Welcome to the community preservation committee meeting uh at uh city council hearing room one government center fall river it's uh 603 February 9th 2026 uh pursuant to the open meeting halls any person who make an audio or video
recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. Um
before we start, I I did want to give a shout out to uh um Emily Parket and uh Chris up in accounting. They helped us get uh quite a bit of money back. And as we can see, we are dealing with quite a
bit this year, 5.2, because we had a lot of money floating around out there that just didn't get into our account. So, I do want to thank them for their hard work. So we can use the money. Uh as far as that, we don't have to spend it all. Uh we never know what next year might
bring us a good project. So I would like to see us some, you know, a little before million somewhere think about cutting the funding off and uh keeping a nice reserve for next year. Um let's see.
Um let's see. Oh, roll call. We'll start. >> BJ McDonald. >> Rick Mancini here. >> James Hinesby here. John Brandt. >> Thank you.
>> Sorry. Kristen Canara Olivera attending remotely by Zoom. >> Alexander Silva present. >> Michael Far is present. >> Joanne Bentley present. Next, u no citizen input. >> No.
>> Can I have a motion for approval of the uh minutes from January 14th? >> I'll make a motion to approve the uh minutes of January the 14th of 2026. >> I second. Okay. Roll call.
>> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes. Jim Rick >> James Hinsby. Yes. >> John Brent, yes. >> Kristen Canara Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Selby, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes.
>> Joey Bentley, yes. >> Okay. And then on to the voting. Uh Sandy, on the voting, uh are we going the list down and
>> or what? Uh we we should have the numbers, right? >> Yeah. Um >> No, you didn't. >> On the voting, I would vote for >> Could you talk into the mic? Before you get going, John, do you need to do the open meeting?
>> I did. >> Yeah, he did. >> Okay. >> Can everybody hear me? >> This whole side didn't get it. >> We didn't. >> I missed that. >> Oh, >> that was my question. I'm sorry. I missed the opening. >> That's the snowball effect. >> Uh can you uh just explain the the
funding tonight in that way? >> Yes, you have a lot of information in front of you. Uh like John said, we had meetings with the finance team, the auditor and Emily, and they developed all the information that you have in
front of you tonight. So any unspent funds and any unreserved funds have been put back into where they need to go. So tonight you have 5,2443,4143 to allocate to your projects. Um there
are specific amounts per category. So for instance in open space you have 80166156. In historic preservation, you have 95882101 and community housing has 1,180,870.
Um, when you vote tonight, you'll have another sheet that's broken down. This year with the state, you were allocated, you were given 1,956,253. So it breaks down that you need to put 195 625
in each of your categories. That's your 10%. So that automatically has to go in your categories. Now obviously you can spend it tonight in addition to all that extra money that you have which is on the sheet. This sheet right here. Okay.
on that $5 million that you have, just know that your bonds have already been taken out of that amount and so has the 45,000 admin. So that's already been taken out. So
that's your full amount. That 5 million is exact exactly what you have including the bonds and your admin. But you need to vote for your admin and you need to vote for your bonds tonight. So it's on record. Okay? Even though that money's been taken out, you still have to vote
on those tonight. Okay? Then you really should vote on all of your deed restrictions. I gave everybody a list of deed restrictions on the spreadsheet that I did for all of you.
And then you'll see a section I believe I did in green that said if you do not allocate funds to a couple of the projects, you still need to do a deed restriction for them because they have
received CBC funds in the past, but they don't have the restrictions yet like recreation, like the historical society, like the maritime museum. So, if you don't fund those three projects,
you need to do a separate vote for the deed restriction of $650 for them in addition to the list I gave you so that we can get all the deed restrictions completed and filed. Okay.
Anyone have any questions? It's a lot of information over here. >> I just have a quick question. You had sent us the score sheet. >> Skip that. >> Skip to get. Yeah, you've got the list of the projects. What's one, two? Yeah, go by that. Those are your projects. That's the one. That's the order though,
right? >> Yes. Go in that order. >> Is there a paper copy of that, too, or No, just the email copy. >> Just the email copy. You need You need hard copies of that. Did you all bring that with you? What your projects are? >> I brought one. >> Okay. All right. >> I I have it on my my head.
>> Okay. But no, what? We don't know the which how did they rank? We I don't have >> I sent that to everybody. >> I sent that to everybody. That's what I was. >> I've sent it more than once, I think, too. I've sent that a couple of times. >> Yes, it is. Um, hang on.
>> I couldn't open that one. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Do you have an extra copy? I could just bring one of those. >> No, I didn't bring that with me >> because Emily gave me all the updated information >> couldn't print out. So >> hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang
on. I do. Right. He has an extra coffee. I did. >> You don't need one. >> I do need >> I just want to make sure. >> Just in case. >> Just in case. >> Yeah. Sometimes I can't open the XL.
>> I thought I was doing something. >> No. >> Okay. So the piece I just I the the copy I just sent you >> are the projects. >> Okay, >> the copy that I just gave you are the projects in order of how they ranked
according to all your votes. So the parklet came in number one and then you'll see at the bottom what came in last. Okay, so that's how you vote. You have to vote in order. I personally would vote for your bonds, your admin. Get
those off the table so you don't forget about them at the end of your voting because you have to vote those even though the money's been taken out. >> What about the deeds? Like it seems like that has to be done anyway. >> You can vote for those right off the top too if you want.
>> Some might be included into that after. >> Okay. like the historical society if you vote to fund that >> depending how you so and then that 650 is part of what you're going to fund them not in addition to what you're
going to fund them so just keep that in mind so if you've got a $100,000 project that you're going to fund 650 of that has to be for the deed and the 95 or however much thousand is for them to spend okay >> okay
>> okay everybody all set questions All right. Well, how about we take the uh the bonds out uh first and uh going to have a motion uh motion to fund the uh Fall River Fire Museum and Central
Fire Station for 2,21 uh $221,292. >> Motion to approve. How many years are left on the bond? >> We got the 2028. >> Yeah. >> Just so this is >> All right. So, we got to approve this one and then we got one more. some a
motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Okay. >> Discussion. >> Uh we can have discussion if you want. >> Yeah. I don't you need to run run it by again. Did you I didn't see these. Were these sent out?
>> Yeah, I sent those out a couple of times. I've sent out >> No, no. Stuff that came in today, but >> No, I just got that this afternoon. I just got that this afternoon. So, >> I apologize to you. >> That's okay. I had a training all day
and I arrived home at 5:00 and I'm going to I've really not had chance to >> digest anything. >> Would you explain why we're doing those two projects again?
>> Well, we bonded them. Do >> you want to explain? So, right now, uh, we just made the motion in the second to pay this year's installment for one of our bonds. It's, uh, the fourth year we've been paying this out of a five
year. Yep. This is for the center fire station and the fire museum. And then the number that Sandy gave today that you probably didn't have a chance to look at yet, the 5.243 million number that we have to spend um, in total, that is already subtracting um, these bond
not these bond amounts. So, change. >> So, it's been seconded, I think. >> Okay. Could Could you just repeat the exact number for the bond? >> Yes. >> 221,292. >> And we had a motion. >> Second. >> Uh, roll call.
>> EJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes. >> James Hornsby. Yes. >> John Brandt. Yes. >> Kristen Canar Oliver. Yes. >> Alexander Silva. Yes. >> Michael Ferris. Yes. Joy and Bentley. Yes. >> Okay. Then the next bond we have is for
the Biores Reserve Conservation Land Acquisition Project. Uh it's a 10 year. >> Do we know what year we are in on this one? I know we have some more. >> Do we just start this like three years in? I think >> I think this is a um a 10-year bond.
>> Might be in three. This might be your fourth year. Okay. For this bond. >> So we have we have to pay this pretty much for a while. This is the same. >> This is This is a bond. >> Same kind of layout. >> Yep. But for for a buyer reserve land acquisition. >> I not the new one, but the older one.
Yeah. >> Okay. Uh roll call. We got to >> No, we need a motion. >> Oh, we need a motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mayini. Yes. >> James Hornsby. Yes. >> John Brent. Yes.
>> Kristen Canara Olivera. Yes. Alexander Silva, yes. >> Michael Parish, yes. >> Joey Bentley, yes. >> Okay. To give you uh that bond was uh part of FY19. >> So,
>> can you just give John Mike the amount? >> Uh it was 78,000. >> Yeah. 78,000. >> And but that's a 10 year. So, it's 780,000. Well, no, no, it's 78,000 we take out this year in
>> it was bonded in FY19. >> Okay. >> So, >> and it's a 10-year term. >> Yeah. So, we got two more years left on that one. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, next we have admin. We just
take the uh 5% which is 45,000. Uh, can I have a motion? >> I make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> I'll second that motion. Okay, roll call. >> DJ McDonald, yes. Rick Mancini, yes. >> James Hornsby, yes. John Brent, yes.
>> Kristen Canara Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Silva, yes. >> Michael Ferious, yes. >> Joey Bentley, yes. >> Okay. Um, we'll save the deed restrictions because I think we're going to have some come out. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we'll take the first number one is the parklet. Um that's for uh includes construction of a city-owned parcel that was donated. Um
they want to reset the lower pavers uh remove the upper park pavers, update the lighting, landscaping and seating. Um installation of memorial path plaque and uh so the board's wishes on that.
They're looking for 400,000 that would go under open space. and it's going to be part of the Columbia uh street uh street. >> Mr. chairman. Um, this raises an issue and I'm not
for the parklet and the one to fall. Um, there are large amounts and I would is there some way that we can so that we don't run out of money? >> Yeah. at at the when there are projects
that I think are really worthwhile and that maybe if we fund all if we fund if we run out of money because we spent too much >> then they won't get anything. >> Well, they do have uh that in part of the capital uh expenditures which the
meeting is uh February 24th I think. Sandy, is that right? >> I believe so. I think I sent everybody that they'll know the city government. >> They'll know how much they're going to allocate for each project. Um, so we can vote lower or we can vote the full
amount and then just not uh >> not fun to subtract what they get. >> This is getting worse and worse here. Is that um >> or you can make a motion to fund 300,000?
>> Um that's up to the committee. >> Oh, I'll do that. Move 300,000. >> Okay. You want to make the motion and then do you want to uh >> I mean, it seems to me that that we're
going to be It seems to me we should which either we should cut back or we should kind of make if I go shopping and I've got a hundred I've got a $100. >> Okay, >> I look at the whole thing and then if I discover that that steak is more
expensive, which I don't buy usually steak is more expensive, then I've got to do I really need the milk today. >> Okay, I understand. So, you want to make a motion for 300. Now you just got to read what you wanna >> but before you make a motion I'll
withdraw first. >> Sure. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> So I just think it's important u maybe we just define how we got this list to the public. Um so this received the at least the number of votes. Highest was a
one lowest was a three. And so this was on the top of the list. Most of the people in the group put this as the number one project to get funding. And I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just wanted the public to know that that we're not just randomly taking
these out of order. We're taking these based on everybody's input >> right >> at the table and kind of it was very well thought out. Um, but that being said, I just wanted that to be right >> to be mentioned. I think I think too I I
agree with both and I think u funding a portion of it and putting a little pressure on the city to match I think also is smart at least >> I do think they're going to matching funds. So we did want to say 300 I think that would be more than our share. So, I
guess the question that I would have is just where do we come up with the 300? Because in my mind, I was thinking coming into tonight, if we fund 50% of these two city projects, then we can ask the city to kick in the additional 50% and it's an even 50/50 match for those
two. That was coming into tonight for those two. The first I know we're just talking about the parklet now, but I had the same train of thought for the the next project on the list, the Father Kelly parking, where we >> Yeah. >> And then and then we have something to
say. Well, we didn't just pull a number out of thin air. We're saying we'll give you half and get the other half from from the city. So that's >> what I essentially. Yeah. So I that my motion was not seconded. >> No. By the way,
>> Alex says none. >> Um I So I just think that this being the number one project that it should probably be fully funded. Um I personally have five of the top six
projects in my mind that we should bond for. Um it's the open space and recreation projects. I think those are all excellent candidates. Um, and if you total those fully funded, um, which I'm not disagreeing with what you're all
saying about having the city, um, put in more of a a fair share of it. It's just with so many different capital needs in the city and the past history of, you know, seeing what gets funded and where the priorities are, I wouldn't necessarily anticipate it getting, you
know, the necessary amount of funding to fully complete the project. If anything, I think any additional funds in the capital plan could be um useful at alternates or perhaps, you know, just different capital items that would have gotten a shortcoming in some other retrospect. Um so with if if we were to
kind of go along that thought of bonding five of the top six um the open space and recreation which for the public um these were five of the top six scored as the Columbia Street parking uh parklet the father Kelly uh park parking Abbott
Court sensory playground um the Samson parcel land and the multiple park resurfacing um th that totals 2,70,000 um and then if you look at um or if you
remember the bonding uh kind of calculation chart that we received from the city uh that payment um I think comes to around 313,000 per year um which isn't insignificant
uh or 337 per year um which isn't insignificant um but just knowing that we have one last uh year on the bond payment for the 221 292 uh 221,000 for the fire museum. It's just a net
increase after next year of a h 100,000. So my thinking is building in a very safe reserve where maybe we can just kind of build in two years of bond payments to just kind of not have to think about it. Um and then that just opens up a lot more space to fund the
other projects because I think this is a particularly tough year with a lot of good projects. Um so doing that it it just opens up um I think a lot more opportunities uh with the additional funds that we heard of today as well as
>> well one thing if we did consider bonding uh if we voted to fund 100% 400,000 it does not go out the bonding till the uh uh bids come in till they still they start payment. So by that time they
would get money from the city that would go in there and uh so we wouldn't be paying on we wouldn't be bonding the whole 400,000 just what they need for extra. >> I have a question. >> So that could be a caveat. >> If if we um
say we're going to bond for 100% of it, what are the chances that the city is still going to have some input? because like if I know you're going to give me 100% like I'm going to save my money for something else. You know what I mean? So I'm
>> well these these uh projects are are on the list which is what pretty good reason why we should probably go to a few of us should go to the meeting on the 20 24th just to uh let them know that we did support him but also the city should support the uh project too.
