. Dated >> December 8th.
>> December 8th. Thank you. And is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, I want to speak I'd like to speak to the motion and then perhaps other people have questions. Uh, I want
to thank both councelor Ryan and councelor Hanniki for uh, their extensive suggestions and the ability for us to I hope come to a final document, but we'll see. Are there any
other questions or comments? Councelor Hanick, >> I just want to thank Lynn for being patient with me through all of this and and dealing with it all. I appreciate it. >> Thanks. Um, Councelor Ryan, >> so I know we've got a still a lot to do
tonight, but I wrote down a number of things as I thought through this and um I'm assuming we all agree that the goal of this document is to assist the town manager in his performance to and this is true of any town manager, past, present, or future. Um, this goal is to
help him or her do their job better. Um, I think we all agree on that. I would point out that there are 57 separate items on which the town manager is given a numerical score and there are written comments in identifying three areas of
strength and three areas of weakness um or three areas of need of improvement is really the better way to put it and it is the way it is put and I think I hope we can agree that this is still excessive. Um, I think we're making progress. Um, I think uh I think a lot of this is due in part to what Anna's
been doing. We're making progress with this. Um, but we still, I think, have a long way to go to bring this under control. Maybe some of you believe that 57 separate items with a numerical score and six separate set of comments is perfectly normal. Um, it was pointed out to me the other day that this the
superintendent of schools has written in her contract there can only be eight performance goals. Um, so I know, so we need to work on this. Um, I think we should also, um, acknowledge that some of these items are multi-year and yet
the way we currently do this, it doesn't really recognize that. So you can mark someone down even though that the the actual item is a multi-year item. Um, perhaps we should consider um, goals that are two years that they basically we the understanding is this two-year
process. Maybe not. But anyway, there's a problem with that as well. Um, clearly some of these items, the action items in particular are open to consular interpretation as to what constitutes meeting expectation or what does not. Um, I hesitate to bring this up, but I
can't help but bring it up, I'm afraid. The classic example is the Jones Library where the action item was explicitly to sign a contract and break ground, which I think we all could agree was in fact accomplished. Nonetheless, the top manager was given two threes than a two on that item. So, uh there are other
ways that one can express one's concerns about something without you. So, there's that kind of thing that happens. Um I think we also owe the president a debt of gratitude. I think we should agree that in the future um this cannot fall on the shoulders of one person. Um and
the writing of it at least should be shared. I don't know how we can manage that. Perhaps we just do it ad hoc. Um, but this is not a task that should fall to one human being. Um, those are my thoughts. >> Thank you, George. Any other questions
or comments? Then we're going to move to a vote. And in this case, we begin with Anna Delin Gothier. >> I, Councelor Ete, >> I Lyn Gremer. I councelor Hani. >> Hi. >> Bob Haggner. >> Hi. >> Councelor Lord. I
>> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> I >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> I >> Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. >> Councelor Walker. >> Yes. >> Pat D'Angelus. >> Hi. >> It's unanimous.
Thank you. To adopt. The next one is to adopt. >> Excuse me. Paul's hand is up. >> I'm sorry. Paul. >> Yeah. So, I just want to thank the council. The effort you put into this, the detail you went into. There are a lot of goals, but you you you each and every one of you put the effort in to review them all. And so I appreciate the
feedback. It's a lot. Um and I will strive to do better. >> Better. >> Thank you, Paul. >> Thank you, Paul. Um so the next one is the 2026 town manager goals. Uh, I I I
know Anna would thank you for all the ratings that you did and for actually sticking to the guidelines and it may not have been perfect, but it sure helped. Uh, so the motion is to adopt the 2026 town manager goals as presented. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> All right. Anna, did you want to speak to this? >> Oh, yeah. >> I bet you do. Oh. Um, pardon. Keep it simple. I'm going to do my my darnest to keep it simple. So, first off, as you
all know, and I outlined in the memo the process here. Uh, everybody submitted action items that they wanted to see. We are following the similar process of having goal areas and action items as last year. And George, you set me up really well and I appreciate that. So, uh, go first went through and
consolidated them in fi trying to find repeats. The council pointed out a couple we'd missed. Thank you. and then we sent it out to the council um to essentially divvy up points amongst each within each area amongst the action items. I do want to assure you that that
system will look different next year. We're learning as we go, but I appreciate you bearing with the system uh this year so that we could learn from it. Um the the action items that go discussed are in the memo that was in your packet. We ended up with 30 action
items. So, we're we're slowly but surely reducing. But, I wanted to speak to a couple of them because after had voted on this memo, I had a chance to talk with Paul um and get his thoughts and I don't want to speak for him, but I was going to include his thoughts as we run through this um because while this these are all on the table, I know that we
will entertain amendments to remove uh as or whatever folks are proposing um as they see fit. So, starting off with administration and leadership, and I'm jumping around a little bit here, but uh I just wanted to speak to the expanded
modes of communication to residents in uh and I'll list the action items here, including the possibility of email-based newsletters with the options for individuals to sign up for alerts of a specific topic. And um go discussed this essentially as really an a
validation of the work that our new comm's director has been doing. This is something that we felt able to add for the first time because we feel like we have someone in that area um that uh even though these are Paul's goals, they often fall to the staff, right? Um and
we feel that our our comm's director has the skills to do this. Um and we haven't been able to do that before. Um working with the council and TSO committees to develop ways to streamline and improve the recruiting, vetting, selection, and onboarding of community volunteers who serve on the town's boards and committees. This process
should include exploring ways the town might shrink the number of boards and committees. Uh one thing that the town manager mentioned on this is that the this will take consultation with the resident advisory committee. Uh and they will be tapped in for that discussion as well. And then lastly in this area
continue implementing anti-racism, anti-discrimination and anti-opression training for current and future employees including town counselors. And just noting that go added town counselors into that um as part of the discussion. I did want to speak to one other one uh because points-wise it was
up near the top, but one of the action items in this area was increase enterprise fund salary pay scales so that wastewater and water plant DPW employee salaries are competitive. Um and what GO talked about is that this is a union issue. So, uh some staff are in
the enterprise fund salary pay scale and some are not, but they're all within the same union. So we aren't able to do that um because you can't shift those different scales within that same union um as it exists. Moving on to climate action and I am
going to run through these uh and then we'll come back. So complete create and submit a complete streets tier 2 prioritization plan to mass department of transportation. Um ultimately what Paul and I discussed was uh or no sorry
I didn't note which notes were from Paul and which were from go. I apologize. We will ultimately need to have a a council conversation about kind of what is feasible. I know this has been pitched before. Um but we I think as a council need to understand a little bit more about these processes. It is up here. It
was very highly rated uh and I I'm go still thought the council should move forward with it, but um there's more conversation needed. Update the Amoris bicycle and pedestrian network plan with a goal of council adoption in 2026.
and um uh possibly 2027. One of the issu one of the questions Joel had was whether this was doable within that year versus creating a timeline for updating. And in our in my conversation with Paul, he pointed out that this would likely this would require an appropriation, which is
likely not in the budget. So, we might consider amending this item to uh request the money with updates and implementation happening the year after. submit and create and submit a tier three construction application to MASDOT. Um
what Paul and I were discussing here was we don't have a specific project in mind for this and so it's a bit of a vague action item uh if we don't know what the application would be for kind of again the question is to what end are we doing this? Um, next was complete all work required
to bring proposed amendments to general bylaw 3.33 refuge collection of recyclable and compostable materials to the council for a vote to approve or not approve. No notes on that one. And um develop and enact the solar and best
battery energy storage systems uh bylaws on or before December 2026. Ultimately, once this is passed by the council, it will be implemented, but the work will still be need to be done as applications come in. It's just not a proactive action. It is dependent on like enacting
this is dependent on someone applying for a permit. Um, there may be some smaller things like creating a separate application, but it kind of depends on how that bylaw shakes out. Moving to community health, community, >> uh, point of order.
>> Yeah. Um, just a thought and maybe it's not a very good one. I'm wondering if we could just work through goal area by goal area once you finish with one. We could have a discussion and then maybe I don't know about a vote, but at least a discussion. I feel that this is all very
helpful and we do definitely want to hear from you and from Paul, but by the time we get through all this, I'll forgotten just about everything you've said for the other five. >> I appreciate that. >> Let's go back and see if there's any points or comments on administration and leadership. I I do just want to point out that the motion to adopt is on a
table on the table. So changes would if you want changes, they'd have to be in motion to amend form. >> Right. >> So why don't we start with administration and leadership just to you can see in the memo. >> Just a quick did we fix the spelling of employees in the third action item?
>> Yes, I'm sending it back to Athena. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions or comments on administration and leadership? I guess just on the third item, what qualifies? I mean, basically any
action that Paul takes to implement um the item is sufficient to meet the goal. I mean, it's again, it's one of those things where I I don't know, you know, what's considered sufficient. Um
is it a three? Is it a two? Is it a one? Um, so if we could be more concrete or specific or could we view this as something that is simply a given, a policy that it's simply expected that part of what we do as a town is we have
these um these right. So I guess the question for the item three is what how do we measure how does this get measured? Mhm. You're right that this is I don't want to say an easier checkbox because this is a significant lift no
matter what, but it would not be fair for a counselor to look at this and see what Paul did if Paul did do things to this towards this action item and say, "Well, I wanted him to do more." Uh, if we don't specify that in the goal, I don't think that that would be a fair
evaluation of this statement. So, we are leaving that door open a little bit for for um Paul to determine what that looks like. and kind of the the intensity or how it's applied. Um, and I think, you know, Joel didn't necessarily get into a
ton of discussion here because there's a really thin line on this one between bar overstepping our bounds and micromanaging um, and kind of creating the this is the direction we want you to go. you determine because you know your staff
and um the executive end of this more than we do. You determine how it's applied. But to your point, you're right. It is absolutely one of those things where he could do anything and it's technically meeting the goal. Uh I I think Paul would strive I don't again
I'm not speaking for him. I do think he would strive to get above the the baseline here, but um yes, it is not extremely specific in what we expect him to do. Any other questions or comments? Uh Kathy, please.
>> Um the the very first one, Anna, the uh tailored emails and communication that strikes me is whether or not it's doable is my first question. Second, it seems staff intensive um and someone has
to write them. And I if this was simply a um send Paul's report to the council out to anyone who signs up and wants to get to the report, that would be fine with me because he writes that and it's a uh and I know district 5 actually used
to distribute it directly to anyone who wanted it because it's such a comprehensive report. So I'm worried about the way this is written, email-based newsletter with the options to sign up. Right now, you can sign up for an alert on anything you want to.
So, this reads like I would want to know just about a street in my area or a street something very specific to my district as opposed to I've signed up for anything um that they're going out to bid for or anything on this. So, I'm
hoping that's what's meant, but I'm just worried about the possibility of email-based newsletters because newsletters take time to write. So, if the thought is just a way to push that report out rather than posting it on our
website, that's fine with me. So, um, email-based communication. I'm just worried about the word newsletter. >> I hear you. I I think a newsletter can be all sorts of beasts, right? Um, this this action item actually arose out of a district 5 uh meeting. And one of the
things that came up in that meeting was folks are often seeing things that are shared on social media um and then hearing or hearing about it secondhand because they are themselves are not on social media and we've been our communications director has been doing a really great job posting things on the
town's social media pages, but for folks who are not in that avenue um they were simply seeking those messages to be sent in a different way. You can sign up for alerts right now, but like you said, they are for formal processes like hearings or bid petitions or things like that. They're not about Hang on, hang
on. They're not about um warming shelters or um a fun event that's happening in your in in your district. I This specifically says including the possibility newsletters can mean any sort of thing. In when we first drafted this, it could be the president. Hang
on. It could be the president's report. Absolutely. Um, but we tried to leave the latitude up to the person who ends up doing this to decide what would be best. That's a possibility. >> I'd like to give Paul an opportunity to speak. >> So, so we have already talked about this one in terms with the communications
manager some ways. I mean, the the town the town manager report is pretty dense and just picking out some of the highlights that would make it more consumable for people who only have a minute to read something. So, the commun communications manage we have that we've had that conversation. um the the the
more granular way of sharing information is more challenging and there are like 37 or something um ways you can sign up for notify me and I think sometimes people don't understand that. Um and in terms of the uh third goal there on uh implementing anti-racism,
anti-discrimination, anti-opression training, you know, I would refer back to the um strategic plan that the uh DEI department has developed which includes a lot of these initiatives that we would build off of. >> Okay, Kathy, did you have any further comment?
>> Well, I'm convinced that this can be done with minimal staff effort is what my question was. So, if you think you've got a way to do it, that's great. >> Thanks, Pam. You have your hand up. >> Yeah, I was going to add that that um
periodic newsletters I feel are probably something the counselors should be doing so they can inform their districts. Um I I don't feel that we have to rely on a specific newsletter. I think the the word newsletter caught my attention as
well. Um, we do the newsletters with all the material that the town staff provides us. >> Councelor Hanicki. >> Yes. But wouldn't it be great if anyone in district 5 could sign up for the townwide district 5 newsletter and so
that as counselors change over in terms, they don't have to recreate their own email lists so that you can just be on that. Um, the charter commission when I was on it had its own email list for
charter commission stuff. Um, it would be great if we had a district 1, district 2, district 3, district 4, district 5, or all town council where the district 1 goes to district 1 plus anyone who wanted everything. Um, that's run through the town website so that it
continues across terms. >> Okay. Um, any qu other questions on administration and leadership? >> Can I just say >> I'm sorry. >> I'm trying to raise my hand. >> Oh, Paul, please.
>> So, just so you the council knows, we don't organize our work by district. I know you organize your political organization by district, but our work doesn't really align with districts. And I don't think I don't most people in in the town don't think of themselves in districts. They think of themselves.
It's a small town. And so if people want to subscribe to certain things, we we think more about topical things. Do you know want to know about road constructions? Because you know, West Bay Road getting paved isn't just district five. It's also it's a lot of districts. So I know that that's your interest as districts, but that's not
really our interest as as district newsletters. I get what you're saying. We also are very careful about not utilizing towns resources for political purposes, which is sometimes utilized. That's something that counselors can do independently. Some counselors do a great job of it and so that's that's
totally up to you with your list serves. We you know we don't everything is always opt in and opt out for the town. So if anybody doesn't want to participate they opt out automatically. >> Good. Can we move on to climate action and Anna um just highlights I think if
anything >> I I already ran through it. So, um, you know, I think that the the biggest questions here were about complete streets, uh, and level three specifically, uh, referring to a specific project and us not having one in line in mind. And then second big
concern here was the bicycle and pedestrian network plan, um, and the timing of that and its possible need for a uh, appropriation. Councilor Ryan. >> So, I'm prepared to make a motion if
it's appropriate at this time. >> Sure. >> Uh the motion would be to delete the goal create and submit a complete streets tier 3 construction application to Mass DOT. >> Um second. >> I'll second. >> So, my reasoning is that it's been
stated by by councelor Banna that um this needs a specific action item and we don't have one. And my understanding and may be mistaken is that a tier three application also requires having reached tier two. Is that correct or does anyone
know >> the answer? You're getting a lot of yeses. >> So until tier two is done, tier three is is moot. So I would think that I would like to actually have this as an item and I'd like to have a specific I have one in mind actually, but um it seems at
this point it's just premature. Okay, the motion's been made and seconded. Um I should we I think we should probably do these individually. >> Yes, please. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh is there any more comment or
question on this particular item? >> I have one. >> Tier three. Tier three. The idea of eliminating create or submit a complete street tier three construction application to Mass Department of Transportation. Motion's been made to eliminate it.
>> I do have a comment on it. >> Go ahead. >> And so does Kathy, I think. So mine is just because something is not in the action items does not prevent the town manager from doing it. And I I hope that folks will bear that in mind if they had something that they were hoping to see
that isn't in here. Um, you know, there are plenty of things the town manager there are lot of things the town manager does that aren't necessarily dictated by the action items of the council. So, it's well within the realm of possibility that a tier 3 application could happen if we get through that tier
2, but it's just not something that we are evaluating him on next year. So, I wouldn't lose hope for your project. >> Okay. Uh, councelor Ryan, did you have any further comment? >> Okay, then we're going to move to a vote on this count.
I don't see any other hands. Okay. Uh, council, this is the vote to eliminate that. Uh, Lyn Griezmer is an I. Councelor Hannik. >> Hi. >> Bob Hegner. >> Hi. >> Councelor Lord. >> I. >> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan.
>> Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> Hi. >> Jennifer Tub. >> Yes. >> Councelor Walker. >> Yes. >> Pat D'Angelus. >> I. It's gone. >> I'd like to vote on it. And I'm an I. >> Didn't. >> Oh, did I miss you? I'm so sorry, Anna.
>> I've been talking a lot. I get it. I >> Thank you. All right. Are there any other questions or comments on climate action? >> I would like to move to amend. Sorry. >> Okay, >> there are three. >> Oh my god, I didn't even look at my Zoom. I apologize. I'll go after everybody else.
>> Okay, let me go to Pam Rooney. I would like to amend the um the next one down to because the name has changed based on the state activity and it would be called something like develop and enact
the clean energy slash solar and best bylaws just so that we have the state reference in there. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. If there's just wording, can we just
Yeah, I'd say that's a friendly amendment. >> Yeah, I think we're okay. >> Okay, I agree. >> Um, any other questions or comments, Pam? Anything? >> Okay, George, >> I want to make amendment to the bicycle and pedestrian network plan, but I think
that one or two other counselors might have something already. Well, I don't. I'm just We need to do something here. Um what we were told is that it needs an appropriation or will probably need an appropriation. So that should be in here. I would very much
like us to try or make to actually I would like us to update the plan. Um but if an appropriation is necessary then perhaps somehow we have to word that in here. Um that's so I don't really have anything concrete but we need to do something with it. I think as it stands
it's not adequate. >> Okay Jennifer. Um, yes. Anna, did you say I'm uh looking at the uh complete streets tier 2 prioritization plan. Did you say you and Paul discussed that and he would
have to come back to >> uh go was concerned about um with the tier 2 go had the question about what is feasible um and what Paul and I discussed and I'll I'll let Paul speak to this as well please in case I'm
misunderstanding. Paul and I just talked about the need for the council to make sure we fully understand the ask and the and what we gain from doing a tier 2. So would Paul come to the council like early in the next year? Because I'm just
concerned that you know how will we evaluate that if it stays like that in our town manager evaluation next year. But it's so he'll come back and have a conversation if it's not doable as the goal is that we can >> Oh, are you talking about the bicycle
and network? >> No, no, the um >> the tier two because it sounds like like Paul was a little concerned we may not understand what we're asking for. So would we rephrase would we change that so we're evaluating we're not
holding him to that in our evaluation if he >> I think one of the points is that we may need a consultant to do this which means it would require an appropriation from the council but I don't know enough detail but it's it's certainly something we can achieve in 2026. >> Okay.
>> So you can just leave it as is as I think >> and I I just want to say it puts us in a line for grant money. So, it's an it's to me it's a high priority to get this done. Um, we could be applying for for the Fort River School intersection, for
example, but we're not in the queue yet. >> Okay. Um, I just want to make sure I get everybody who's has their hand up right now. We're talking about the tier 2 complete streets. Uh, councelor Ryan, did you have a comment on that?
Anna, did you have a comment on that? >> I had a separate amendment. Okay. So, we're leaving that one alone. Councilor Ryan, >> I think I'm getting whiplash here. Um I thought we were talking about the bicycle and pedestrian network plan. Um
and maybe it's fine as it stands. I I'm open to suggestions here. I just feel that given what Anna said, if we leave it in as it is, there might be an issue. Um and maybe there isn't. maybe like the complete streets um tier 2 which also it
sounds like might need an appropriation. Um this might also need an appropriation but maybe we should just leave the language as it is. That's I'm sorry. I just need help here. >> Paul, did you want to speak to that? And Anna, you have your hand up, I think, on
this one, right? Yeah. So, >> I defer to Anna on this first. >> This is on the bicycle and pedestrian network plan. Will you need a separate appropriation on that? >> So, I think I do. Um, but I haven't
haven't had detailed conversation with the new planning director on this yet. >> Okay. Anna, >> a point of information that would be part of achieving that goal would be bringing an appropriate if needed bringing an appropriate appropriation request to the council for approval. I don't see a need to point, you know,
make that that specific. >> Okay. Um, uh, councelor H. Oh, Anna. >> Yep. I have a proposed amendment. Uh, begin I I I propose to amend by replacing that statement with begin the
process of updating the Ammerst bicycle and pedestrian network plan, including seeking necessary appropriations with the goal of council adoption in 2027. >> Got it. Second. Speak to it.
>> Could you read that again? I I can >> I was typing it as I was saying it, so I wanted to make sure. >> You want me to No, you're fine. Begin the progress of updating proc I'm so sorry. Begin the process of updating the Ammeris bicycle and
pedestrian network plan, including seeking necessary appropriations with the goal of council adoption in 2027. Yeah. Um there Okay. I believe that's seconded.
>> I thought you had seconded it, Lynn. >> I did. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any further questions or comments? >> Councelor Hannaki. So, I'm concerned that we just passed budget guidelines um and they're really
tight and we passed guidelines that might reduce the capital spending from 10 and a half to 10%. Um and now we're passing or trying amending and proposing action items under the goals that require
spending of those capital funds because that's where these consultants come from. um without even inquiring how much those consultants might cost. Um so I I don't know what to do with this because I understand why people believe these
are important especially if they qualify us for grant funds other places. But I think we're getting I think we too easily add goals that cost money without talking about whether that is the priority for spending that money versus
some other thing. So, I mean, the goal's in there one way or the other at this point. I'm I was actually thinking of proposing to eliminate this goal. Um, I like Anna's wording in the amendment better than the original. Um, but at the
same time, I'm not sure I want this in at all. >> Okay. >> Because of that, but I'd like to hear from Paul what he thinks the consultants would cost for both the tier 2 and this one. I do not have an estimate but um I mean one of the things the first thing
would you would know in May what the capital appropriation would look like and then that there's a decision point there as to whether the council appropriates funds council does not appropriate funds the goal can't be accomplished so I think there's a checkpoint there so it gives us a month some time to organize ourselves and
bring it to you in terms of a potential option as an option whether we can actually accomplish it and then if you want to put money into it or not >> at which point we could also amend the goals Can I >> Yeah, Anna. Yes, please. >> We We could amend the goals, but also this you're giving me kind of the prime
use case of why we added in that item in the evaluation that said goal not complete due to external factors, right? Like this would be kind of a dismissed without judgment uh or without prejudice kind of thing. If the council was brought an appropriation as requested
and we denied it, that would be not completed but by no fault of of Paul on the evaluation. So, I think that that's kind of our our escape hatch on that one. Kathy, >> complete streets includes biking and
walking as well as driving cars. So, to some extent, the complete streets prioritization plan would have to have pedestrian and bicycle networks in it. So, I think we could delete the bicycle. I'm not against the bicycle and we have
a draft of one that tacted several years ago. I just I I do worry about pushing hard on separate items that are related. Uh uh what do you dilutes focus rather
than the complete street swim I think is really important because it puts us in line for grants and it has an element of biking and walking in it. Anna, >> I think an element of biking and walking is a far cry from a full bicycle and
pedestrian network plan. And I think I see it a little bit differently. I don't see them as diluting or pulling from each other. I see them as being kind of symbiotic with each other. Right. So, I think that hang on. I think that as we're looking at this, I hear you in terms of the number of action items, but I do believe I would support keeping
this in there because we're we're saying start this process. Tell us what it would take to do this process. And if the I'm okay and we've got 30 of these. So I'm not going to argue this very >> point of order. Yeah. >> Anna Devlin Goth was talking and and Kathy was not recognized. >> Thank you.
>> If we keep this in here, I think that it allows us to have the town manager come to us and say, "Look, this appropriation is too high or this isn't doable." And also the town manager at any point could also come to us and say, "This is an incredibly large an incredibly time
consuming piece of work. I would recommend the council remove it." like I I think that there's there's that latitude as well. So I see them as uh complimenting not pulling from each other. >> Okay. The motion's been pl uh made and seconded to amend this to say what it
now says on the screen. Is there any other question or comment? Okay. This one is not I don't think is a friendly amendment. So we'll actually move to a vote. Lynn Griezmer is an I. Councelor Hani. >> Hi.
>> Bob Haggner. >> Hi. >> Councelor Lord. >> Hi. >> Am Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Stain. >> Um Andy Steinberg. >> Hi.