So, uh, >> so while while I support them, I'm not sure I would want to do it 100%. That's all I'm saying. >> Okay. Yeah. And a couple we we do this in other cities as well with park projects
and some of them they just kind of said put in a 25% maximum or minimum input from the city or the town and then the CPA will come in and and do it could be some type of a balance. But I I I agree with what you're saying that it should
have some skin in the game. If someone's going to give me a 100% on something, my hands are going to, you know, wash wash from that that particular item and they're not going to fund for it. But I I think it is good to have these projects done. What the percentage is,
I'm not quite sure. And whether the city, you're right, um whether they're going to have the funds to even do 20%, 10%. I don't know. But >> what happens if >> I I just want to say so like what I'm not disagreeing with what you're worried about. I'm just saying that what you're
worried about if it did happen, it would also in theory be a benefit to the community because it's just another capital item that's getting funded. We're just opening up, you know, more possibilities for larger benefits to the community is kind of I guess just the point I'm trying to make. So like I know it's like a worst case scenario, but
it's not really a bad case scenario. But I was just >> I I agree it's not bad. I'm just >> I just also think like fundamentally sometimes when you think of some of these other nonprofits and these other entities that are looking for funding,
uh I think that there's an important piece for what we do to help some of those other groups that don't have the same benefit of this city, you know. So, I I just think that um I I understand
and hear what everyone's saying, but I'm I'm also kind of in the camp that I think even if it's bonded, it should be a percentage and and an agreed upon percentage of of these projects. >> Okay. More, you have any input?
>> Um just the the idea of bonding for all of those open space projects. I don't think that that's really necessary, especially with the amount of money that we have available this year. Um, and I know we said we're going to keep some
money in reserve, and I fully agree with that. I just, um, I don't think we need to keep that much money where we would need to bond for all of those, uh, all of those projects. I think we can fund those. I know we have a lot of good
projects. It doesn't mean that we have to fund every single project this year either. Um, as far as funding fully, I I tend to lean on the side of having the city put
a little skin in the game as well. Um, I know the only one that I wouldn't that I wouldn't say let's let's cut it down would be the Abbott Park uh playground. I think that would be one that I would be willing to fully fund. But but the
first one and the second one that we're going to be discussing, I would say um partially fund, maybe half, maybe maybe even three quarters. Um but I do I do side with the the thought of partial
funding rather than fully. >> Okay. May I ask a question? Um, is this the first time a park and open space has been presented uh through the city here? Do we have any is it okay for my time?
>> Well, the father Kelly was was that the >> that was the baseball league? >> They submitted it. >> Yeah. It's just the one thing I would wonder is the overlook. Was that the city? >> That was the >> le So no. Yeah. >> No, we had we had Columbus Park.
That was Alan. >> Yeah, I think it was the neighborhood association for this is the first time the city >> I think. So it is kind of a big deal. >> Yeah. >> Which they they were actually probably meeting earlier than their capital expenditure normally happens in
November. >> They got behind track. So normally they have that going on when we should have the numbers now. So, so what would transpire if hypothetically we were saying uh 75% will fund 25% you're
you're responsible for city and they decide to just drop the project. It just gets dropped. Do they apply again in the future? But I again I think you you really have to >> that's the risk. >> That's the risk. Yeah. Okay. >> Really have to what to it? So, so what I
was saying, >> pencil, >> we we we are it's like the the the cart in front of the horse a little bit because we don't know if they've actually allocated any funds in their capital improvement projects and if they you know, we say that I I agree with
that what everybody's saying. If you gave 100%, they're not going to put anything into the budget for that. But the reality of it is if you put in 75% and they come up and they don't put anything into it, it's a it's a dead project. So would we then be No, we
can't shouldn't even >> consider redo re >> No, we wouldn't funding the whole thing. Could >> Could you explain a little bit about maybe the bonding process because maybe that could force them I don't know to do >> well I mean we could just make a
restriction in the agreement that any funds allocated to the project via the capital improvement plan be reimbursed back to the committee. It's just their bonded funds if if it is bonded. They're bonded funds. So technically it's restricted to that scope. So I think it would have to wait until the bond ends
to go back in its categories. But that's a finance question. >> Yeah. So if we did bond it for say four and they got $200,000, uh they would only send our part out for 200,000. So the other would be $200,000 credit would come back into CPC.
>> Yeah, we could just, you know, vote to reuse the funds a different year if that is the case. I guess not wait for the bond. >> But if I was a city and I've already bonded the full amount, >> you know, >> you're disincentivized in theory, you know, but that's
>> okay. I mean, I see your point in that, but the city's going to want to come back next year again, too. So, obviously, they're not going to like >> Yeah, but these two projects are also corresponding with projects that are happening no matter what. So there is kind of a I mean think about opening up the streets again for like just think of
like the construction efficiencies that happen if they run side by side and I was saying we could make a restriction in the agreement like I said to to claw back some of the the funding if they are awarded some which I think would be the safest thing to do to alleviate concerns for And I I think to that point though,
I think that also lends credence to the fact that they're going to fund these because those other they're redoing Globe Four Corners and it's probably a significant amount of money to do that. And now we're talking small potatoes if
we're talking 25% of these numbers when you're talking about the scope of what they're doing to be able to make it look, you know, to get it over the goal line. These aren't one-off projects that are spread out all over the city. They are part of other projects that are being funded by the city where we're
only look I say only, but if we were to do 50 or 75% um that number looks a lot smaller when it's in the scope of a couple million dollar project that's already being funded. >> I have one more question. I think this might you might have the answer to this.
There was a skate park that was um originally designed and that going through the process that's from the city, right? That >> that was ARPA funds I believe CDA as well, I think. >> Yeah, that was Lafayette Park. >> That's and that's in in process
>> and and did that go through uh the Fall River budget to capital improvements? >> I think though I think it was ARPA funds. >> Okay. >> I don't think it was within the city. So the reason Yeah. The reason I asked that is they don't never budgeted for a park
improvement or upgrade or new park in general. >> Has it ever been part of their their budget? You know what I mean? And and so again, I think things are really tight with the city and if they've never done it before,
are they ever going to do it in the future? I don't know. >> Yeah. Speaking as a former member of the school committee, I can tell you that the uh I came on board and I was absolutely shocked at the I shouldn't have been because my
kids, you know, I'd gone to Henry Lord, but just the maintenance delay, deferred, put off, not thought of was just horrendous.
And I see this in what I'm hearing is this is true in other areas of the city and just from these applications >> and it's that there is not a lot sufficient or
even close to it allocation. No, that's I mean that's why sometimes CPC is a a good way of spending taxpayer dollars because it goes right back in to the city and uh it improves neighborhoods and
>> right >> they do have two big project >> arguing that they shouldn't be fixed. I'm arguing that the city should allocate more money towards >> that is >> what I'm hearing a lot of comments and the majority here appears to be from different viewpoints and from different
angles all saying the same thing. The city and individuals in this proposals should be putting skin in the game. I guess what our bottom line is right now is to come up with some reasonable
either percentage or something to work these numbers through because it's it seems to be unan almost unanimous here that skin has to be put in the game and full funding might you know might not be the might might not be the correct way
to go at this point. We're just saying it in different ways as I'm listening to the group. Good. >> Thank you. All right. So, >> I I would want to consider like a 60%. You know, it's like a little bit more
than halfway, but 75% is a lot. I mean, just just tossing it out there for comments. I I know in the past when we approved uh land acquisitions um the uh the water department has come
back and only instead of taking like I forget how much it was but they only took 230,000 that they needed from our end >> and reimburse. >> So the others came back as reimbursement. So like you take uh Samson, if we decided just to do half, we might lose
the the ability to purchase the land. They might not get their full amount when they needed to do the purchase. So that's the only thing you got to look at there. >> Mhm. >> But right now we're talking about the parklet. >> Parklet. Yeah. >> Okay.
One solution that we've done before, um, usually it's neighborhood associations with a city that kind of have that park and adapt it and they ask for the funds for CPC. When it's a town or a city, what we've done in the past is um, for
the first one on the vote, it gets 80% funding for it, 20% has to come up from the city, and if it's like the next one is a city or a town project, it drops down. So they have to come up with more money and you give them less more. That
way they prioritize what their application is coming in. Like this would have been a perfect example of just do this one park project and have it fully funded or you know figure it out that way. But that's that's one way that we've done it in the past as well.
So, um, it's really kind of the city, it's in the city's, um, best interest to kind of figure out how they want to apply for these and whether they're going to put money in the future for the capital improvement projects. But I I personally don't think there's going to
be a lot um, a lot of funds associated with uh, >> and this this particular park project too though, it came from engineering from Dan Aguar's office. Um, so not the best example, but in years past with in
meeting with the council on behalf of the park board, one of the things that they said was ask for money from other places and then ask us. Kind of the same thing we're saying is they don't want to fund 100%
of things either. So if there's a happy medium to be able to go back to them and say, "We hear you. We'll give you 60%. you kick in the rest. So, I think that they have similar conversations, I guess, is my point. >> Did Did they ever um approach you on
this project or the other one below it, the Father Kelly? >> Yeah, Dan Aguar came to our parkboard meeting and he gave a presentation similar to what he gave to the CPC and he said as those plans are finalized, he'd be back for more input and, you know, fine-tune the numbers and stuff. So,
>> and and do you have input on a budget for the parks? uh committee >> uh far as >> like for the capital expenditure program. Do you do you have a budget to say, "Okay, we're going to put in >> We can ask." I know that Darren put in
as a part of the capital improvement plan um some items, but these two projects were not submitted from the parks department, I guess, is my point. I think got >> because they're part of other projects. So, it's they're redoing Globe Four
Corners. Well, why don't we tie in a a parking lot? It makes a lot of sense. You're redoing Columbia Street. Let's clean up that parkland. it makes a lot of sense to do to do that and I think that's why they came from engineering because they're spearheading kind of the
we'll call it the main project that these two projects are tied to. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. >> And they Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I was just going to say could could we agree before we agree on amount like should this be bonded or not bonded?
Could we could we >> I think do that first. I think that would be good. And it might also be good to get a consensus on how much reserves we are all thinking. I know John you said 4 million. >> I'd like to that's a little higher than what I was thinking. Um so if we don't
bond that is it's harder to approve some things. So I if I would I would like to make a motion that this is this project the parklet on Columbia Street is a project that we bond.
>> Okay. For for how much? >> Full amount or >> Well, I just wanted to agree that we're going to bond it in the motion for >> Yeah. For the amount >> like I motion X amount be a bond with caveat set.
>> Second, Mr. Chairman. Do you want to make a motion to bond for 300,000 75%. >> There's a motion on the floor. >> Oh, we did have that. Yeah. So, >> without on the motion. >> Yeah, we did have his motion on the
floor. So, >> we can vote one and then we can vote the other. I'm not >> So, I I would make a motion to bond this Parklet project for $300,000. >> Okay. Right. I'm, you know, I'm just trying to follow a a reasonable
parliamentary procedure so we don't get in any cases so that if you're in favor of her second motion, >> vote the first motion down. >> But your motion, would you want to include >> No, I once it's on the floor, it belongs
on the floor. You can't >> Yeah, I'm talking about your motion. You made a motion to fund 300,000. I withdrew that. >> Yes, he did. >> I withdrew that. It was never seconded. >> Okay. So then we only have the one,
>> John. >> John, so what if I I mean, if I support the project and I want to fund the project, but I don't support bonding for it, cuz I don't I I think they should be two separate things. I don't think it should be yes, I
>> Yes, I support this, but only for bonding. I to me, they're two separate things. I don't think we should necessarily bond. I just think that we or maybe bond for just a couple of things and I think we should do that at the end when we figure things out. I don't think that we should we should
vote for the project and that we're going to bond for it. To me, they're two separate things because I don't not support the project. I just don't support bonding. >> Bonding will influence. >> So do I. That's why I seconded her bonding motion.
So I I I just have I apologize. I have one more last question. We have one caveat in here because I had done a breakdown in all of the park projects, the 450 the 400,000, the five half a million, the 200,000 and uh the 250 and
then the 25,000 >> 720. >> Yeah. But the 720 project, I have a question on that. Does that have to be fully funded because it's an acquisition? And then the second part of the question, h do they have a purchase and sales agreement that it's 720? Those
are the two things that I want to make sure that because that's that's a huge chunk of money. Um you could do all the other ones and and bond that one, but if you can't bond it because it's a purchase and sales, I understand that. >> That's they've always come to us because
we we vote first and then they get the other money from outside, but it comes down the road >> after we vote. So >> yeah, >> that's why the last time when they asked for the full amount, they only took 238. The rest came back to us. They didn't need it. So asking for the 720 is
probably what they need. So if they don't get the full amount or they don't get any that covers the cost. It was mentioned during the presentation by both Paul and Mike Furlin that the 720,000
was the original asking price and that they were in negotiations and Mike did state that he thought monies allocated would be less than this 720,000. So that statement was made. Um
remember if if we allocate if we bonded for that which I think would be a good idea because it wouldn't be issued until the final uh purchase price would be submitted and that purchase price is going to be from
what we understand less than this. So >> and they have a matching grant too right? >> They well not match. >> They haven't got that yet but they do have stuff. They're working on monies coming in and then just to so that's this statement. Let me just change gears a little bit
>> and we're talking about the parklet and father Kelly Park going in I guess with a reduced sum is good process but also let's bear in mind that both of these projects don't need to be or will
not have to be completed immediately. Father Kelly Park, you could get the preliminary work done, make provisions for expansion. So, if there's not enough money and if they're not able to get additional funding, they could come back
next year and say, "Look, we want to complete the project. >> You know, we have the pipe or the conduits in the ground. We've got this ready." >> All right. So, these projects could be done in pots. They don't have to be done 100%. So, let's just bear that in mind.
And and I'm for going in with a reduced percentage. That's a a fair way. And in fact, if you took the number one ratings and said, uh, I'm just using numbers 75%. Number TWs get 65% and number
threes get 50%. I mean, you know, I wouldn't be opposed to that thinking either because then you're rating in order of what the board felt the projects were or priority to the project. So, that's another alternative. But let's just all bear in mind that
most of these projects can be done in in pieces. They they don't have to be done immediately fully at this point. Not not just all of them. Raising costs usually. >> Yeah. Well, the I actually did a breakdown for the parklet and the other
one. So, when Dan provided us an excellent breakdown of that particular scenario and what I had, especially with Father Kelly's, there were things that could be done right off the bat in conjunction with the roadway improvements and then the other elements
within that could be a phase two component of this. Um but what I would say ultimately is I think the top projects here, the first two and uh the third one is are all shovel ready.