>> Uh Councelor Walker. I'm sorry. Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. >> Councelor Walker. >> Yes. >> Pat D'Angelos. >> Hi. Anna Dublin Gothier. I >> councelor ete >> I >> Okay, it's uh 12 in favor, one
abstension. Uh we're going to unless there's any other comments on climate action, we're going to move on to community health, safety, and social justice. >> Yep. Okay. So, the recommended uh Oh god, too many windows. All right. So,
first up was explore the possibility of adjusting the crest hours of operation to better address higher demand and activity times and report back to the council on recommendations. G did slightly adjust the wording of this goal. It initially readjust crest hours
of operation. And what go was talking through was we can't change terms of employment in a goal. and saying to change the hours off right off the bat would assume that we either are hiring a whole lot of new people or we're changing the hours the people are who
are currently working there would work. So instead what we talked about was um basically exploring that possibility and uh and determining what it would take um in order to do that and report back on the council on what would be needed to address the time and how feasible it
was. One thing in my conversation with Paul that came up was this does work under the assumption that Crest is currently not working during the hours that they are needed most. And we would need to examine that to make sure that we are we know what those hours those higher demand and activity times are um
as part of that uh part of that process. This does have possible financial implications if it means needing to hire more um more responders. It doesn't it does not necessarily mean that on the face of it. It's just that is the um the possibility depending on what the
council decides to do. >> Councelor Ryan. >> So that was I think one of the issues I had with this first item is that it makes an assumption which we still have yet to be proven. um and also brings
back the point about the assessment which I believe we are still waiting for by some outside entity that would help us understand um what the challenges are and what's the most effective way for crest to proceed. So I'm wondering why
this perhaps should be held for the moment. Um and let's proceed with first of all getting assessment um and then a discussion about how press crest should go forward. Um so I would
like to see this taken out um because it's at the moment um we it's just not we don't know. And when you say this, you mean explore the possibility of adjusting crest hours? >> Yeah. Because I think it it it goes Yeah. So I my motion would be to delete
this item. Explore the possibility of adjusting crest hours of operation, etc. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. >> Pam Rooney. You've already spoken to it. Do you have anything else to say? >> Uh, no. I think I've said what I have to
say. Thank you. >> Okay. Pam Rooney. I would support that primarily because it looks like um it should be incorporated into conducting the assessment. I hope an assessment looks at hours of operation. I look I
hope it looks at uh the possibility of adjusting hours of operation. So I let's I'm hoping and I'm assuming that all of that first sentence that got uh eliminated is incorporated.
Good. Councelor Lord. >> Um, yes. I was going to object to this being taken out, but now if there is a possibility to explicitly add it to the conducting an assessment um an assessment including exploring the
hours. I we heard from um I have heard we have heard from many public and from our CSSGC committee that this is something of concern and how the impact can be different. So, I really feel like it needs to be explicitly stated. I know
Paul also takes this very seriously, but I think just having it in there to um help him and confirm it that it's a priority is important to me and many other people. Thank you. >> And so, you're suggesting however under
conduct an assessment that we now assume that that includes hours of operation. Well, I was saying that we put it explicitly because it can get lost in the sauce. >> And now I'm confused about the amendments. So if I don't want one, but the others are okay. We're voting the
whole thing as a package. >> No, no, no. We'll vote the whole thing at the end. We're just doing amendments by section. >> Oh, so then I would add a friendly amendment to add >> conduct an assessment including >> Go ahead. >> Wait, can you Sorry.
You can actually have two. >> No, it's not that. >> It's Yeah, go ahead, >> Holla, if you don't mind. I haven't um we can I go through all of them and share the thoughts first and then can we go back with the amendments? Is that okay? Cuz >> Sure. >> We just got through one and and I it's I
I encourage the amendments, but I there's other thoughts that I think are relevant here if that's okay. >> I can Jennifer is welcome to go. >> There was a motion and it's been seconded, right? >> So, is that now being set aside so we can >> No, no, no. I can't do that. I'm not >> I'm sorry. >> I can't set aside your motion. That's
not what I was uh I just we got a little further ahead in this one than I would I would have liked to have gotten through all of the ones in this section first. >> All right. Why don't you finish your >> So, you can hold off on the motion, but Jennifer. >> Yeah, I was going to ask we're going to hold off on the motion because I concur
with councelor Lord. I would not vote to take this out unless I knew it was going to be specifically added to the conducting the assessment because I I think this really needs to be addressed and it shouldn't just be assume that
it'll be part of it. So I guess I couldn't vote to take it out unless I knew it was going okay >> there. So I'm wondering if that can >> So for the moment we're just going to hold on this one. We're gonna let councelor um Anna, we're gonna let Anna
finish the discussion of all of them. However, councelor Hanny, you have your hand. >> Yeah. May I make a suggestion? The motion is on the floor, so we're only supposed to talk about that. But I'm going to request as this motion is on the floor that Anna speak to the conducting an assessment action item in
case we'd like to amend the motion on the floor to be delete something and add to that one. So, I'd like to hear what the thoughts on the assessment one were before we deal so that we can deal with
the motion that's on the floor. >> That is the one that relates most closely. And then there's another one that tangentially relates in. So, um the conduct an assessment of the community responders for equity, safety, and service crest program and report back to the council by June 30th, 2026. Uh one
key element of this June 30th is very very close and an assessment like of this nature uh is an in-depth endeavor uh and simply put June 30th does not give the town manager enough time uh to complete this and so the one of the
thoughts was to remove the date. One of the thoughts was to push it later, but June 30th is very close. Uh especially if we are now changing the terms of that um of that assessment. The other piece that ties into this is working with
dispatch and the Ammeris and and we can speak to these ones more in depth, but this does tie in work with dispatch and Ammeris police department to define and implement specific categories of non-violent calls that can be referred to Crest. On the face of it, we didn't that that goal that action item is clear-cut. But if you're thinking about
adjusting the hours of crest to better address high demand and activity times, that is dependent on what calls are going to crest because those types of calls come in at different times. So these are all interconnected um with that one element. It's possible that you do kind of solve that a little bit part
of that challenge by adding by George if you did add to your motion to also amend the uh the assessment piece um to include the the hours that does address part of it. But generally speaking, this
is a complex action item and I just want us to note that and I don't think the June 30th is appropriate for this complex of a of a task. And I'll speak to the other ones after we're done with this motion. Councelor Hanicki.
>> Um I I respectfully disagree with the June 30th, 2026 deadline because we just finished an assessment of the town manager that had this exact same goal in it for an entire year.
And so in theory, it should have been done now. Um so giving the manager an extra six months I think is generous. um cuz we've been working on trying to get updates on where this assessment is. So,
I want a June 30th deadline because I don't want to wait another year to find out that it's still not done when the program has been operating for more than 3 years at this point um without any assessment going on. I would support a
friendly amendment to put the phrase given I was the seconder including hours after the word program in the conduct an assessment action item so that it would read conduct an assessment of crest program including hours and report back
to the council by June 30, 2026 >> hours of operation. >> Hours of operation yes including hours of operation. um to speak to the other one that might relate to this amendment of deleting the hours of operation one. Um I don't understand what's the
difference between the dispatch one and the motion we passed about 2 weeks ago that said get them dispatching to crest by December 31st and the manager said he thought he could do it. So um if you're dispatching to there you need to know
which non-violent calls can be referred to Crest to dispatch. So, I know I'm getting a little off topic with the deletion, but um so I wouldn't at this point support moving anything from there into one of the other ones as part of the amendment to delete the first hours
of operation and add some motion into the operation, but that will be a question after we deal with the motion to amend. >> Uh there was a motion for to eliminate explore the possibility and it was seconded. Do those people that made the
motion and the second accept the friendly amended amendment to the other line? George, >> I do. >> Okay. And >> it was the seconder and I proposed it. So, >> fine. Uh, so we've taken care of that
piece. Jennifer, >> I just want to say I agree with councelor Hanaki that I have been under the impression that the uh dispatch protocols are long underway. So I I would like to see a report back by
June 30th. I again this it's been we've been getting updates for the last 3 years that it's in process. So I would think I agree with councelor Hani that it's really extending an extra 6 months not rushing the deadline. >> Councelor Ryan
>> I'm sorry as it's written it has June 30, 2026. Correct. >> Correct. And uh no one's made any amendment to change that. >> That's correct. Because we haven't really been discussing that it >> I'm not making any amendment to change it,
>> but it was stated it was unrealistic. >> Well, sorry. Can I clarify, >> please? >> I was sharing the notes that I had about that action item. We can continue to discuss that specific action item after this as well. >> Okay. Council uh Paul
>> um I was going to talk about the June 30th deadline, but if that's not where we are. >> Uh no, actually it it is it's part of the total of there might be a separate amendment though. >> So So my only comment on that, so we will have Crest on dispatch for some
calls starting January 1. So if you do an assessment, we won't have very much time of them being actually on dispatch when we do the assessment. So we'll be looking at the old model crust versus and that's if that's the goal of the council um want to be clear that you're
going to see it without the dispatch data that we will have collected. >> Okay. Uh councelor Ryan uh Anna. So, if we're talking about the the June 30th deadline now, I am I would
rather see it as provide an update on the assessment because I'm curious what level of assessment the council is asking for. Are we asking for an external review? Are we asking for just an internal assessment? Um, and and to
clarify what I meant by the uh I don't know what I I I wrote to clarify, but I I'm actually not clear on what I'm clarifying at this point. um the the the timing of this impacts the success of the assessment, right? So we could say June 30th, that's fine, but we
may not get an effective assessment because things are so in flux for Crest right now. So if we're keeping June 30th, we need to understand that that will not include some changes. It won't include a program that's been existing
in the iteration that we are expecting with those dispatch calls being rooted to them, etc. um for more than a couple months. So, I don't know. I'm struggling with that June 30th date and questioning what we're expecting. And I think if we clarify the expectation of what type of
assessment or what type of summary we're looking for, that would help me to feel like whether to understand whether or not that June 30th makes sense. And I understand that this has been in the town manager goals, but we've also changed how grass has functioned. I mean, we're looking at this right now, right? How are you how do you assess
something that's in flux? Um, so I'm I'm I'd rather have the June 30th be an update on an assessment, but I understand that folks feel differently. >> Councor Hanicki. >> Well, I would like June 30th to be the assessment and be an assessment and
report an assessment. um that report and that assessment can be on what they've been the assessment of the last 3 years because there will be a question about what they've been doing and how that's been working and we can get an update on
the dispatch part of the assessment. But I think we absolutely need an assessment on how they've been operating for the last three plus years, not hold it off another six, eight, ten months to see how dispatch is going. And I think given
they might be two totally different things, we need assessments on both. >> Councelor Ryan, >> I've always understood this to be an external assessment. Is that the understanding of others? I'm not interested in an internal assessment. I'm interested in an
external assessment by an objective third party. >> Um, is there any comment on that, Coun? Uh, Paul, >> I agree. I agree with that. I'm sorry. >> I agree with that. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Do we need to have it as a wording or is it uh are people comfortable with right now it simply says conduct an assessment. The question was raised earlier by I believe by Anna but by someone whether that was internal or external and um she asked I believe it was she asked for clarification. So I'm
offering my clarification that it is an external. >> So would you like to insert the word after an external? That's what I would suggest. Yes. >> Okay. And you made the amendment. >> I'm okay with that. >> And you're okay. So that's a friendly amendment. So right there's you're going
to put in external assessment. Okay. There is a complex motion in front of us. It includes eliminating the top goal under community health and safety and social justice and amending the conduct an external assessment to include
external and including hours of operation. Are there any questions or comments on that? Then let's move that vote. Um and we start with councelor Hani >> I. >> Bob Hegner. >> Yes. Councelor Lord.
>> Hi. >> Am Rooney? >> Yes. >> Did you say no? Thank you. Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> Hi. >> Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. >> Councelor Walker.
>> Yes. >> Pat D'Angelus is now absent. Uh Anna Develin Gothier. >> I. >> Uh councelor Rete. >> I. >> And Lynn Griezmer is an I. It passes. 12 in favor. one absent. Um, Anna, are
there any other here's any others here that you would like to speak to? >> Yes. The last one that that garnered comment was the complete the review of public safety protocols consistent with the council's November
14th, 2022 votes. And this feels like there's a lack of clarity. Um, what Paul and I were discussing is who is reviewing these? Is it Paul? uh APD does an internal review of their policies every year. And so I think the question here was what does meeting this action
item look like? What is completion of this? Who who is doing that review? Uh and yeah, what is what does completion look like? And I posed that question to the council. Council Ryan, did you have your
>> Well, my instinct would be to remove it. Um, since I don't think we have an answer to that question, but maybe somebody has an answer to that question. Who is going to do the review? The police department already does an internal review and I assume that's available to the public. Um, are we
asking the town manager to do a review? >> So, your motion is to remove that. >> I would make that motion. Um, >> fine. I make the motion and I'll seek a second. Okay.
>> Dies for lack of a second. Uh Kathy Shane, uh when this way back when when a report came to us, LEAP had identified several protocols that you could go directly in. And my
understanding is the DEI director was supposed to go and they they had a list of them and it just never happened. So you're asking for more specificity. There was some I'm I'm fine with removing this, but there was a specific
set and it was wording and what to do in particular and they flagged several in a report to us. Um, and I don't think that review was ever done. I mean, there was a whole report section on very specifics.
So, there was sort of a guide on where to look. I'm I'm not my memory is not going to be able to give me you specifics. >> I don't mind removing this, but we had said the DEI director was going to be doing this. >> Okay. >> You know, so it wasn't an outside. It
was it was with the guidance of what kinds of things you were looking for. >> Thank you. Uh councelor Hanaki. >> Yeah, if my memory serves me correctly, this was a goal for this year. Um, and so I'm confused by Anna's report that
it's done every year and so we don't need it anymore when I think the manager and I'm still working on pulling up his own self-evaluation reported that it wasn't done. So I I could be wrong on that report. So because I haven't it's been a while. Um, but you know and and
as with Kathy said they are specific the the 22 votes. So, I'm also confused. If the police department does a review of protocols every year, and this was voted in November of 2022, why weren't those specific ones that were voted in
November of 22 actually reviewed between November of 22 and December of 23? And why is the manager still reporting them undone then such that we're still potentially putting them in these goals? >> I'm going to ask the town manager to speak.
>> Yeah. So what the police department does is they review all of their policies every year and then went through accreditation where all the policies were were reviewed and approved through the accreditation process. These are police policies, not town manager policies, not
town council policies or police policies. So in their minds they have done they've accomplished that. I think that's why I reported my self-evaluation. I don't think I have it with me but >> honor you had your hand. >> Okay. I've answered my own question. So,
I went back to the vote that is referenced here. Uh, and the motion at that point was the town council request that the town manager working with the DEI department and other staff. And then it lists a number of things like Kathy referenced. And this one says, organize
a review of public safety protocols for responding to and handling public safety calls involving all residents, including minors, in order to recommend changes to these protocols as if if appropriate. I think that where this has gotten confusing is we've had it in here for a
while and we referenced that vote, but we don't include those words. So, I think that if this council is going back to that vote and saying that it's the town manager working with the DEI department and other staff that we need to clarify that in the language of the goal and I'm happy to propose an
amendment if that would be helpful. But I just I wanted to I I opened up a can of worms a little bit, but maybe it's helpful. Our initial language did say town manager working with the DEI department and other staff. >> George, Council Ryan, do you have a hand
up? >> Well, we're going to need something. Um, I think this, as it's written, is simply not going to work. So, perhaps we need to hear Anna's proposal. >> Anna, do you want to propose your amendment? >> Sure.
Okay. Uh, I move to amend the action item with the following language. consistent with the council's November 14th, 2022 vote, uh work with the DEI department and
other staff to organize a review of public safety protocols for responding to and handling public safety calls involving all residents, including minors, in order to recommend changes to these protocols if appropriate. I think
I can send you the link to the language. That would be great. Thanks. Is there a second? >> Second, Rooney. Okay. Um, let's go and please put the wording up again. >> I am sending it to her. Sorry. It's going to take everybody count to 10 and
brief, please. Maybe 15. While you're doing that, I just want to do a time check. We're already past 10:00. We do have to do an executive session tonight and we still have half
these goals to go. >> Do we want to stay with this or not? >> Yes. Kathy, >> is there any way I I saw the ne I know the next council meeting is the last one. Could we do the second half next time because I think um it would feel
more productive to me. I'm I'm at a point where um it it's feeling like we're only halfway through and not quite halfway through. >> That's why I did the time check. >> Um >> a point of information on that. Yes, >> there's always a possibility to move to
postpone to the next comp, you know, to a date certain. If you're doing so, it might be best to only have the main motion on the floor instead of a motion to amend on the floor before you move to postpone. >> I'm not going to move. Well, well, so, so to an information to Kathy's question
is you can always move to postpone an item even when there's a motion on the floor, but it might be best if you want to do that to not do it while a motion to amend is on the floor so that what we come back to is the main motion.