That's the thing like the two first projects are shovel ready. They're on the docket to be under construction with the Globe Floor Corners um project, the street improvement and then Columbia Street. the the the second one in there, the Abbott court, I I agree that that
has a lots lot of public private funding to it and they're just asking for the 200,000 to it. Um the Maple is another one. The the Maple, Griffin, Highland, North, all of those, they already have a contractor. They're ready to go with it. That's shovel ready. That's something
that's going to happen quickly. Um, and and you know, again, I think it's pretty uh the um the $25,000 for the uh parcel uh 15073 land protection. I think that's short
money. Um the big the big ticket is the $720,000. And again, they're trying to get a grant to that. So maybe could you do like a two-year bond on that to find out between now and where the the the funds come in? Because if they really do get
half of that, they we've just answered our question. So I don't know if that's I don't know the bonding process. Is it a one year? >> We can bond for two years. It's just, you know, >> we can do two years. Yeah, we can bond for >> five, 10. >> Yeah. >> You know,
>> and when do you think they would find out whether they get the grant the land grant to that? Well, they would know. >> They said early spring, something like that. >> Okay, >> that's my memory. >> So maybe I mean again, remember this is all 2027.
>> So again, even with the funding um with with Columbia Street and uh the four corners, they're not going to get the funds until 2027. Am I correct on that assumption? >> Yeah. And so even like this resurfacing
and u part of the project which is $250,000 it's not not going to happen this coming summer. It's going to happen >> Oh no that's going to happen this coming summer. >> They're ready to go right away on that. >> The reason for the 27 is our fiscal year
ends in July. But this is all these are all shovel ready. Yeah. So that's what I I agree with what what Alex was saying like these are important projects. The community is going to see these and again I think trying to figure out how the city has some skin in the game and I
know John and I and several other people have been on the parks and open space >> committee uh that just came through and we just did finished the master plan and all of that. So these at least are projects that have been identified. So >> yeah, they do fall in the uh category of
or open space recreation. So, um, okay. Do we want to >> make a motion on the floor to Yeah. answer the question that Kristen was asking. >> Do which is what I had started at is do we want to first talk about or vote on
do we want to bond this or not bond this. >> Then the next part of that would be how much do we want to do? >> Yeah. And I think reserves is tied to that. So like take for example John's 4 million in reserve amount. If we don't
bond, we have 5.1 million in requests and we have 5.24 available. So um we're spending 1.1 1.2 million without bonding with the reserves of 4 million which I'm
not saying we have to do. So just that just to put it in perspective, if you're going to start, you know, shortch changing projects, even with doing that 75 65%, you're still going to run out pretty quickly. And I don't know what everyone else is planning on voting for,
but um I think if we bond, we can we can fund at full or partially almost everything and still have I think it was when I calculated it two and a half three million in reserve for bond payments and next year. And so I and I
also think it's important to note that we're getting less money each year from multiple directions. So it's not so we shouldn't bank on having this much available in future years. That's why I think it's safe to come up with like some significant reserves, have the bonds kind bond payments, any bond
payments we have or want to have kind of built into it because the amount of property sales are decreasing. It'll probably still be decreasing in the next couple years. Um and the amount of match and additional match from the state are also decreasing. So just keep that in
mind. Chris, >> go ahead. question. >> So I I think I completely misunderstood what John had said. I thought when John was talking about keeping money in reserve, I thought John was talking about spending 4 million and then
keeping the remaining 1 something million in reserves. I I did not understand that to be keeping $4 million in reserves because to me that's an incredibly high amount of money to keep in reserves. >> A million in reserve. No.
So, you want to spend 4 million? Oh, I thought you said keeping 4 million in reserve. Okay, that makes more sense. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> now we can vote on a project and then if we get down to where we want to go back
and say we want to take the projects and put them in the bonding and vote on that to see where our money is that's is going to fall. Well, $4 million didn't cover a lot of projects without bonding, >> but we can go back and say we want to
take three projects and bond them. We can go back and vote to put them in the bond. >> And then open the money up. >> So, would you like me to withdraw my motion and we can start over again? >> Well, so knowing if we're bonding ahead of time, like for me, it's it will
impact how the amounts I vote for, you know? So like if we're doing that at the end, I will be voting amounts differently like under the assumption it's not bonding, you know, like that's kind of how I would personally play it out, >> right? That's that's the issue I was kind of get getting to at the start is
how to plan the whole is is I hear comments is we're beginning to look at the entire package >> rather than just >> one or two items or five. Mhm.
>> And I my suggestion is that we bond those things that are quite expensive and just free fund or partial fund the um the less expensive ones. Uh say
$100,000 down or something like that. I'm not coming up with a figure at this point, but we have we have some of them that are we have that are low and they they really aren't going to make a big difference in in $4 million or for that
matter in $2 million. My my only question I have is like we already have two we just approved two bonds, you know, one for the fire museum for historical preservation for 221,000 plus dollars and then one for open space
for 78,000. If you keep on doing this, eventually we're going to be sitting here just approving old bonds. >> Yeah. But see, that's why >> Yeah. >> That's why I wouldn't bring up bonding this year. >> Yeah. if we weren't getting ready to pay the one off in 2028.
>> Okay. >> So, I I always like to keep >> to make sure we have enough money. >> Yeah. >> So, we normally get about 1.8 1.9. So, that you take the 300,000 so we always have about 1.6 to pass out. >> I don't like to go any lower than that
because, you know, new applications deserve. >> So, it's it's really up to us. I mean, >> do we want to bond uh or we don't? I mean, >> Joanne, for my clarity, with your uh
concern, is it is it to just open up right now the ability to bond when we come to one of these and say, "Well, this is one we should bond." No, this one we'll pay out of our funding. Is Is that what your intent is? So, it's just
to open up and give us the ability when we reach one of these projects that we can >> ask to bond. Is that what you're asking for? >> Yes. >> I I think that's an excellent idea. So, yes. >> Well, okay. We can do that when we make the motion.
>> It's been seconded. It's on the floor. >> No, we don't have anything on the floor right now. >> Yes. With you have the motion. >> You've got a motion and a second. So, you're having discussion now. So now you need to vote on the motion >> which is the bonds. >> Yes. >> Okay. Excuse me. But the bond for
clarity again the bond is the motion to bond is that it's on the floor. It's going to lay here until we reach one of the projects that we feel bonding might be necessary and then we utilize the bonding issue. Correct.
>> Perfect. Well, that's a different motion, but >> No, that's >> I thought you Let me just I'm hanging in there because I don't want somebody to challenge us because we've messed up. >> Oh, I understand. >> Okay, that's what I'm really saying. Kristen, I understood your motion to be
that we bond that first project. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> At for $300,000. Yes. And that's what you seconded. That's what's on the floor being discussed. you need to vote on that to do is vote if is vote yes or no on that
and it's on the floor. >> Okay. So, so what what I would I I just as my observation to this, we have the funds to do this, why don't we fund it for the 300,000 and then why don't we just bond the $720,000
until this for two years out. That way we get clarification that they got the grant and we know exactly how much it'll be. And so if we did we did a bond on the land for two years they find out that they got 50% they only need 350.
>> I think we would be advised that but that's kind of a high cost benefit ratio to for a bond. Usually you want a larger sum in the longer term. >> The city doesn't like the bond under less than a million. might be told that too. >> You're going to be paying debt.
>> Yeah. It's just it's >> not as >> it's not as much. >> If we're going to bond, we have to be somewhere around >> So we got like the numbers.5. >> The numbers I was quoting was what Emily sent us, which was if we were bonding
2.5 million, that's at 3.5 interest percent interest rate for 10 years. So it wouldn't even be this much, but like the level debt service payments are 313,866. Level principles 337,500.
So that's just like where we're kind of looking at for a 10-year bond at 2.5 million. >> I don't have the numbers for two years at, you know, >> you you just answered my question then. Why if we have the money in the bank and we do, why are we bonding something that
we could fund? Like so that's why I would say the the first two projects we come up with a percentage and fund those and and that's then they are on the hook for whatever percentage 25% or 40% or
whatever we decide. So you have the money why would you take a loan out on it? >> I agree. I I fully agree with that because why are we going to pay interest on something when we have the money there in our accounts to do it? I can
see maybe if there's something that we want to fund and we can't like like Mike was saying the 720,000, but to put all of those other projects and then start paying interest on those projects when we have the money and we don't have to to me is not a good way to
spend money. You're you're you're spending money for no reason. We do have 5.2. So, >> you need to know how much you want in reserves to have that be true or not because we need to know what we're spending to because if you want to spend
not spend to x amount like I think 1.1 million is too low honestly, but if if you wanted to you just have to make sure the amounts you're spending and what you want to spend line up and then that's where the bonding I think the bonding would come in. >> Can I ask one more question about the bond? So the number the magic number for
the in order to bond for it to make sense is a million bucks because I was thinking along the same side as Mike like well if the land acquisition let's bond just for that one because it's a moving target and it's a big number but if that's the the sticking point where
it's going to be at 1.5 million >> it's just not fe moneywise you know >> feasible to do >> it and that can be applied to not just this category because we're talking about open space and recreation Can that bond be multiple projects like between
the three different categories? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. It >> Well, you got to remember though, we do have the money in historic preservation. We have a ton. So I mean >> Oh yeah. >> I think well just thinking out loud I think it would make us have to pay well
you have to find out how much um percentage of the bond payment would become come come out of which category if it was multiple categories unless it would all come out of unrestricted. >> That's why it's easier to go with like one one >> like open space then you know 300,000
every year is going to come out of open space. >> Yeah. Like your last bond was two historic preservation projects. So you bonded Central Fire Station and the Fire Museum. So those were two historic preservation bonds. That that was one bond for those two projects. It's the
first time the committee's ever done that. But they were two historic preservation projects. They weren't an open space and a historic preservation in one bond. >> We're moving off point a little bit. Um
the we started here initially with let's let's look at all the funding. Let's look at all of the projects but let's reduce the percentage of allocation and some percentages were thrown out. We
might find that if we use this 60% number and go right down the board here that we will be well within our 44 $4 million number. Uh, all right. >> And and then we we would eliminate this again. We want to get back on point. And
on point was not talking about bonding. And on point is how do we fund these projects and stay within our $4 million uh number. >> We do. >> Well, let's let's take this uh motion and vote on it. >> Can I just say one thing, John?
>> You're all talking about $4 million, but you have specific amounts for each category. So that $4 million can't be spent on anything you want. >> You you can you've got your $1.9 million.
So you have 195,000 that you have to allocate your 10%. So every project gets that automatically. Then the balance can be for anything. But then on all that extra money you have, it's all different. So you've got
729 for open space. You have 958 for historic preservation. You have 9.85 for community housing. And then you have unreserved of a million that again you can spend on anything you want. So you can't spend that $4 million on just whatever you want to spend it on. It is
this is specific per category on this sheet. >> Those unspent funds >> come came out of specific categories. So, what you need to do is you need to do your 195 in every column, then your
unreserved, and then add your 729 to your open space plus the 195, your historic preservation, your 195 plus 958, so on and so forth. Then you can put your 1 million and the remaining of your 1.9 in a separate bucket that you
can use for everything. Okay? Uh, but you can't use that $4 million for just anything you want. It is specific per category. >> This is why bonding I think might be useful. >> Sandy, can can I ask you a question? >> Yes.
>> So, in open spaces, we have 8001,000 to spend. >> Yeah. >> 801661. >> Yeah. >> Plus, you can use part of the 2.3, >> right? the unrestricted >> on the as the unrestricted but but just
in the open space we have 801661 >> right and then you've got you've got your um yes and you really I I would be going by the email that >> would that I thought that was the email >> 801 yeah 80 you're right
>> that that was the email number was 81 >> 801 so you've got 801661 1.56 plus your 195 blah blah blah. So, >> but we spend we don't have to put it in there. The 195 that's if you don't >> No, no. You can you can add your 195.
You've got your um 195. You've got 80166156. That's what you can spend on open on open space. That's what you have. >> Period. >> Period. >> That includes the one the 195 >> 195 those are totals. Those are the totals
already minus the bonds. I just wanted >> when you're voting when you're voting that's why I gave you this sheet too. >> Look at this. >> So when you're voting on open space open space is recreation too. So playgrounds Abbott core land whatever you've got
$81,000 this year that you can spend on open space. Okay. So to Alex's point and everyone else's point in the conversation, you have 720 for Samson parcel. So that's going to chew up most
of your open space and recreation. So that's a project. Okay. So maybe we just want to bond the Samson, you know, and then everything else see how much money you have left over after a bond. I don't know what that figure is going to be. >> I have the number here. I just did the
math. So if you were to add up the the 801661.56 plus the just the the uh unrestricted the two uh >> right million >> uh 2,300 >> right >> uh it's it comes out to be um 3.1
million, right? And so if you were to if you were just to do all of these projects >> minus minus the the the uh the parcel of land, >> um it's And you just bonded that. So when you
bond that, right, I'm assuming your the 720 is um >> yeah, the 720. So you if you did it for two years, you would do half of that like 350 350 roughly give or take for
each year and then you find out whether they got their half grant. Well, there's interest, right? Say there's interest thousands more, tens of thousands more. >> Yeah. >> So, there would be a reason to bond that
>> 5% interest to some of the other grants. >> But if you have the money, I I I >> mean, and that's saying with unrestricted, you've got $2.3 million in unrestricted funds. I mean, if you use if you use all that plus the 801 just for your open space, then you've got 958
for historic preservation and you have 1.1 for community h. First of all, you're never going to use your community housing because you don't have any, but you may think of considering one of these four at that's only 100,000. So, you're still going to have a lot of money in community housing. So, you're not going to use any unrestricted funds
for housing. Um, >> would you use some of it? >> Stickiness is housing. She >> That's what I just said. Yeah. So, do you use all 2.3 for open space and wreck? Me? No, I wouldn't. I'd save some of that for historic preservation, but
like you said, or or keep it in reserves. Um, but you've got 2.3 million in unrestricted funds. So you can look at your open space and I mean if it's the appetite of this
commission to bond well I mean I think the only reasonable bonding project is your 720 land acquisition because we've done it in the past >> and then everything else you've got plenty of >> bond we really want to be over the million dollar mark for bonds to make it
>> we've bonded less than we bonded less than a million >> but that doesn't mean we should I know she told is under a million is not worth. >> Yeah. >> We're spending more money bonding than we are. >> Yeah. >> I I wise
>> So you can look if you're going to do a million dollars, you've got 720 for that. You've got 582 for the historic society. I >> I have the I actually have the number. So, if we were just to to take the the 800,000 for open space plus the 2.3
million for um the unrestricted and we backed out we paid for or we come up with a percentage. Um, I did use the whole numbers in here, the 400,000, the 500,000, 200,000, the 250,000, and the $25,000.