>> So, at this point, let's just stick with this motion. It's been made and seconded. It's now been placed up here on top. Is there any questions or comments, Councelor Ryan? So, the the recommended changes to these
protocols made by DEI and staff would go where? They would go to the town manager. They would go to the police department. They would go to the council. Um, we've already been told that the police um do
a yearly review of protocols. Now, we're going to have a potential series of of proposed changes. And I guess my just asking uh to whom do those changes go? Do they go to the manager?
Do they go to the council? And by what authority can we change protocols that are created by our public safety personnel? >> Um Paul, did you have a response to that?
>> Yeah. So all what this calls for is a review. It doesn't call for a change. It depends who owns the policies. So certain policies are owned by the town manager. Some are owned, you know, the council has its policies. Uh the police chief and fire chief have their own policies as well. And they it depends
who owns the policy and depends how they get changed. >> So it has to go back to the organization or the part of the organization for whom it is a policy. >> Well, the word is used is protocols. Maybe I'm quibbling and it's late, but um I think there is a difference between
a policy and a protocol. Um protocols tend to be fairly specific and and action driven. Policies are broader. I think we're talking about specific actions or procedures if I'm not mistaken.
Um, but whatever we call it in the end, the manager is saying that it depends on whatever procedure or protocol or policy we're talking about how that may or may proceed. But I would just point out that I think we're talking about protocols
here. At least that's the language we have. >> That is the language that is up there >> and that is my understanding is fairly specific and actionoriented. This is what you do in this situation. This is what you do in that situation as opposed to a policy.
>> Uh Paul, I >> I think it's a it's it's the same thing actually. Our policies are very detailed. They say if you you can't if you stop your car, you must put your flashers on. It's that level of detail. And that's called a policy. And there are also policies that that Crest has
that would be reviewed. >> So should the word be policies versus protocols? >> I think you're trying to align it with the vote, the original vote. So >> that was the language from the original vote. >> Okay. All right. The motion's been made and seconded. Uh George, any of the
comments? >> Pam Rooney. >> Yeah. I had one question and that is as it's written here would we know if DEI has suggested a modification to to protocols or policies and would we know
that they in fact were uh enacted? I'm assume we could have that in the town manager's report like everything else that he reports on. Are you looking for a special report? I think the intent of the 2020 2022
um request was that there was concern that perhaps there were protocols that were not um supportive of people who felt unsafe in the community with police pre presence.
DEI was tasked to help review those protocols to make sure that in fact people would feel safe and supported with the particular protocols in place. So my question is how do we how do we
ever know if DEI has an impact on the correction or the tweaking of a protocol to make uh something meet that goal? So council for that councelor Ryan said you know
who gets who gets the report or who who gets the information. Is it the town manager? Is it the police chief? Is it the council? I'm I'm essentially asking I guess the same thing. Okay. Who gets the report versus who
changes their policies are two different questions. If you want the report to be in the town manager's report and update on a regular basis, that can happen. If if in terms of who then changes the
policies that we clarified that policies belong to various departments and they have to change them. If you want to report on that, you can also ask for a report on that. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. So, it's essentially up to us as a council to ask
for that kind of report if we want it. >> Yes. Do you want anything in this motion to ask for? >> And and we're doing we're doing that by by putting this as one of the action items for um
if it's a goal or an action item, then we're going to get reports anyway. Councelor Hani. So we had this goal as this would be amended nearly identical in the current
fiscal year. Um seven counselors thought it was partially met. Um, the manager in his own self-evaluation stated, quote, "The department reviewed responses to and handling of public safety calls
involving all residents, including minors. Current actions to address this goal include the following, and I'm not going to read all of that because it was over half a page of writing. Um, an annual review of the police department's rules and rags is conducted to ensure that they are considered best practice and aligned with town personnel
procedures manual." And then he goes on about racial profiling, use of force, um, and pretextual stop reviews and says that the department is expected to provide a specific review of those three identified policies by the end of the calendar year. Um, so I'm looking at
this and saying it's worded exactly the same. When you read the self-evaluation, I would say he believes he's completed it. The council believed he partially completed it by majority of counselors. Um, yet it's the same wording. What
didn't he actually complete of it? And I I guess I'm considering at what point do we say he's done and stop putting it on here? If they reviewed every year and he believes it's done. At this point, I'm I'm ready to remove
uh remake the motion to delete that George didn't get a second to because I didn't have time to necessarily second it because I was still thinking about it. because I don't see with this wording how it's ever how the council will ever say we're done with it because
we're struggling with well, what happens if they review them and don't change them? Are we done with the goal or not? Um, if they do review it and change it, are we done with the goal or did we not like what they changed? Um, there there's it just says organize a review.
He's he's stated he organizes one every year. we haven't gotten necessarily the information maybe that we're looking for about what was the result of that review. Um, but he did provide some in his self-evaluation. And I at this point,
maybe we need a different goal that's completely different than this. If we're still worried about public safety policies, then continually referring to a November 27, 2022 vote that the manager in his self-evaluation believes
has been met and we believe as a council has been partially met. >> Um, so I'm going to go back to Anna. You made this motion. Do you want to withdraw the motion? >> Uh, no. because I believe that when the
town manager spoke to this in his self-evaluation when he said the department I believe he was referring to APD and so I don't think that this goal has been met due to a lack of clarity in the in the goals um so I I am not interested in withdrawing this
uh motion >> okay so the motion's been made and seconded the motion on the floor is to um have this as stated on the screen councelor Ryan So I'm wondering if for those who feel that
somehow this has not been met or not been met adequately at this point the the means of addressing that are much better done in other ways than trying to fine-tune and words smmith a goal in a
goals document. um that if you feel that some things are not working the way they should, then specific um items and specific requests and focused uh would work as opposed to this which is as councelor Hanniki just said
is pretty much word for word what has been said before as a goal which has been partially met and the coun and the manager thinks he has met or met fairly well. So, at this point, it I really do ask my colleagues who support this what they think is going to be any different
this time and that if they really feel that there are issues that are outstanding that haven't been dealt with, maybe they should focus on those issues and find a better way to address them than putting them into a goals document where we're probably going to
get the same result again. >> Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Pam Rooney, >> I would like to keep this as as amended. Um, and I think I think I would I'm going to treat it as I'd like to see this done every year. I'd like I like
this process of review. And if in fact DEI is involved, that's great. And I think they should continue to uh review public safety protocols. So, I'm happy to keep it here and and have it right
here. >> Kathy I since I was the one who wanted to see whether we could move to next week because I'm tired but I'll I'll make it an attempt to be articulate. Um I think what we don't have is a report of what
changed that was along the lines of what the LEAP report identified as concerns. So what we really want is a report whether those things were changed. they there was a list of very specific things that when I looked at them and I said,
"Yeah, that would be worth thinking about changing." So, it's I'm okay with this language, too. But I think what we're saying is we we don't know whether specific things were changed. So, we're looking for
more specificity when the time manager reports to us rather than we review them every year. So, this language may be fine. I'm just saying that it's the the rear end of it that if I went back four years ago and said, "Are these have
these been changed?" Those would be the things I'd want to see. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Walker. >> Um I think Kathy said most of what I was going to say, but I just also quickly wanted to reference the LEAP report and give a very quick example. Uh for
example, when referencing our use of force policy, it has very clearly listed issue. The current APD use of force policy is not easy to understand, clear in its guidance to officers or reflective of the police and community goals. It leaves the town open to liability and negative outcomes if
officers use force. And then it states, "We recommend the APD adopt an entirely new use of force policy. an example from another agency is provided and regularly review the policy to ensure that is applying modern and thoughtful policing best practices and then the question
would be have we ever looked at our use of force policy did we look at the recommendation that was provided from another agency have any of these things been updated so like we still don't know the answer and this is listed for multiple different policies that we have
with recommendations and what the recommendation is looking to address within our current policy. And so I think if anyone needs clarity, I'm okay with keeping this language, but we can reference the LEAP report because I think that's sort of the missing reference.
>> You have a place where you would like to insert the LEAP report. >> Um maybe while I look you can take George's question because I think it was in specific response to his concern. Councelor Ryan. >> So, I I like this idea and I think referencing it makes sense because it
provides the specificity that I'm suggesting we're struggling to get. So, what if it began in light of the league report? And I don't know if we have a specific date for that and consistent with. >> Okay. >> So, you could begin that way. You could say in light of Yeah.