We still have $1.7 million in that >> in that unrestricted. >> So, it's a it's a significant amount. It really >> um didn't make a huge dent into the overall number, >> but you have to think about how much you're planning on spending in historic
preservation, then how much you have left over. Yeah, >> which is the area of concern for me. I'll just say once again that I do think bonding the even if we take out the parks. I wasn't planning on doing the 25,000 Samson parcel, but even if you take out the parks resurfacing since that one's probably the most shovel
ready. Um, and which means the bond would have to be enacted upon sooner. It would be like a 1.8 million bond. And I I do think that gives us flexibility to be safe and secure for multiple years going forward. And any grant reimbursements that we get particularly
for the land one or capital improvement plan can literally go to paying the bond payment the next year. It's the allocated category. So >> all right >> which I think is smart. >> We can plan on that way. But you have a motion on the bond the project for 300,000. You
also got to state what we're going to pay in. >> So if we vote no, it doesn't necessarily kill the project, right? No, I just this motion say no this >> or not which no McDonald
want to start over again make a second motion that's all >> BJ McDonald no >> or vote it >> and then added you would you would have to second it >> it's seconded it was Jim second on that
what is what is on on the table. >> It's a motion to bond the parklet at $300,000. Joanne made the motion. Jib seconded the motion. You've had discussion. Now it's going to go to a vote >> to bond >> 300,000 for the parklet.
>> Okay, that was a second. The the amount was a second motion. >> No, Joanne made the motion to bond the parklet at $300,000. >> We also got to put what that's going to cover, too. But >> okay, you you've ruled it. I that's fine.
>> So So the bond for the pocket, my vote is no. >> Okay. Mr. Hornby, >> yes. >> John Brand, uh, yes. >> Alex Oliver, no. >> Alexander Silva, no.
>> Michael Ferris, no. >> Joey Bentley, yes. >> All right. >> So you have a 35. The motion didn't pass. >> Okay. So, can I before I make a motion, did we want to not mention bonding in these motions or
did we want to mention bonding in these motions? Because my motion would be to approve the project at full with the caveat that any um capital improvement plan allocations get reimbured to the committee under a bond, but I could not add the bond. If we wanted to do that at
a different time, >> we could I think we could try to the best we can to vote appropriate amounts so that we stretch the money fairly
>> and then look at it and say we want to bond these items and we could add to it. >> All right. Um >> is that is that reasonable? >> It's it's reasonable. We are going on past an hour and we haven't voted in one yet. So we shifted to where we're going
to make a motion or we're going to fund in that motion >> and what are we going to bond it or not? >> So >> so the question is right do we take them as two separate things? >> I've heard I've heard conflicting things. I've stated my preference and my
plan for voting. So I I you know I just don't want to make things take longer. People aren't going to you know if people don't want to go that way I don't need to be making motions. Do you want to vote each project individually or do you want to vote like Alex said as a
group in bond? So >> Alex, do you want to make a motion on categories that go into a bond and we'll see how that goes? >> Categories that go into >> I mean projects. >> Okay. I um if we if we want to reduce the bond a little bit and we want to use
we have the 800 and uh open space funds. I can I'll reduce I'll take out those two projects or that project I mentioned. So, I'd make a motion to bond um should I say fully? I was going to say fully. Fully >> uh fully the amounts uh for the Columbia
Street parklet project at 400,000. uh the Father Kelly Parking Project at 500,000, the Abbott Court sensory playground project at 200,000, and the Samson parcel land acquisition
uh and protection project at 720,000. All under the open space recreation categories. Um and I can read scopes for each one if we want. >> Okay. uh your scopes, the descriptions that are on your agenda.
>> Um there's there was more specificity in the applications that like you read about the papers for this first one that's not in the agenda. So like I can go. >> So Mike's going to Mike's going to write down the exact description of what you
want to make a motion on and then give it to me for the agreements. >> So we'll do the parklet first. So Mike, we're going to >> with the following scopes. Um, so for the Columbia Street Parklet, um, specific improvements including I'm just
going to be reading this so I can send this. Uh, specific improvements including the restoration, resetting of the lower parklet pavers, removal of most of the upper parklet pavers, updated lighting, landscaping and seating. uh additional component um
including installation of a memorial plaque acknowledging efforts and that includes um landscaping and plantings. Yep. >> That came off the application. >> Yes, it's in the scope section, third paragraph.
Um >> let me I apologize. Are you Did you just say that you wanted to bond those four? Yeah, but I'm reading the scopes into the emotions after >> No, we're going to but we're funding at each >> then you'll get a second and then you can vote. >> This could be a waste of time just
>> I'm I'm I'm sorry to interrupt but you want to bond them fully >> fully. Yes, that's my So like I can uh we could vote make that vote and then um with scopes >> you've got the motion you can go through your descriptions. Someone's going to second this. If you don't get a second,
it dies. Um if someone seconds it you have discussion and then you vote. >> Okay. So scope including uh for the father Kelly Park park parking >> do can I actually just with a show of hands
if we're all going to not do this. I don't want Alex to go through to read every single one of these just so it gets shot down and we come up with a solution. >> Remember funding fully, it's still going to have city funding coming in. So, it will change and I I know
>> it's happened before. >> Yeah, it's happened many a time. So, it's up to you how you want to vote, but it has happened in the past where they you get matching funds or or some other funds come in and they don't use our full amount. So, it has happened quite a
bit in the past. >> The only thing that I'm worried about, this is the first time the city is putting in a park project, which is great, but if you set the precedent to where we're going to pay for all of it, they have no incentive at all to ever put money into the capital improvement project to do that. That's what we're
concerned about. >> If that's how we look at it, that means next year when they come back, we don't fund. >> You know what I mean? So, it's they're not going to take advantage of us. >> I mean, changed it every month. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'd like to amend the motion.
>> Well, we didn't. >> No, you haven't voted. >> He hasn't gone through. >> I'm still reading it. >> Is it seconded? >> No, it has finished. I have to read a bit more. >> Yeah. Um, Alex hasn't finished the mo finishing the motion. He's got to go through
>> pages open if we have to redo it. Um scope for Father Kelly Park uh including construction of an off- streetet parking facility, updated landscaping, seating, picnicking, picnicking area, and lighting upgrades.
Um next is scope for the Abbott Court playground including construction of a new sensory friendly playground for children with autism spectrum disorder at the site of a previous wooden playground at Abbott Court which was demolished several years
ago. uh including design, site preparation, installation of sensory friendly playground equipment. Is that that one? And then uh scope for the Samson parcel land acquisition
I believe is just purchase and acquisition of the property uh known as the Samson parcel. Try to find the exact address. Just >> we have a street address
>> and just as the west side of >> abuing aderond deck farm >> parcel W150070 on these far recessors. >> That's the motion. >> We have a motion. We have a second.
>> Was there was there another one that >> I took off the >> Okay. resurfacing because that will probably start first and it lowers the bond on to 1.8 million which is closer to sweet. >> Okay,
>> we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Okay, hearing no second. The motion dies. >> All right. >> So, okay. >> Okay. We still have that original conversation where we were looking some of these
projects some of these projects are asking for a substantial amount of money looking at 100% for a project and the the project is is privately owned. uh it's a
generating organization and then we have other projects here which are full access uh the playgrounds those will have full access by the general public uh the land parcel in the reservation that's general public has full access to
that uh things like uh the bio reserve uh preserving items that the general public has full access to and we're dealing with taxpayer money So those kind those items should be supported
generously and I don't say 100% because I like the idea of skin in the game whether it's the city or anyone else. However, we do have other projects here that should be funded at a lower percentage. They're privately held
operations. Some of these the general public has no access to. Can we get back to the point on just getting parklet taken care of? We're in >> my point is going in for percentages rather than >> make a motion
>> all of this and and then just >> I'd like to make a motion. This is for the Parklet Park. I'd like I would like to make a motion for the Parklip uh project uh where the CPC will fund 75% of the cost of that uh
from our budget uh that's uh currently uh established with the >> how much is it? >> So not 200,000 >> not the bond just paid for the 75%. >> And the city will have to >> only up 25%. Second.
>> Wait a minute. You got to read in 300,000 for >> 300,000. Correct, Mike? >> Uh 300,000. >> Yeah, you could do. Yeah, 300,000%. >> And you want the description that's in
the scope of the application. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Yeah, I could just more details right here. >> Yeah, it's just >> Okay. Uh the 300,000 would include specific improvements to the park that include the restoration, resetting of
the lower parklet pavers, removal of most of the upper parkllet pavers, the updated lighting, landscaping and seating. In addition, components uh to the proposal will be installation of the memorial plaque acknowledging the
efforts of all citizens past and present to have played a significant role uh in the historic history of the neighborhood. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Roll call.
>> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes. >> Swingsby. Yes. >> John Brent. Yes. Alex S. >> Tower Oliver. Yes. >> Sorry. Alex Sylvia. Yes. Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Joan Belly. Yes.
>> Okay. Next on the table is Father Kelly's Park. They're looking under open space recreation for 500,000. It's uh locations Globe and South Main Street. Uh project is off streetet parking facility update landscaping, seating,
picnic area, lighting upgrades. Uh facility will provide off- streetet parking uh for the Thomas Chw Park. Um so do I have a motion? >> I move approval. >> You didn't say the amount 500,000. You
got to >> what? >> If you're going to make a motion, you got to make the motion for the amount and read back what you want to pay for. >> Okay. Well, that's what I think we should do. >> If you'd like, I don't mind making a motion to this. I actually did a
breakdown that made some sense of phasing to it. Um before I make the motion, the breakdown was basically $125,000 taken out for the kind of ancillary component of it and then funding rest of
it. So, uh it would be $375,000 that we would approve and the rest of it would be a phase later on. >> I'll just read what >> Okay. I wanted before I read it, I wanted to make sure that that's what I Hang on. Let me just >> motion. >> Yeah, hang on a second.
>> Second. >> Hang on one second. >> Okay, there we go. I'd like to make a motion for the Father Kelly Park project that we fund $375,000 uh which will include specific the
projects include construction the off- streetet parking facility uh the lighting upgrades the utilities the parking facilities also provide new off- streetet parking spaces for the adjacent uh Thomas Chew Park across from Globe Street
>> updated landscape looks >> that's the minus Okay, >> that was the one talking about. >> Should I Would you like me to tell you what we're not going to >> No, it's what we're funding. >> Well, I think you do have you do have to specify it for the award agreement. No worries
>> because otherwise they could >> Can I redact and redo this? >> Yeah, the award agreements only what we're going to fund, not what we're not going to fund. >> Just give me one second. >> Well, see don't indicate. >> Yeah, the award agreements only going to be what you're good then. >> Okay. Okay. So, you're good. We'll go
with the motion. >> I want to make sure that we put in uh utilities and cond them down. >> You're giving me >> Okay. Okay. All right. So, we have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I'll second.
>> All righty. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes. >> James Hornsman. >> Yes. John Brandt. Yes. >> Kristen Canara Oliver. Yes. >> Alexander Silva. Yes. Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Joan Bel.
>> All righty. Next, we have the Fall River Historical Society. Um, they're coming in uh to do roof, row, window work, etc. They do need a $650 deed restriction on it. They are coming
in putting three million in. that is under uh um historic preservation. They're looking for 582,735 motion. >> Can I just make a note, John, that >> was the total amount again?
>> I thought it was 582. $582,735. >> Well, I'll move that we fund out. >> Okay. Well, we got to >> plus 650. >> Plus 650. >> Plus 650. That's what I was. >> Do you want to add the 650 to that amount or >> I will. >> It comes out of that amount. >> I've taken out of the amount.
>> Do you All right. The motion, whoever makes the motion needs to say in the description that the 650 is part of the 5802735. But just keep in mind that Michael Martins did send us an email that I forwarded to all of you um about the
funding need. The project needs to be fully funding, but I'm not sure that 650 is going to do any harm to that. >> Okay. Or they can put it in a motion to fund add to 650. It's up to your discretion. >> Yeah.
>> You want to wait for BJ to come back? We'll take a moment for BJ to come back. >> I wanted to speak to this because I did spend some time with Michael on Michael and um this is a project that you it
seems to me we fund it or we don't. Um whether we bond it or not um is so that Yeah. Okay. Um, what I want to suggest, I'll move
it, is that we vote the 582. We're going to wait for >> We got to wait for BJ. >> Why don't we wait for BJ to come back? >> Pause. >> James, you're right. >> He's left. He lost his vote. That's the way it goes.
>> You are right. He he did they did provide us a breakdown that it was either all or none kind of a deal because of the sequencing and that. So >> So I just stopped in the mids sentence. >> Yeah. >> But they they also have fundraised I
believe it was what 2.8 >> a lot of grants. >> They do a great job. >> I'm trying not to to talk while Michael while >> Yeah. DJ >> DJ is out. Um, >> and I think >> I do feel strongly about this project.
>> I want to >> We're waiting. >> Welcome back. >> Okay. >> All right. We're back in session. >> What I would like to do, the issue is to me where we I want to fund it.
I want to leave the option open >> to for the whole thing after we get through if we have money left because that's the issue with $582,000. It's a lot of money. >> Well, this is also a high priority uh
>> on our list. So, um I would like to give us the option in in a regular in the formal vote to vote this to say that we're going to fund it all.
Then when we see how much money we have to see whether we bond or whether we pay it out of the uh the amount the annual amount is that would Couldn't we do that, Mr. Chairman? We could go back to a project
after we're finished, but fine. I move we fund the $582,000 project for whatever the they said. >> Okay. So, you got to read the description because Mike's going to record it for the agreement. I'm just
when it gets when the words get put in as to what it as to what it is with the historical um with the to be decided later whether bonding or from our annual amount.
>> Well, if you want right here it all off >> most of it. Yes, we should. We can go back and add little things but >> make sure you include the major things and we can always fill in uh little technical. >> Okay. So that
we need in in order to repair fix or renew >> he has >> the slight mansard roof just >> going on that covers the roof >> unless you want all the words in there
the infiltration and all that. >> John, do you want me to take the description off the application? >> Yeah, just make a deteriorating deter work off the uh the sheet. >> Yeah, that's why I wanted to to just go
down the line and say add it all. >> Okay. All of the printed material to the final words of this are mitigate
potential insect or rodent infestation. Do we have a motion to fund the 58 to decide the mechanism of >> of funding later? >> What was the motion >> with
the end of the meeting? >> Rodents here. >> Was rodents in the motion >> in the description? >> Keep the motion. I'm going to look at the description on the application. >> This isn't the bottom of the description. >> Yeah. Can can I make a recommendation?
Alex actually has the descriptions here pulled out from the uh from the proposals. >> Um could you read those maybe and that would help and then anything you want to add to it we just we'll add to it. Is that okay?
>> I would I'm not sure we need all of that but I'm I'm in favor. I don't >> we need to have it in there. >> I'm open to anything. So, >> we're just describing the project. >> Okay. >> What we describe is what we're paying for. So, the 582,000 is why it's important that we get
>> I understand that. >> He has it right. He has description right here. Go ahead. So the project work uh for phase 2 uh includes removal and replacement of the existing EDPM roof system and installation of new PVC
uh roof systems including polycyan nurite insulation and recovery board. Um work will also include repair of existing slate of similar size and color. Existing gutters and deteriorated
downspouts will be replaced as new. Um work also includes uh extensive restoration and/or replacement of all original mill work including wood plasters, brackets and elaborate decorative elements on the structure from the sophet line up. All of which um
exhibit uh wood rot. Um it will also include reinstalled uh oh sorry that's phase one. um period appropriate fixed shutters um and restored woodwork painted uh in the
sandstone color that's reproduced of the original monochromatic scheme in 1870. >> Okay. Um John just to clarify for me >> um is the 650 for the deed coming out of the 582735 >> add plus 650
>> plus you want to add six add that to the description in it >> as well as for the historic preservation deed restriction. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> They don't have one on yet. >> No. >> Okay. >> No. >> So So you you do the 650 and then from
the previously as well. >> Yep. 580 to 735. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And and and Jim, you said something about rodents. >> Was that I was just >> That's just fixing a problem. >> I just want to
ask me if I put it in here. >> Okay. So, we have the motion. Do we have a second? >> I second the motion. >> Okay. Roll call. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. Rick Mini. Yes. >> James Winsby. Yes. >> John Brandt. Yes.
Kristen Canara Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Silva, yes. >> Michael Farah, yes. >> Joey Belly, yes. >> All righty. Passes. >> That means that at the end of the meeting, we could rec >> If we wanted to go back, we could go
back >> figure out whether it's a cash withdrawal or a gond. >> Well, we Yeah. >> Okay. Next is the uh Abbott Century Sensor Park.
>> I would like to make a motion that we fully fund the $200,000 Abbott Court sensory playground. >> I will second. >> I'll second that. >> What? Include what? >> Alex, could I read yours? >> Okay,
>> it's um you might have to skip some line. So page two, >> uh, the project is to construct a new sensory friendly playground for children with autism spectrum disorder with the site of a previous wooden playground at
Abbott Court, which was demolished several years ago. The proposed work includes design, site preparation, installation of sensory friendly playground equipment. >> I think that's it. >> And I think that's it.
>> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> EJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Mancini, yes. >> Jamesby, yes. John Brandt, yes. >> Can Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Silva, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes.
>> Joan Belly, yes. Okay. And who made the second on that one? Do we >> say the category? >> Pardon me. >> Did you say the category? >> Um, no, I didn't say the category, but >> that's open space. >> I know. You just have to say it for the motion. >> Open space. >> No, that's recreation. >> Um, >> open space recreation. It's technically
I think one category. >> All right. >> Next one is Samson's partial land protection um open space 720,000. Um,
I'm over the two-year bond to acquire this property and the purpose of the funds will be the purpose is so that funds will be acquired to permanently
protect from development the Samson parcel located immediately north of Edorandic Farm on the west side of Blossom Road in eastern Fall River. discuss >> discussion. >> Um
I as we kind of said I I I would probably hesitate against bonding uh something just 720. I would maybe think adding the resurfacing to it to get it closer to a million would maybe be acceptable. Um I just wanted to call out
that with everything that we've approved under open space recreation so far unbonded this project would or it's solely we've already start we would already have to start going into our unrestricted funds with the last approval. So this is fully in unrestricted now for everyone if we're
not bonding at all. >> Okay. So that's >> Oh, even on bond. >> No bond. No, if we didn't bond. Oh, if we did not. >> So, so right now we're we've already expended over. >> That's what I had too. That's what I figured out too.
>> I just Yeah, I was saying I'd also like to see this price reduced down to maybe 650,000 because we we have been told that the that number was higher than what was negotiated. That's going to be in his
motion. Could you just say whatever the sale price is? Sale price. Can you can do we have to >> we have to say amount. Is that an amendment? >> No. No. No. You haven't finished. >> This was in discussion. So if you amount of motion, >> I would be hesitant to reduce the
amounts. Just go in with an amount of 650. >> I'd second his his amendment. I mean >> I just want to keep it clear. That's that's all I want. >> That's why I wanted an amount. What did mount did you >> I said 720. Okay. 720 is what the motion is.
>> Do I have a second? >> Is this bonded still like original number? >> Bonded. Yes. >> Or we can pick another number in discussion. Just don't just let pick another number. >> And they're trying to get a a 50/50 match on this. Is that correct? >> Yeah. They normally come in a lot less.
>> Guaranteed 5050. >> So So to to penny and diamond is putting it at risk >> in my opinion. >> Yeah. So if you don't get it, you're paying $720,000 for it. If you get it, great. >> How about if we did half >> to not bond the Philippines?
>> You can't. If you do half of it, you're not going to get it. >> What? >> We don't know if they're going to get the money. So either you want the land or you don't. >> We want the land. >> Okay. Then the motion is for 720. >> Did we get a second?
>> I don't want to bond just it for two years. >> Well, we can add to the His motion was to bond for two years. So I'm not >> Okay. >> Well, I mean, if you bonded it for two years and they don't come up with the money, then you got then it's not it's a
it's not a done deal. It it's a matter of do you want the land or you don't want the land. If if they don't get the other part of the grant, then it's you know, I guess that's my my question to that or or statement. >> Okay. Well, if the if they get the land
and they get their match, they'd probably come in and ask them for 300,000. That's what we'd give them. So, the bond would be 300,000, not 720. >> But you'd be paying a bond for 720. >> Well, no, she wouldn't send it out the bond till the purchase price.
>> But would be >> I have a question, John. Will you have to go back to the council because the appropriation order will be at 720? Can can we have that motion again and just take a pass on the motion? We go in front of them and that's what it's approved for.
>> Right. And it comes back anyway. >> Comes back. You're right. >> That's why it's better to put the restrictions in the award agreement language that any funds allocated or awarded to the project are returned rather than just shorting the amount in my opinion.
>> Well, they've have been returned uh in the past. >> Yeah, sure. >> That's why we think it's safe to fund the full amount. Yeah. >> So, there's no second though to >> Not yet. >> Not yet. >> Okay. The motion was to
purchase the property at 730,000 >> with a 2-year bond. With a 2-year bond. >> Did I hear that? >> Yes. >> Initially, he with the bond >> two-year bond specifically. speaking to the motion or non motion
because second um the other concern I have is if we I've done some land acquisitions I've tried to and the if we come out with a figure
and they're still negotiating this is really hard >> we come out with a figure we've said what we'll Okay. Right. And we how about a $400,000 figure which
depends on the grant and then if it doesn't come through they could come back next year. But Jim, it's like John said, if and Al, I think Alex spoke to it too. If you vote to fund the 720
and they get the grant, then we get that money back anyway. >> Okay. Well, >> so we're going to get that money back. Um, so >> we do it. >> And I believe Mike said that they're going to know if they've got that match. And I don't know that it's a 50/50 match
either. Um, they will probably know by April or May. >> Yeah. >> So, um, >> there is a purchase and sale agreement they said. >> Yes. Yeah. Because John I emailed I forwarded everybody Mike's email which is what >> So they're just really Yeah. They're
just waiting. So to to your point, John, the money will come back anyway if we don't spend it all. >> Well, we wouldn't go out the bond till after they purchased the land. So >> Okay. So we're not really trying. >> Yeah. What did we get it? We did no second. >> No second. >> Okay. So, what else do we want to do
here? So, I would like to make a motion that >> Wait, if there's no second, if there's no second, then that motion fails. >> So, let me just put the motion fails. >> We purchase the land. What? At 4 at 650,000.
>> Do we have a second? Second. You're talking about not bonding, just purchase. >> Bonding, just purchase the land. >> What if the purchase in sales is for 700? >> We we were already informed that it was going to be substantially less 720. So
with 650 if they skin in the game they can put the >> well they normally do come in but if they come up and they need to buy the land and they haven't got their matching fund yet that means they forfeit the deal. So
by us securing the 720 gets the deal. So if they have to wait for their money you know we'll eventually get it back. So if we come in with six and you know they don't have the money it's 600 just
comes back to us because we didn't spend it because we didn't give them enough. >> If they get a 400,000 he thought they hoped the amount would be 400,000 a grand. >> Well you have a motion and a second so
discussion and it's got to go to a vote. Okay. >> So we have a motion and a second. Okay. So, >> we we did decide that. >> You can discuss it. Yeah, you're still in discussion. >> Still in discussion. >> We did say we were going to make a final determination on bonding at the end
holistically. Did we say that or no? >> Okay. We could do the same thing with this that we did with the historical society. >> Well, we can put this on a bond and then add something to the bond to make it >> Well, are we figuring out bonding at the end is what I'm asking.
>> You're Yeah, you're going to have to because We already agreed that on >> Yeah. So, so if that if that's what we're doing. Okay. I'm I'm still not seconding, but I can make a motion after. >> Okay. >> I mean, it was already second, so we have to vote. >> So, Rick's motion is on the floor.
>> All righty. >> BJ McDonald, no. >> Rick May, yes. >> Yes. James Hby. >> John, no. >> Gantara Oliver, no. >> Alex Silva, no. >> Michael Ferris, no. >> Joey Belly, yes.
Okay, the motion failed. >> I'd like to make a motion to fully fund the project at 720,000 the Samson parcel land acquisition under the open space and recreation um which is the far
cessus parcel one uh W-15-0070 >> second. >> I'll second that. >> BJ BJ did the second. >> Okay. >> Roll call. BJ McDonald. Yes. Rick Manseni, yes. >> James Winsby, yes. John Bray, yes. >> Kristen Canara, Oliver, yes.
>> Alexander Silva, yes. Michael Faras, no. >> Joey and Bentley, yes. Okay. Motion passed. >> Passes. All righty. Next up is uh Maplewood, Griffin, Highland, North Park, Jew Park, Rugles, Lafayette
Park. Uh resurfacing. This is open space recreation. uh looking for 250. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve uh in full for the 250,000 to resurface the several cracked aging basketball pickle ball tennis and hopscotch course courts
at a variety of public parks and playgrounds including Maplewood Park, Griffin Park, Highland Park, North Park, Chup Park, Rogles Park, and Lafayette Park. Proposed work includes the resurfacing of cracked aging quartz uh using cement based acrylic patch binder
and a multi-layer fabric system. >> I did I did want to add a caveat to this one if we can during discussion um I'll I'll second it with the caveat, but I I based off of what they said and um I think it would be good if we make it um
make a condition of the grant award that we receive a copy of that annual maintenance report that they do when they check all the courts. So we know it when and if they're actually maintaining it. >> They said they do it every year. So >> okay. >> So I'll second that.
>> All right. >> Roll call. >> BJ McDonald's. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes. >> James Wby. Yes. John Brandt. Yes. >> Can Oliver? Yes. >> Alexander Silva? Yes. >> Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Joy Belly. Yes.
>> All righty. Motion passes. Uh next up is the St. An's uh church and shrine uh mortar work. This goes under historic preservation for 125.
I'll make a motion that St. name is uh church shrine roof repair mortar work get approved. I'll make a motion for the 100 of 125,000. >> Second. Okay. Discussion.
>> Roll call. >> DJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes. >> Jamesby. Yes. John Brandt. Yes. >> Kristen Canara Oliver. Yes. >> Alexander Silva. Yes. >> Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Joan Bentley. Yes. >> All right.
Uh, next is a uh funding for the waterfront cultural district historic preservation to do a study on the um the area. It's a matching grant for 28,750
that goes under historic preservation. >> Just um I just want to I'm just doing the balances real quick just so we can keep a kind of handle on it. uh with the amount of open space recreation projects passed um and how much we would have to
delve into unrestricted it would we have about um 1.25 million in unrestricted available left. Okay. Um and then with historic preservation
we have about two 285 285 million left under that category. >> Okay. >> 2.85 million. >> Two >> 28 >> sorry 285 thou >> okay >> thousand. Yes. >> And open space we have 1.25 million
left. >> Open space is at zero. Unrestricted we have about 1.25. 2.5 million left. >> So that's no bonding. Keep that just just doing it in case. Um >> and that 1.2 John that would keep us around the 4 million if we don't touch
any more of that unrestricted. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So that we so you know we have 285 left in historic preservation un with nothing bonded and 1.25 which would be your your reserve. So, we would
basically stop now. Um, unless we do the community housing one for the deacon's home. Um, so basically, it's what I was saying. I think we are going to need a bond. >> Sorry to interrupt. >> No. No. Uh,
>> I did that. >> Can we take them out of order and and approve the only community housing? Can I make the motion to or do we have to stay? think we have to stay in order. It's kind >> It' be best to stay in order. >> Might be up to us. >> Well, we got the waterfront cultural that's going to go under historic
preservation. Then if we want to go back and look if we want to put stuff into uh bonding, then we'll know how moving forward what we're going to do. Okay. >> That you know that assignment 582 and
the 720. >> Yes. Oh. Okay. >> All right. So, do we have a motion on the uh waterfront cultural district? >> I'll make a motion >> that we support the $28,750
request for the waterfront cultural district study. >> Do I have a second? >> Do I need to read anything? >> You need a second. >> I'll second it. It just it's just calling for an
in-depth study uh to document and interpret the historic significance of facilities and land. >> Project will document and assess the district's historic assets, identify preservation priorities, and provide actionable recommendations to guide
future planning, zoning, and revitalization efforts. >> Okay, I'll second that. >> Is it a motion? Yep. >> Second. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Manceni. Yes. >> James Winsby. Yes.
>> John Brent. Yes. >> Han. Tara Oliver. Yes. >> Alexander Silva. Yes. >> Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Joan Belly. Yes. >> Okay. Uh >> yeah. >> To to get a clearer picture. Did we want
to go back and look at putting some items in to bond or >> could we go through a few more before? >> Can we just Michael was doing some math? So, what is it? >> So, okay. I apologize. Let me just do this. >> So, we're all on the same page.
>> He's just double checking my math because mine was quick math. >> Was that number including the community housing total or no? So of of the number I took the 5 million 5,243,4143 subtracted what we've just
um allocated the uh 300 for the um the parklet, the 375 for the father Kelly, the 582 uh $735 for the historical society, the $200,000
for the uh added sensory 720 for the $720,000 for the Samson parcel uh the Maplewood resurfacing $250,000 the St. An's church roof the $125,000
$25,000 and this last one the waterfront cultural district the 28,750 >> plus 650 for the deed restriction. >> Okay, thank you. Thank you. 650US 650 for the deed restriction.