>> Will you take that as a friendly amendment? >> Sure. It's getting a little long, but yep, >> think about it. >> Um, so let's try to get it in here and then we're going to finish up on this and then we're going to come back to goals next week,
>> please. Yes. >> But after this discussion, >> let's try to make the amendment in into here, George. >> So, the proposed amendment would be in light of the league report, but that needs more specification. And someone
who knows that title would thank anyone. What is the title of the report? >> It's capital L, capital E, capital A, capital P. >> The League of Women Voters. >> No, that's not it's a it's a whole different thing. L E A P. >> Thank L leap. Thank you very much. In light of the LEAP report
>> and >> and it has a specific date, >> right? If you would just um put a parenthesis after the word report and we'll just put a TB to the date. >> Okay. Huh?
>> Sorry, I if there's only been one leap report, can we just say leap report? >> Yep. All right. Is that a friendly amendment and accepted? Anna. >> Yep. >> And the seconder >> was Pam. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh, are there any other
questions or comments on this motion to amend? Councelor Ryan. Okay, we're going to move to a vote. I believe we're at Councelor Hani. >> I. >> Bob Hegner. >> I. >> Councelor Lord.
>> I. >> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> Hi. >> Jennifer Tob. Um, she's maybe absent at this point. >> Would you come back? >> Huh? Councelor Walker?
>> Yes. >> Patel, >> absent. >> Absent. Um, Ela Develin Gothier. >> I >> got it. >> I, >> Lyn Griezen. I uh I'm going to go back to Jennifer Tob. >> Yes.
>> Okay. It's unanimous with uh 12 in favor and one absent. Um, with the council's permission, I'm going to call on Anna and then we'll come back. Yeah. >> I just wanted to note there's only one remaining action item that I had comments on, just for what it's worth.
Um, in the in the rest of the full document. All of the other ones Paul did not have concerns about. So, I understand that it's late and and folks would like to continue on, but um I if if if we could get it done tonight, I would love to. just there's there's only
one left that has concerns unless people had concerns of their own. >> Okay. >> Um is there any objection to that? Let's look at the next set. >> There were no comments in the next set. There were uh four proposed by go and
four accepted by Jo. In the next uh set, infrastructure management, the yellow one. Um we've got appoint DPW building committee and present a schematic design. Present a multi-year plan for the council for how to address the significant backlog of road and sidewalk repairs. I'm skipping the one that has
concerns. Work with the TPC will remove the words if approved. Um DPW schools and police chief to develop an interim plan for managing traffic. Bring to the council a plan for how to develop the South Ammer school. Create a charge for and appoint the fire station building
committee. Assess the current condition of the wastewater treatment plant and associated infrastructure. Those all were okay. >> And so under the very last one under infrastructure management, maintenance and land stewardship, >> please remove in PNS the word if
approved. >> Yep. So then the one we also get rid of the space >> and yes, thank you. And then the space where it says schools open, school opens, there's a another pens and there's a space. Thank you. So the remaining action item was develop a plan
for maintenance/repair of all town owned buildings along with an estimate of associated costs each year in the future. G discussed this and this came up with Paul. This is a massive massive undertaking. Uh we're talking about a plan for maintenance and repair of all
town buildings. That is a that's a huge job. Um and one of the things that Joel discussed was how is this different from JCPC's 5-year plan? And is this a good use of staff time? uh how does the council uh and and Paul and I uh talked about how how is the council planning to
use this? What Paul suggested is maybe it would be better to give a status report on municipal assets with their current condition. Um and so that would be my my motion to amend. Uh and I'm happy to make that as as a counselor.
But essentially just to note that this action item as as stated is a large request and already overlaps with what we do get which is the JCPC 5-year plan. So if we changed it to creating a status report, >> we can look at those. >> Please state your thing as an amendment.
See a second. >> All right. I move to amend this action item by replacing it with the present >> the develop a plan. It's the one above way above. There we go. >> Yep. So, it would instead read, "Present
to the council a status report of all town owned buildings, including current condition by October 1st, 2026."
Second, and we're going to delete the other part. Okay. Any questions or comments? Councelor Hanni? >> Not on this. >> Okay. Uh Kathy Shane, uh I don't I'm assume people are aware of it, but in
the JCP report, there is at the end of the report an assessment of the condition of every building rated already. So, are we talking about something more? I, as I said, I'm pretty I I agree with you, Anna. I would have just deleted the whole thing. I think
it's way too big a thing. But um it seems to me that we already get that information. So I'm >> That's very useful information. >> It really is right at the end. It's >> good. Excellent. Really bad. >> Okay.
>> Needs to be torn down. So Anna, we're just going to move to delete. >> I'm I'm comfortable with changing my amendment to deleting this. >> Okay. So get rid of the change. We're going to move to delete. And as the person seconded, I agree. Any questions
or comments? Councelor Hanaki. No. Yeah. Kathy Shane. Nothing more. Uh, is there any other So, let's do a vote on this one. This is to delete the maintenance and repair. Uh, Bob Hegner. >> I. >> Councelor Lord.
>> I. >> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> I. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> I. >> Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. Councelor Walker. >> Yes. >> Honor Delin Gothier.
>> I lin uh councelor >> I. >> Lyn Griemer. I councelor Hanaki. >> I. >> It's unanimous with one absent. Uh councelor Hani. A couple of just comments. Can we make sure we see the first infrastructure
management one? the the South Ammer school. I I was hoping we could add the word South Ammer school site because the way it's worded now, it's developing the school, but you're really trying to develop the site, not the school. >> I think we should take that as a friendly amendment.
>> So, I'm hoping that's a friendly amendment. Um, and then on the can can we move on to town council? You're done with your comments on it. All right. So, under the town council community and strategic relationships, the fourth bullet, the
fourth action item. >> Yes. >> Um I wanted more explanation of what the goal or what the intent plan hope is. Um for the one that says shift the burden of emergency response from the town to
these institutions. is that you know fee structure like are we intending to say oh hey we're not going to respond to fires on UMass and Amoris campus like how what is the intent of what is what burden are we shifting and how are we
shifting or what are we trying to do reimburse exploration of fee structure to reimburse the town for expenses associated with students to cover expansion of fire EMS department students that are on campus students that are off-campus um fire departments, you can't actually
charge for responding to fire in Massachusetts. It's against the law, I believe. Um so, you know, I don't know how we'd we'd structure any of that. I just need more explanation, and I'd like to hear in some sense from Paul, too, about what his thoughts on this one are
as to how he'd go about meeting this. >> Paul, >> so two things on that. on what I'm hear what I read this as being is that looking at the emergency medical services responses are there things that the university could be doing to lessen
those need those requests um and there's a lot of different and this will be part of our overall discussion about staffing for AFD as we go through this this is one of those there's a lot of different strategies it's not just um finding more money it's also reducing the the time
that we spend on things so in in term that's that's how we really look at that um I I mean, that's how I'm looking at it. Um, and then if there are things that the colleges and university can do in addition to what they're already doing, which would be part of the goal of looking into the strate strategic
partnership agreement. So, the university is going to be buying us a new ambulance. They've already committed to doing that. Um, so it's it's that that's that's how I look at is what else can they be doing? Um, you know, I'm not looking at a you know, I think those are
things that I I envisioned. Council Hanicking, >> does does your envisioning include exploring a fee structure to reimburse I I guess that's the EMS side of it that you talked about. Okay. Not the fire side necessarily.
Okay. Okay. Bob Hagner. >> Yeah. I >> uh I have a comment on a different um item. So, >> okay. Let's stay on this one. Andy Steinberg, anything on this one? >> Yeah. is a this might be a friendly amendment, but given what the town
managers just said, why don't we amend it? So, it says um emergency medical responses. >> Okay. It's a friendly amendment after >> I would I would prefer to keep fire as well.
>> All right. Uh Andy, we prefer to keep it as it is emergency both fire and medical. >> All right. Thank George. Uh, councelor Ryan, >> I still have a problem with to shift the burden. Um, I don't really know what that means. It sounds like it means we
want you to carry the heavy load here. Um, perhaps it should simply say to help share the burden or to find ways to share the burden. Um, I don't know what to shift the burden from the town to these institutions means. Um,
I think I understand what it means in a sort of, you know, general sense, but maybe nobody's bothered by that, but I I find that phrase problematic. >> So, do you have a amendment? >> Uh, would the language would be to the effect of to share to help share the
burden um or I don't know, >> work with UMass and the colleges to create more collaboration. Councelor Ryan, are you are you suggesting lessening the burden?