>> And we have a grand total left of 2,861,2664. >> But that includes a million18 of community housing which is untouchable. Only 100,000 could be touchable this. So you basically subtract a million from that. >> A million.
>> Okay. Hang on one second. >> So that's close to what I said, I think. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying to make sure all of this is working. So where did you say the money? >> So that you we could only use 100,000 of the 1.18 um million in community housing if we were to vote for the Deaconist project
under community housing because it's under two categories. >> Open space. What do we have spent? >> Open space. It's at zero. We're in unrestricted. >> Oh, so we just been using >> Yeah, I that's what I said. We're we're we started going into open space uh
unrestricted I think at the Abbis court sensory playground. So three three projects in we were done with open space. >> Okay. >> And then uh >> so it's like 250ish this is all just quick math to 250ish uh 250,000ish for
historic preservation and I think like 1.25 million unrestricted and I think that is close to your number plus or minus 10,000. That's assuming >> and then >> we don't bond >> no bonding in historic preservation we have left uh >> 250
>> 250,000 >> and then that's like I said 100 1,180,000 of community housing >> okay >> so yeah you know and then >> you had said the reserve amount of 1.1 million so that's why I was saying we
don't have much to spend now if we decided not to bond >> yeah but we didn't have to save as that was my suggestion which I know >> but what uh do we want to look at uh putting some uh open space under uh
a bond to open up the restricted >> I will once again make the motion to bond the parklet father Kelly Abbott court playground and Samson parcel projects under the approved amounts which is >> right now
>> 920 20. >> It's like it's like 1.6ish >> million down. >> So So it would be the 60% on the first two and then the full amounts for the other ones. >> It's what we It's what we voted. It's what we voted on. You know, I can't change.
So it's bonding. Yeah. >> I would second it. >> You just just add >> Yeah, I got it. This won't >> That's what you money for the other stuff. Put the amounts too. >> Okay. >> Put the amounts, Mike. >> Yep. I am. >> Oh, wait. Hold on. Did we want to add
the >> resurfacing now? >> Oh, okay. Yep. We'll just add >> resurfacing. >> Like we could add the resurfacing. >> I would put the resurfacing if we're going to do >> like I think bigger is better for the bond. We get more value of the for it and then we have the other one coming off next year. So, I think we're pretty
safe especially if you keep a good reserve. So the all of the open space those five is uh one 184500 1.81 $1,845,000.
So that would be to put into bond the parklet the father Kelly the abbott court Samson parcel and the parks and and you got >> yep >> y >> and and what I what I just did is um so
we have a we have a number here of 801 661.56 I said if we just did 50% of that >> no I'm just saying if you that number you have and you're going to bond this portion of it. If you were to if you
were to say we're going to use cash for 50% and you'll still have 9 >> 922,500, but you might have other things. >> I like I said, I'd bond all of it and keep the keep the reserves higher than lower is my preference. So, my motion is
for bonding all all of the approved amounts. Um, >> how many years? >> I would do a 10-year bond. 10-year bond. um it's going to be less it's going to probably be less than 300,000 per year based off of Emily's calculation sheet. Um so if we take into account when the
bond goes off next year, it's just an additional uh maybe 80,000 per year than we're spending now on bonds, which that land one is actually coming off sooner than I thought. So it's that amount essentially. >> Why don't Why don't you >> Can I ask a question?
>> Sure. >> All right. Can I ask a question? So, if we're bonding all of this for open space recreation, then all of the money so far that we've spent on open space recreation now
becomes a bond. So, that money just goes into open space recreation because if it was already in that to begin with, we still can't we can't use it to fund historic preservation. So, wouldn't it make more sense to do half of open space
recreation and then half historic preservation? That way, we have more money to fund the historic preservation projects. >> We're already >> because you can't use open space on historic preservation. So, we're already a million.1 into unrestricted funds that could be freed up for historic
preservation right now, >> which is why I think it's best to to do >> No, but I'm saying, but you also have money in open space recreation that now is going to go back into that that you're not going to be able to touch because it was already in that category. >> Yeah, but completely fine. It could be
>> 2.3 left and unrestricted. >> It could be the reserves for the bond payments next year. Done. that's not necessarily a problem. >> If we're kind of factoring in reserves, then it's just the reserves are dedicated to the bond payments like is I
think safe financial practice and then it has freed up flexibility for historic preservation funding uh spending. Stop me if I'm wrong. >> So that's my motion still. >> Second. >> Second. Okay. Uh, Robo
>> PJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mansi, no. >> I was thinking pass. No. John Brandt, yes. >> Kristen Canara Oliver, no. >> Alexander Sil, yes. >> Michael Ferris, no.
>> Joey Bentley, no. >> Motion failed. 725. >> Okay. So, uh All right. So, now, so now we've decide if we're stopping or if we're bonding
for a different amount or if we're going with the 285 and historic preservation and the community housing amount. Right. That's the three options. >> Yeah. Your Yeah, basically. Huh, John? >> Yeah. >> Okay. For me, I would be willing to bond
for a lower amount. Not all of those projects. I would be willing to bond for maybe half that amount, but I I won't bond for 1.8 million just in open space. >> Okay. And I just want to bring to your attention um >> Excuse me. Did you say you will bond for
1.8 million for >> No, makes no sense. Um, so I just wanted to bring to your attention that um, you still have all those deed restrictions >> at $650.
And then the ones that didn't get approved on the list, Maritime Museum recreation, they have to have they definitely need a deed restriction because they've received CPC funings in the past. So if you want to let and and
the Mass Soy has to get a deed restriction. Fire museum has to get these all have to get them. They all have to get them because they've all received funds. So, you really should vote for those. >> Why don't if you're going to do that
then why don't we just do that and take it out of order and so that we >> Well, you have to pay for it anyway. So, why don't we just use that? >> Well, you have to decide if you go in order, you have to now Um you have to take each project now like for instance
the next one on your list the next one on your list is the eagle event you need to make a motion in the case is like that make a motion not to fund funds are depleted
you know so that's your that's what you you know or you got to figure out >> um Mike you want to go over those figures again. >> Yeah. >> For for our open space.
Oh, I apologize. I I did this wrong. >> Yeah. No, I have the numbers. I I did the full amounts. I apologize. I wanted to just do what we agreed upon. Sorry. 250. Okay. So, open space. Right now we have $1,845,000
open space. >> Okay. We have Okay. And we have budgeted the $81,000. That's what we have in our category. We're pretty much stopping soon or we're
hunting for a significant amount. So, with with um the the $1,845,000 minus how much we have in our budget of $81,66156, that means we would have to go into
reserve uh for $1,43 of $1,43,33844. Um and so >> what we believe was about 1.3 and unrestricted. >> Yeah. >> Which is where you said you wanted to be at the beginning, right? Then we'd have about 4 million left.
>> Yes. >> So right now we still have community housing money left. >> Yep. >> Almost all of that. >> And historic preservation, we have 250 >> 50 around. >> Yeah. Roughly. >> Yeah.
But don't forget your all those deed restrictions are and I think almost all >> the deed restrictions on the list are just about all historic preservation with the exception of Dr. Fisk which has a historic preservation and a community
housing on it. Um creative class that's historic preservation. >> All right. Do we want to take the deed restrictions out of order and vote on that to get it out of the way to finish up that?
>> I'll make a motion that we take the deed restrictions out of order and vote on those. Next >> second. >> And we want to make a motion to take them all as one. >> I'd have to recuse myself of one. >> Okay.
Um, yes. I would make I would amend that a motion to take them all at once. >> I can't. You can't. That's your excuse. I would be able to vote on all of them then. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> They'll go fast. Do >> they'll go fast? >> That's okay. I understand. Send yourself
one. >> Yeah. Okay. I understand. >> All right. Can I have each one? >> Yeah. Can I have a motion to uh deed restriction of Matapo at Firehouse under historic preservation for 500? I'll make a motion for the dean
restriction for Massoria Fire for $500. >> I'll second that. >> DJ McDonald, yes. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Rick Mancini, yes. >> James Winsby, yes. John Brandt, yes. >> Preston Kent Tower, yes. >> Alexander Sylvia, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes.
>> Billy, yes. >> Motion passes. Next is a deed restriction for the fire museum under historic preservation for 650. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini, yes. >> Jamesby, yes.
>> John Brent, yes. >> Can Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Sylvia, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes. >> Bentley, yes. >> Okay. >> Motion passes. Next is a deed restriction on the veteran center. That's under historic preservation 650. I'll make a motion on the veteran center
for uh under historic preservation for 650. >> I'll second it. Roll >> call. >> EJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Mancini, yes. >> James, yes. >> John Bray, yes. >> Can Ali, yes. >> Alexander Sylvia, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes. >> Jelly, yes.
>> Motion passes. Next is a deed restriction on the Lafayette Dery House under historic preservation 650. I'll make that motion for deed restriction on the Lafayette Dery House. >> Second Robo >> BJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Mancini, yes.
>> James Hunby, yes. >> John Brandt, yes. >> Can Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Sylvia, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes. >> Jim Bley, yes. >> Motion passes. Next, a deed restriction on recreation under historic preservation for 650. Motion to approve
the deed restriction for recreation under historic preservation. >> I'll second roll call. >> BJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Mancini, yes. >> Jamesby, yes. >> John Bray, yes. >> Can Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Sylvia, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes.
>> Jimmy Billy, yes. >> Motion passes. >> We're going to get >> uh next is a deed restriction for the art associ under historic preservation for 650. I'll make a motion um for the deed restriction for the art association under historic preservation for 650.
>> I'll second that. >> BJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Manscini, yes. >> James Wby, yes. >> John Brent, yes. >> Christen Kent Tower Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Sylvia, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes. >> Joan Bentley, yes. >> Motion passes. >> And I have to recuse myself for the next
one. >> Okay. Next is a deed restriction for Dr. Fisk House. Uh there's two uh one under 650 for historic preservation and community housing for 650. Motion >> motion to approve. So it's two deed
restrictions. >> There's two of them. Do >> a motion to approve the two deed restrictions for the Dr. Fisk House, one under historic preservation, one under community housing. >> I'll second that motion. >> Okay. Roll call. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes.
>> Jamesby. Yes. >> John Brandt. Yes. Christine Canara Oliver. Yes. >> Michael Parish. Yes. >> Jelly Lee. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> John. Community. Um, hang on. Creative class is community housing, not historic preservation. I
just want to make sure. >> Okay. I I put it >> say >> you got it right. >> Creative class is community housing. I've got it under the historic preservation column, but it's community housing. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Um, next is a deed restriction for
creative class under community housing for 650. >> I'll make a motion for the deed restriction for creative class under uh community housing for 650. >> I'll second that motion. >> EJ McDonald, yes.
>> Rick Mancini, yes. >> Jesus, yes. Jeff Ray, yes. >> Kristen Canar, yes. >> Alexander Sylvia, yes. >> Michael Paris, yes. >> Bentley, yes. All righty. Uh, next, a deed restriction for the Abbey Grill under historic preservation for 650.
>> Motion to approve the deed restriction for the Abby Grill under historic preservation for 650. >> Okay. Roll call. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes. >> James Hoby. Yes. >> John Brent, yes. >> Preston Kar, yes.
>> Alexander Sylvia, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes. >> Joe Bentley, yes. >> Okay. Motion passes. The last one is a deed restriction for the Fall River Public uh library under historic preservation for 650. Got
>> I'll make a motion that we offer that we put a thief restriction on the for public library. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Manseni. Yes. >> Timbury. >> Yes. >> Right. Yes. >> Can Oliver? Yes.
>> Alexander Sil. Yes. >> Michael Paris. Yes. >> Billy. Yes. It's my understanding we have one more, right? Eagle Center. Eagle Event Center. >> Well, if Yeah, if they don't get if they haven't gotten approved that and the maritime museum. >> Okay. >> One quick question. I just want to make
sure this is not a typographical error on the first deed restriction. The Mastoya fire. It's $500. >> Yes, cuz they already got >> Thank you. Let me do the math. >> Okay. So, you got the Eagle and the um
Maritime Museum. You need to add deed restrictions. >> Okay. So, uh can I get a deed restriction uh on the maritime museum for 650 under historic preservation? >> Motion to add a deed restriction to the maritime museum under historic
preservation. >> I'll second that motion. >> Roll call. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes. >> James Hunby. Yes. >> John Brandt. Yes. Canara, yes. >> Alexander Silva, yes. >> Michael Parish, yes. >> Joey Bley, yes.
>> Okay. >> Eagle on. Can I have a motion on a deed restriction for the Eagle Event Center for 650 under historical preservation? >> Did we give them money? >> Yeah. This was fun for the years. >> For the past years. >> Past years.
>> Oh, this is for past years. Okay. >> Yeah, that's what we're doing. >> Yeah. Thank you. I'll make a motion for the deed restriction for how am I doing? Eagle Event Center >> for 650. I'm sorry. >> I second that. >> BJ McDonald, yes.
>> Rick, >> yes. Rick Mansi. >> James, yes. John Bray, yes. >> Present, yes. >> Alexander Silva, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes. >> Joe Bley, yes. >> All right. Motion passes. >> Okay. Did you do we did recreations? We did. >> Yes, we did those.
>> Thank you. We did the So, wait a minute. The recreation windows that was already done on that one, so it didn't have to be here. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, that's just the deep restriction. >> It wasn't for >> Yeah. Okay. I I just want to get this tallied up. Hang on one second.
>> So, the next one that would be on our >> total >> list would be the Eagle Event Center. Uh window restoration on the second floor. Uh, I have a suggestion of just doing Main Street side for half. So,
>> motion on the floor. >> Or you want to hear for >> total is going to be for >> Yeah, let's we'll do I'll do I'll put another second for totals, John. Okay. Yeah, I don't.
>> No, no. Yeah, I just >> Sorry, John. What was your What was your suggestion? >> Uh just uh funding North Main Street side of the uh project. So, that'd probably be half of the >> That's not exact math.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I've been told I've been told by project managers and architects that that doesn't necessarily work out. >> No, but that would be my suggestion if we wanted to look and see what the amount is just to do the north main street side
or whatever motion >> say 75,000. >> I don't know. I mean, we can look just to see. Uh just want to give you a new tally. Yep. >> Um the new tally is $1,250,41042. That includes the open space. Uh what
we've tal uh included um the open space and the uh deeds, all of the deeds. So the the total deeds came in at $8,300. >> So what was the total amount? 1 million >> 250,000 1250
410.42. 42. >> That's what we have left in unrestricted. >> That's what you have. Yeah. Left. >> Is that Does that reserve fun? >> What we have left? >> What do we have left in historic preservation?
>> Do we have about what John wants? >> Well, it's not what I want. >> Well, I mean, I was a suggestion, but I'm getting a little tired here. My apologies. My phrasing is getting You got to keep reserve.
>> I'll just say >> we have it uh broken down 24 windows um would be uh 87,250. So if we wanted to pay for half of motion north
or my suggestion I I I agree um that doing the ones on the B side can >> so I I'll I'd like to make a motion for
87,000 for the windows for Eagle Event center >> per their breakdown. >> I'll I'll second that motion. >> Can I just >> Alex, >> I'll just say it one more time. I don't know if people were hoping to maybe fund
more projects than this cuz I certainly were. It seems like we're probably ramping down now. Um and if we were to bond kind of how I wanted when I did the math, we would be able to fund fully or partially an additional eight or so projects. Just throwing it out there.
I think we're going to come back to the bonding, but I think >> they're stopping and doing partial amounts. >> Plus, it's already categorized. >> Yeah, I wanted to, you know, it seems to me the two obvious ones, the bond are the one the ones we deferred.
Um, and maybe something else. Um the reason for the historic museum is that that's not going to recur. My understanding is they just this is
from the tour. They've just about with that they will have just about completed their res their their whole their whole renovation. Um the land thing
we've discussed at length and we probably won't use all of that. So that's those would be excellent ones to to bond and we could add other open space to it.
I'm not opposed to that. I'm just saying why I think those two are the are really good ones to bond. So, we have money for the some of the other projects that we think are worthwhile. >> All right. I I think if we're going to
bond, it would be the best to take the open space >> because you don't want to go across categories. >> It just makes it easier. >> Well, okay. But you could do one bond for each. >> Well, it wouldn't go out to bonding till
started coming in. So if the if the open space bond that Alex proposed for was 1.8 million and the thought was that was too high, is it feasible to say we'll b we'll pay half of that upfront and bond
the remaining? So was that what you were getting at before Kristen is you would feel comfortable at a lower bonding amount? No, what I was saying is why if if we're bonding because we have certain we we
have three the three categories and we have certain funding that's restricted just to those categories. And if we are bonding all in one category, then the money that you're not using any
money out of it. You're just using bonding money. So you still have to put that restricted amount into that category. So you're going to have that restricted open space. So I my thinking is why can't you take partial from one
category and partial from the the historic preservation? I don't understand. And to me one point 1 1.8 is a little high especially because you you have to think about the fact that you're paying interest on all of this.
But it doesn't I I don't know if somebody can make it make sense why we're going to be taking everything from one category and not from the other because then you're going to have all of that excess money that came back to us in open space is going to go back into
open space. And I understand it goes into reserves and I understand that you use that in future years to pay down the bond, but that really doesn't help that much because all that money is just going to be sitting there when I feel like we could better access that money
now. We don't know what's going to happen years down the line. I mean, there's always been talk of we're going to repeal, we're going to do this, we're going to do that, and and if it does, then that money sits there. I would rather spend the money now and have less sitting there to pay back the bond and
then we deal with that in the future. But right now, that's that's my feeling on it. And I don't see how taking it all from one category helps. >> Leave us now where either we're we're done, >> right? Or >> the whole point is by bonding it you get
more to spend. Now that's the whole point for the bonding. like it just frees up more unrestricted whereas reserves would be designated from open space for the open space bonds. So it's really just >> No, but when the money came back to us from from the things that we had already
spent it in how much of that money is unrestricted and how much of it is restricted just to that category that's what I don't understand >> the totals we have unrestricted is 2.3 million and open space is 8001 because there was nothing in it was just basically this year's allocation. So you
could, you know, game it out x amount of years. We're never going to probably get more than 800,000 for open space per year, you know. So that's why I'm thinking it's smart to put open space funds in reserve to pay the open space bonds because as we said mixing the bonds I think is either not possible
because of the payment. I don't know if they would be able to split the interest payments versus to per the category that is, you know, incurring more interest or not. You know, that's an Emily question, which I don't even know why we would do that upon her if we didn't have to, which is why I'm saying an open space
bond, I think, would be the most simplest solution. >> Or would it make sense at this point, the the numbers are pretty close, to say pay for the land protection at 720, that's pretty close to the uh year mark for open space, right? 729 or 801.
>> And then bond the the rest of the other ones. And that would leave us, you know, almost at the million dollar mark that the finance uh operation wants us at. So you'd have the 240 for the Columbia Street project, 300 for Father Kelly. >> It's one It's one way to do it. It's
just in my opinion, it would be less, I think, in reserves dedicated to bonds for future years because it' be more in the unrestricted and we'd be more tempted to use it for other categories. >> I mean, if we >> It's kind of It's kind of It's kind of forcing the payment plan into the into the restricted funds. If we bond that
way, we get 2.3 to use in historic preservation, right? So, we can continue voting. Seven projects, you know, we can keep going. I was down the list when I did my math all the way down. >> It's a lot of money like that. I mean, it it's there's some good projects. I mean,
>> but it's a crossroads right now because we're either going to bond or we're done. >> Well, that's why that's why I said we need to figure out how much we want in reserves and how much we want to bond at the beginning of it. So right so right now with all of the things that we've approved and all of the deeds we have
$1,250,000 uh $410 I'm sorry 1,250,41042 >> left and if we were just to say a million dollars off of that and unrestricted. Yep. On So we have basically a quarter of a million dollars
to spend from this going forward. That's No, that's your reserves though. Don't forget like right now that was the actual >> we've allocated we've spent about four million, >> right? >> Yeah. And and so what I what I I guess what I'm proposing or what I I guess
discussing is putting everything into the open space, the only one that I I have it's a little bit is the the parcel of land, the $720,000. and we're we're we're we've already approved that for 750 $720,000.
But the reality of it is if they come back and they don't get the other part of the grant, then that project should be dead in the water. I mean, it's it's a lot of money to to it's >> Yeah. Well, I mean >> 720 is the full amount, but they already
said it's less. We already know it's >> So then why can't we take that off the bonding? Why can't we bond for all that? I would just bond it >> and then take the 720 off and we give them the money for the 720 and then if they don't get it that money comes back to us. >> Yeah, that's what BJ said. So it would
be a bond it would be a bond amount of like 1.125 or so. >> Perfect. >> Okay. >> I'd be fine with that, but I'm not fine with putting the 720 in. >> All righty. So, I'd make the motion to
the that the projects that are at the approved amount with the approved scopes already that we bond a 10-year bond for the Columbia Street parklet, the Father Kelly Parking lot, uh the Abbott Court sensory playground,
and the Maplewood uh Griffin Park, all of the park resurfacing of the basketball tennis courts and so on. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. Okay. Roll call. >> BJ discussion. >> Discussion, please. No, I know. Quick.
You have one more for $25,000. That's >> bond. >> Okay. All right. >> That way it would all be one. >> It could be the first one to get paid. Then you'd have to start the bond right away. >> Oh, it goes up. Thank you. >> DJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Mansi, yes.
>> Jamesby, yes. >> John Gray, yes. >> Can Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Silva, yes. Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Joey Belly. Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. So that's a 10. >> Yeah.
>> So that leaves 80,000 in open space. So maybe 79,000 which can be used for that 25. Um, and then it adds >> like over a million more to unrestricted, I think. >> Yeah.
>> So, we're at like 2 three million unrestricted quick math. >> All righty. >> So, I don't either, but it's just to get the >> Michael, you're doing a new recalculation. I don't imagine there.
>> Okay. >> John, did you have We don't have a motion yet for No, we do. >> It was passed. >> It passed. Okay. >> I did have a question that your figures meant that we were doing cash for the
bio reserve acquisition and the historical society. Is that correct? >> No. Cash. We're not bonding at this point because we've approved we've approved to do it. >> Historical society can now be used with freedom of unis.
>> So the eagles we approved 87 >> haven't done anything yet. >> You haven't done anything yet. >> The motion for the Eagle Event Center is $87,000. >> But we're going to see what the new calculations are. It's not fully spended.
>> And I believe I seconded that motion. Sorry, what was the motion? >> The motion was for uh windows for 875. >> Wait, wait. >> Are we Are we on the eagle now? >> Back to the eagle. >> Okay, so we're back to the eagle. We don't have our recalculation. >> Yeah. Hang on one second.
>> Can we do the recalculation first? Yeah. >> No, I just want to make sure this is right. >> Yeah, this is being recorded. We have for bonded uh 1 12500 0
for bonding and those are the four projects Parklet Father Kelly Abbott >> and Resource >> and the Maplewood. We have from our budget of >> 81661
>> 801 661 >> we have 81,661 left in open space >> 6 minus the 720 right >> yeah 81661 that I don't trust All
right. >> And 56 cents. >> Yes. >> It's 81,000 81,66156. Yes. Thank you. The penny. >> Yeah. No, no, no. >> And then unrestricted, you should be just adding that 1.125. So if you have
that actual the actual number for everyone, that would be Yeah. >> So you're saying this one goes back into the restrict. Okay. You want to know? >> Yeah. You add it to what the total leftover was which I had rough math of 1.25 25. So it should be like 1.3 rough
math if you want to do the real math. >> Yeah. >> Two 2.3 sorry unrestricted left just so everyone knows >> did we have anything left in open space uh in historic preservation >> that still has the 250. It is around
250. I don't know if you did the real number. I don't think anything went. Yeah, nothing went back into that because we're still we're still funding historic uh the historical society. >> You got to deduct those deed restrictions though. >> Are they are those deducted out of >> I think I had deducted it, but mine was rough math. So, she wants to do
>> 800. Yeah, I'm doing it right now. >> Okay. I have ad hoc math on the side. >> No, no, no. That's okay. >> So, I've got the I've got the open space figured out. We've bonded uh one >> 1.125 million. We have 8001.
>> Do you have the total of what was unrestricted before we did the bonding? Because just add that to >> No, I'll just I'm going to take it out right now. point for you. I go backwards. I feel like I'm in the NASA room here and I've got to come up with the
equation to land the precise location. Right. So you you're saying this two uh $2.3 million and so did you want to take we haven't gone in we haven't gone into that or do you want to take >> No, we have gone we have so
>> so we've only gone into it for open space now. Um so you're just adding >> So so our bonding we're bonding 1.125. >> So it's back to the full amount. Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, so it's back to the 2.3. Yeah, that's what I said. 2.3
million. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, so, but we have still uh >> 250. No, >> we have 8 $81,661.56 remaining in the open space. So, if you took that total number of the 800 uh 81
66156 minus the 720, that gives you the $81,66156. Okay. Okay. Good. So in historic preservation, we still have the unrestricted for 2.3 and we've only spent two. >> Okay. Okay.
>> We have 285 left in it roundabout. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> We have all righty. >> And we have enough money in the housing. >> We have enough. Yeah. >> It's more like 250 because we did the cultural almost 30,000 back. So it's like 255 I
think. >> So this is the number you were starting with. backing out these. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, >> you just subtract historical society and waterfront cultural district and that's the number right now. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> All righty. >> All right. So, does everyone feel
comfortable with the numbers to proceed? Right. I think that's what we're trying to do. Okay. >> All righty. So, we had the motion. >> We had a second. >> Who made the motion and who seconded that? Joanne made the motion. Who seconded the eagle? >> Seconded. What was the total
>> for 87,500? Okay. >> And it's for the east side windows. >> North main street. >> West side is north main street. >> Oh, west side. Okay. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> All righty. Roll call. >> DJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mansi. Yes. >> Jamesby. Yes. John Brandt. Yes. >> Kristen Canar Oliver. Yes. >> Alexander Silva. Yes. Could you tell me the number one more time?
>> 87,500. >> Did you want me to read the scope? >> Yes, Michael. >> Yes. >> Oh, yes, please. >> Okay. So, you want the deed restriction off that project and off the deed restriction list.
>> Joey Belly. Yes. >> Okay. Motion passes. >> Scope including Want me just read it? Go ahead. scope including um restoration of the historic uh windows by replacing refurbishing all exterior windows with
historically accurate materials and design elements consistent with the original 19th century construction. >> All righty. Next up is a historic property survey for the bio reserve area. This is part two of the study that they were doing. Uh they're looking for
33,000 under historic preservation. >> I'll make a motion that we approve the historic property survey for bio reserve area part two. Second >> 33 >> 33,000 >> 33,000
>> Okay, we have motion in a second. >> No discussion. >> BJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Mancini, yes. >> Tim Swinsby, yes. John Brandt, yes. >> Justin Canara, Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Silva, yes. >> Michael Ferris, yes. >> Joan Bley, yes.
>> Okay, motion passes. Next, we have uh property way and parcel W5-0073 land protection from land that we already bought. Uh that's under open space recreation for 25,000. Have a motion. I'd like to make a motion
to approve the $25,000 grant to establish clear title and permanently protect two parcels of forest land in the Southeastern Mass Bio Reserve, which is approximately 34.93 acres in total. >> I'll second that motion under open space and recreation
>> and I'll second that motion. >> Okay, no discussion. Roll call. >> BJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Manseni, yes. >> James Wby, yes. John Brett, yes. >> Can Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Silva, yes. Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Joan Belly. Yes.
>> And let's take a let's just pause for one second. I want to tell you where our totals are. Thank you. >> Rough total 56,000 open space, 130,000 historic preservation unrestricted continues to remain at 2.3 million. >> Well, that is our last open space
recreation. So, >> yeah. So, that that would be the probably >> final. >> So, 56 will be the final for open space that we have left. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, historic preservation, we have 130,000 left. >> About all
>> and group 2.3 and unrestricted. >> Y'all caught up, Mike. Or >> Yeah, hang on one second. Give me one second. >> And this last one was the 35. Oh, no. Yeah. Last one was for proprietary. Uh, it was the open space one for 25
historic preservation. Last one was 33. Yes. >> Yeah. So this is a just a historical preservation. Yeah. >> So right now what we have remaining in our budget >> the 958,2 $821 minus the we have $45,931.
Is that right? >> I think you're wrong. >> I think it's 130. We we had 250 and we just subtracted 120ish. 87 + 33. You subtract that from the 250. We had
500. The 500. The first one was the 582 582735 minus the 125us 8050. Oh. Oh, that's the problem. Uh, I put the entire amount in there.
We only approved 87. So around 13. That's good. 33. >> 1018 361. >> That's what's in historic preservation, right? >> Sure. >> Can you do it again? >> No, it's fine. I'll do it.
>> No, we can move forward. I'll >> Okay. >> So, wait. So, in historic preservation 101836, >> we're going to do it one more time. >> Okay. All right. Okay. >> Yeah. I just got a cramp 10186.