>> I don't even like the word burden. >> Yeah. I would simply say to share >> to share the burden of it's not just cost. Paul mentioned sad thing as well, but that becomes cost as well. So um I
don't want to quibble it's late but the language I think is somewhat problematic at least I see it as so to share the burden is what I would suggest >> to share the burden of emergency >> better share >> more equitably share
>> any thoughts I'm I'm we're words smithing I know but >> share is nice and I think covers everything that you're trying to do >> we accept this as a friendly amendment >> I do >> thank Um, I'm going to go back or so we're done
with that one. Andy, uh, Bob Hegner. >> Um, sorry, point of order. Um, Council Ryan, I deleted this or would you prefer response with from the, um, are you okay with this deletion or do you want to
reward this part? >> Yes, I do. But >> thanks. as a seconder to the main motion. I'm okay with that as a friendly amendment. >> All right. Um Bob Hegger. >> Yeah. I want to go back to infrastructure, the one on the
wastewater treatment plant and ask Paul whether you can do this complete this this in this year. I don't think you can. I think it's maybe get provide an update. Um yeah, I don't think it'll be finished in 2026, but we do have the
funds to do it. So we'll be getting have a pretty good start on it. >> So did do you want to amend that? >> Maybe just say provide an update of instead of assess >> begin assessing >> assess but it's not be done.
>> Can I clarify Bob? Are you saying that the assessment will not be done? >> I'm saying yeah, the assessment will not be done by June 30th. >> Could they begin assessment? Yeah. >> Begin assessment of do we accept this as
a friendly amendment? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Are there any other amendments? >> Well, it says to present a plan and that's not going to happen either. I changed the wording to begin assessment of the current condition of the wastewater treatment plant and
associated infrastructure including pumping stations and sewer lines and present an update that will address these issues. Is that acceptable council Ryan? Thank you. >> Okay. Are there any other questions or comments?
Bob, you have your hand up. Bob Hegner, >> you have your hand up. >> Voting. >> Not yet. Just you have your hand up. >> Thank you. >> All right. The original motion
>> is without Rooney has her hand up. >> I'm sorry. >> Council Rooney. >> I'm sorry. C Pam Rooney. So um the the item here which is create a charge for and appoint fire station building committee.
What if the DPW building committee does in fact come up with the suggestion that there could be a a a colllocated facility? Do we need to adjust the the item that says appoint the DPW building committee
and present a schematic design to the council by October 1st? Do we want to include the possibility of fire station as well? >> No. >> If that comes to be, the council could vote to amend the goals at that time. >> Thank you, honor. >> The council could vote to amend these
goals if that comes to be. >> I agree. Any other questions or comments? We're going back to the original motion. The original motion is to adopt the 2026 town manager goals as amended. There second. Yes.
>> Yeah, that was a second. >> Okay. And so we're going to begin the vote with Bob Hegner. >> I. >> Councelor Lord. >> I. >> Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan. >> Hi.
>> Kathy Shane. Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. Hi. Jennifer Tob, >> yes. >> Councelor Walker, >> yes. Pat >> D'Angelus is absent. Anna Delin Gothier, >> hi. >> Councelor Ete, >> I. >> Lyn Grace, I councelor Hannik,
>> I. >> It's unanimous with one absent. >> There's there's one other action item and it's the calendar and if you want I can wait till next week. Let's do it. Let's do it. Okay. To adopt
the 2026 2027 town council meeting schedule as presented and in your packet is one that included the yellow for a couple dates that needed to get changed or words. >> Second Pam Rooney, your question
then take your hand down. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I'm going to move to a vote. Councelor Lord, >> I. >> Pam Rooney, >> yes. >> Councelor Ryan, >> I. >> Kathy Shane, >> yes.
>> Andy Steinberg, >> abstain. >> Okay. Uh, Jennifer Tob, >> yes. >> Councelor Walker, >> yes. >> Patangels is absent. Uh, Anna Delin Gothier. >> Hi. Councor
>> abstain. >> I think it's because they won't be here. Um Lynn Griezmer is an I. Councelor Hannaki. >> I >> and Bob Hagner >> abstain. >> All right. So we have
uh I guess that must be >> 11 people. No, nine people. Thank you. Nine people in favor. Three abstensions and one absent. Oh my god. Okay. Uh I'm
going to move to enter into executive session pursuant. >> Point of order. >> Yeah. >> Um if we're not coming out of it, this is our last chance to put on agendas carryover items. We want to vote on not carrying over. I would ask that we do that before we move into executive session.
>> That's a very good point. Uh are there any committee reports or liaison reports that people feel they need to make? I'm seeing none. Uh, no minutes. Anything, Paul? Town manager. No. Uh, councilor comments. Let me just You have
a carryover. You had four carryover reports. I tried to summarize it. If you'll put the memo up on, they can see all of the items. And the only item that I know has been requested is that we not fill the
charter committee appointment. These are all you're doing now is requesting items. Council Hanicki. >> Um I would request one thing for a vote to not carry over which is the go legislative process guide. Um, and I
would request that I I believe two of the four carryover member memos included the actual dates of the minutes that have not been passed. I would request that the other two carryover memos put the actual dates in so that the
committees have a record of which dates they're looking for memo minutes of. Thank you. >> Instead of just undone minutes. >> I totally agree. Any other questions about that? All right. So, I have two carryover
items for next meeting's agenda, which brings me to the discussion of the 15th. Are there any other carryover items that people want? On the 15th, you'll see uh what's in front of you. Uh we might go ahead and
put that back up again. And we Paley Village may actually not happen. Um but the rest and obviously we've done financial guidelines, we've done town manager goals. I have to have a press release. We do the carryover
reports. Anything else? And then we have also attempted to put together at least the beginnings of the agenda for January 5th. So, >> I'm sorry, Councelor Hanicki.
>> I'm wondering if Heatherstone Roundabout is coming back for this session or next session. >> It's going to be another session. >> Okay. Um I just didn't know cuz you guys did hold the D2 meeting >> and I didn't I didn't Do you think we need to Well, um we should probably
include it in a carryover memo, but I've got it on the list. Okay. It's >> It should be in someone's carryover memo then or on some future agenda item list. >> Yeah, it's down here at the bottom. >> I have it in there, but I It's not on
anybody's >> It's not on any carryover list because it's not in committee. >> It's in the It's in the council's court right now. >> Yeah, it's just in the council. >> So, it would be up to the whoever the president is in 26 to >> I'll write a carryover memo. What's that? >> No. Or just some sort of Yeah. at the
end of the January 5th one >> something. Um I have a lot of comments on the January 5th one. I am happy to leave them to next week given the lateness of it because I don't think it's important to do them tonight but I do have a lot of comments on that. >> That's fine. And any other comments
please. Okay. Are there any other questions or comments about future agenda items, carryover items, anything like that? No. Okay. We're going to go into executive session. I'm going to make a motion and
we are not going to return to public. We will vote on the 15th on any decisions we make in executive session. So, I'm going to Councelor Hanny, you have your hand up. Councelor Lord. >> Um, is there a separate link to enter
into exe? >> Yes, you will be getting that momentarily. Okay. But don't leave until we vote to go into executive session. to enter into executive s session pursuant to master law chapter 3A paragraph 21 A2
to conduct strate strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with non-UN personnel town manager Paul Bachmann mass general law chapter 3A paragraph 21 A2 to conduct contract negotiations with non-UN personnel town manager Paul
Bachmann and Mass General Law C 3A A paragraph 21 A7 to approve executive session minutes of February 10th, 2025, December 2nd, 2024. The council will not return. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Thank you. So, you are now >> We need to vote. >> Oh, yeah. We do need to vote. Okay. Uh, councelor uh Pamron. Yes. Councelor Ryan.
Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> Andy Steinberg. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. >> Councelor Walker. >> Yes. >> Patty Angelus is absent. Anna Delin Gothier. >> Hi. >> Councelor Ete.
>> Hi. >> Lynn Griezmer. I councelor Hani. >> Hi. >> Bob Hegner. >> Hi. >> Councelor Lord. >> Hi. We're going to get another link and we'll all be coming back on. Don't go away,
Paul. Don't go.