>> Yep. 108 101836 >> 1018 >> 01 >> Yeah, >> you've got to say >> I'm sorry 101836. >> Yeah. >> And that was
128 158. So >> where where where are you? Okay, let's just I'm going to show you where I'm going to take these numbers from. Make sure >> just add all the approved historic preservation and subtract it from the total we had. But did you take it? Did you take the 87500,
not the 41? >> Yes, I did. All of our voted amounts comes to 128, 158, >> including the deed restrictions, >> including the historic society one, which is included in that amount. And then we took out the other ones. So, I
didn't I didn't add the ones that were voted separately. So, >> yeah. Take those out of the >> That's additional 7,000. >> Yeah. this way we'll have >> so it oh actually it's 121 158 then
minus all the deed restrictions >> that's what's left in his story >> and that includes the two that you voted on maritime the eagle's going to be put back in any we're >> either way we shouldn't be spending to
zero like zero on anything. So, it doesn't have to we don't have to know the exact amounts right now. >> Like we've already kind of >> as long as it's close enough. >> Yeah. Like the whole point of not spending to zero is we don't have to actually >> worry about and still get the the 8 101 837 one.
>> Okay. No matter how you add that >> 101836. >> Yeah. >> So this one, this one here. I just want to make sure that's one here, that one there, that one there. half of that
which is the 8750 and the 33 >> four that's what we got >> and then the D-restriction amount is >> yeah I didn't >> get does for just these >> historic preservation >> oh under the historical preservation
>> well it still doesn't come out to what I was saying so >> yeah so that's the that's the total >> well I'm okay with moving forward checking the math that granularly because either way we're not spending to zero. >> Yeah. >> Or 20,000. So,
>> all right. So, let's move on. We got Christ the Rock Tower. This is uh the final phase three uh for tower repair. Uh they're looking under historic preservation for 350. >> I I don't recall. They sent a letter
that said they could because they didn't need to keep the staging and they could do it off a lift, the price could be less. Do you remember what their amount was? I think it was like 250 or something.
>> Yeah, I don't I should I don't have that email with me, >> so I'm not sure. >> I'm not right, >> but we don't have to fund the full amount if we don't want to. So, so as I have on on this right now in
our our budget for the historical I have basically 101,000 >> cost reduced to 250 right >> it was 250 yeah but then we still have the unrestricted we have >> um I would I would make a motion I don't
have the what it is >> the 250 or I'm making a motion for 250, but that I don't have the full description. >> Um >> to complete the tower stabilization, but I don't have >> I did want to add a caveat to this one. >> Okay.
>> I'll sec I'll do you want the description before? >> Yeah, if you don't mind, please. >> Should be. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. May I make a motion for Chrysler the Rock Tower repair phase three to fund it for 250,000.
The final phase will be to complete the tower stabilization, ensuring long-term preservation of the historic landmark while protecting the surrounding area. It will remove and replace failed masonry, reset, repoint loosen stone, replace deteriorated louvers and iron
bracing at the top of the tower. Um, anchors ties will secure the stone veneer >> and I'm done. >> And how much would that Now it's for the 250? >> Uh, for 250,000. >> I'll second it with the with a
restriction on the funds. Um, I would like uh Christ the Rock Church to um either approach the city and or like to enter an agreement like an official agreement, maybe like a 5-year agreement with the city or CDA um to continue
providing shelter to homeless during inclement weather. Um it's something that I know they do, but I think since they already have a deed restriction on the property, this could be just another way to guarantee the community benefit um versus the funds. I think they plan on doing this um already. Um and maybe
the city doesn't actually want to enter an agreement. So that's why it's at their leisure, but um at least asking to to enter into a formal agreement. Um just if anyone didn't notice or you see the new story, this past really bad storm, they housed I think 40 people
during the the really bad snowstorm, which is more than they have in recent years, too, because it was higher demand. >> And Mike, just add that to the description. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Uh, >> I might need to have your second roll call.
>> PJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Mansi, yes. >> Yes. >> John Brent, yes. >> Can Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Silva, yes. >> M Ferris, yes. >> Join Billy, yes. >> Okay. Motion passes.
>> Uh, next is recreation. Uh, >> windows. Um, we're looking to replace uh the windows for under historic preservation. Uh, 400,000 $45,820. Uh, motion.
>> How much do we have left in that category? >> So, we're we're in unrestricted now. >> So, right now we just went from >> That's what I meant. So, we went from a positive101 $8361
and then we just approved the $250,000. So, we're now >> 2.1 million unrestricted. >> Yep. >> So, we got 2.1 left. >> 2.1 million. >> And what was the amount? >> What should be about a million?
>> Taking a million somewhere around there. between eight million I think would be >> now minus 148 136 99. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Then you subtract it from restricted. So we're at we're at 2
>> unrestricted as possible. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, I will make a motion to fully fund the project at $45,820. >> Am I adding the deed restriction amount
in this now or no? We already did it. So, we did it. um >> for the Bristol County second district courthouse improvement project by far recreation scope including um one second
scope including sorry uh removal of windows um and their existing openings and sashes wood frames frames the same place and built around the old section. Uh all
windows installation clips, sub subframes and accessories associated with window installation to be replaced. Um and then in the old building section, windows to be installed uh with the subframe and clip system to encapsulate
and retain old wood frames. And just adding at the end all work um meeting Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation >> and then >> I'll second. >> It could be verifiable through the historic commission if they need help. >> Okay, we got a motion and a second. Roll call.
>> BJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Mancini, yes. >> James Hunby, yes. >> John Brandt, yes. Can Oliver? Yes. >> Alexander Sully. Yes. >> Ferris. Yes. >> Joey Bentley. Yes. >> Okay. Motion passes. >> 400.
>> 400. >> 400. >> That brings us down to about 1.6 left. >> 1.7ish. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh, next up is uh First Congressional Church uh exterior work.
They're looking under historic preservation for $38,500. I move $250,000 to Oh god, I lost it. I haven't made a motion yet. I'm going to wait a minute. Okay. Change my mind.
>> Okay. Change. >> I'm I'm wondering um so Chrysler Rock Church, we knew it was a phased and they we said we'll help you like aside at a time. So, I'm wondering if this is the same kind of situation where they'd be able to do
>> Well, they have put in they have uh put in I think uh >> you have that figure. >> They've already done some phases, I think. Is that your question? Like they've already done some phases on the church. No, not us. Yeah. And they they're self-unding a large portion of
this, I believe. >> More than half. They're selfunding for this project. >> I think they spent like almost a million dollars in selfund out already. motion. Jim, he said 250 back >> took it out.
>> I'll make a motion to fund uh I was going to fully fund it. So that's my motion. Um, I'll make a motion to fully fund the project, uh, the first congregation congregational church exterior work under the historic preservation category uh, for $38,500.
Um, sorry, just the right wording. Um, it's to secure the building envelope in uh required masonry repairs uh contingent on um meeting Secretary of Interior standards for Historic
Preservation. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> I'll second that motion. >> All righty. Roll call. BJ McDonald, yes. Rick Mancini, yes. >> James Hunsby, yes. John Brandt, yes. >> Preston Can Oliver, yes.
Alex >> Alexander Sylvia. Yes. >> Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Joan Deli. No. >> Okay. The motion passes. >> Um, >> you have now >> 1.4.
>> Yeah. 3956 564.87. >> All righty. Next up is uh forward redness home exterior work. Um, this is to redo the front porch and uh windows, door frames. They're looking under
historic pres I mean this is under uh >> housing for 100,000. >> I'd like to make a motion to fully fund the 100,000 under community housing uh including the scope of work including full exterior restoration including the
wood trim and painting using historically accurate materials. uh restoration and repair of the lodge round porch including the replacement of the rotted wood elements and the stabilization of the structural components. >> Wait, what under what category? >> Community housing.
>> Thank you. >> Um I think we just have to amend the total to 100,650 for a deed restriction, which brings me to my what I wanted to discuss. Um, so since it's community housing, but it's not, you know, rental housing or anything like that, we wouldn't necessarily, I think, put a
community housing deed restriction on it. I was trying to think of like how we would approach this. Perhaps like an agreement saying they'll continue to provide the community housing services for x amount of years. But honestly, personally, I would just be more okay with just putting a historic preservation deed restriction on the
property since it's a historic property and then just letting that be the only deed restriction for it, even though it's under community housing. Um, but that is just my thoughts. >> I don't think you have to have a price tag on community housing. I I think you still want them to provide the housing in the >> No, I'm saying. But you usually do a
deed restricted limiting rental income. There's no rental income. These aren't rental units, you know, it's social services. It's social housing. So, so like we wouldn't do that. >> We wanted to stay free then. >> Yeah. Well, >> well, the deed restriction too is if they were to sell it, right? I mean, that's the concern. So, the concern
would be they fix the porch and then it sells. Yeah, I I will just say that there's a >> What's the question? >> There there's a boy's home across the street from where I live and they're going through the process of selling it right now and I did talk to the owner and the owner said something about
funding sources that that's why they're in the process of selling it. >> Yeah. So, >> so like whatever >> that's the point of the deed restriction, right? Is so that they're they can't turn around and sell it. So, I guess >> not necessarily. So, community housing de restrictions generally the point is
to keep like the rents affordable for 15 years or 10 years or whatever the agreement is since there's no like it's not a rental income property. It would that's what I'm saying. We've never done a deed restriction like this before. So, I'm open to how we want to approach it. Just me personally, since it's a
historic property, I think putting the historic preservation deed restriction on the exterior would be sufficient enough like just our normal procedure for that >> which we can do. I can comment to that. That particular home is located in the 40C district. So, exactly right. We
should uh put in the deed restrict the preservation restriction that it follow the interior standards secretary of interior standards >> for exterior changes >> and and it won't it won't trigger anything with a housing component of it because that's where we're going to >> Yeah, we can make whatever deed
restrictions we want for whatever grant award. It does. It would have no effect on >> Yeah. Like we could do no community housing deed restriction and no historicization if we want. I just think since we're giving the funds to historic property in the historic district, we might as well throw on that. It kind of just adds a lay of protection for the
neighborhood. >> And that raises a flag because there's renovations to the doors and some porch work and things of that nature. So, we want to just make sure they stay within the historical main frame. >> So, we're going to keep it in their
housing. Yep. Well, we're going to put a historical deed restriction. I add a second. >> Hold on. What does any >> Yeah, I just want to add, can you pull out the community housing deed restriction amount and put it in historic preservation because you voted on the deed restriction? >> Oh, so just >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, in the motion 650 will come out of the historic preservation, but the 100,000 for the renovations comes out of the community housing. >> To be clear, I think we could do community housing and just have it be a historic deed restriction. I think we could do that, but we could do it this way, too. >> Okay. All right. So, I'll we'll do it
this way. Yeah. 6 650 historic preservation >> 650. >> And we're going to take out community housing deed restriction of 650. Okay. >> We had a motion. A second. >> A second. >> Okay. Roll call. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes.
>> James Msby. Yes. >> John Bright. Yes. >> Kristen Kent Oliver. Yes. >> Alexander Silva. Yes. Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Joan Belly. Yes. >> Okay. Motion passes. Now that leaves us with about We still have what? 1.3
one point 1 one point one 338914.87. >> Say that again please. 13 >> 1338 914 87. >> Okay. Up next is uh Shane Landing.
um uh window replacement. They're looking for 350,000 under historic preservation. This is private. It might be something we want to touch on. Maybe doing one side of it.
There's 100 uh businesses in that uh building. So, there is a lot of property tax coming in and revenue and employment. So, whatever the board's uh wishes there, >> I I I would Yeah, I would make a motion
to approve uh for 175,000 which would be on the Awan Street and the east side facing the public right public way. >> What floor? Just
>> on the first floor. Thank you very much. Yes, on the first floor. Okay. >> Umation with under secretary of interior standards. >> Yes. Uh under a historical secretary of
standards interior. >> You want to add the 650D restriction as part of the 175 or separate? >> Uh why don't we just do it separate? >> 650 separate. 650. >> Okay.
175 650. >> Okay. >> So, we have the motion and a second. Uh, roll call. >> Who made the second? >> Christopher. >> Me. Oh, thank you. >> And then just scope just for the wording for the scope. Um, this is this was for the full amount. So, it it'll be um as
many as possible to fund and replace replace and restore 75 or as many as possible first floor windows. Um, >> yeah. Sorry, that's all they said. >> Anan and west side. >> Uh, it's south.
>> Yeah, that'll be the south side. >> Yeah, the south side is Agawam. >> Sorry. >> An what did I say? >> I'm sorry. >> And then the uh east side which is also public. You can see it from the public.
>> So Palm Street. >> So that's west side. That's west side. So sol the west side. Yeah, the west side. It is the west side. >> Starting on the south side first and then doing >> Yeah. Complet. So in there we'll put put in there start on the south side.
>> So just for everyone I think a lot of those first floor windows are below grade from the street or close to below grade. Right. >> So so just just >> Yeah. >> Just so everyone like everyone's doing it because it's the community facing side, but just be aware that you know I think it does dip below the street once
you start going up. Or we could put first one. It might not be too many side. Give me one second. >> Sidewalk level the windows. >> Well, then that might be the second floor, but her plan is for the first floor, you know? So, it doesn't really like we can't change the scope, you know?
>> Like it so it' almost be more beneficial for the west side unless like if it guarantees more street level windows. >> Just a thought. I didn't actually count how many were for location. >> I didn't I looked at this. Hang on one second. Look at it right now.
>> So, those are all those are all on the first floor. >> Yeah. >> Like I think it's it's probably like a third or half. >> I I think if you did all of that, that's >> not to say you can't see some of them and it wouldn't look nice, you know? I'm not saying >> Yeah. Yeah. >> For walkability, you would see it if
you're walking on the street, which I think is one of the intended goals. >> I mean, we all caveat. We could >> like you would almost preface starting with the west side like maybe the west side the pond street face or is it pawn the pond street facing side first like if we're doing partial funding like you
you can at least maybe finish that facade >> versus half of another facade >> and they're going to be redoing that whole street and side streets being redone. So like >> we would say our money started at the prioritiz street side. >> How many total?
>> There was 75 as many as they could. Yeah, they were setting the first floor, but I agree with what you're saying. Like if if they could just do the first and second floor just >> second floor like it goes around to the other property which is more
>> well more ground facing not public facing but >> so just I just want to throw that out there. >> Did you add in that uh the following the secretary of interior standards? Yeah, >> that will put in every every agreement.
So if we forget >> that automatically goes in. So >> So it's going to start on start on Pawn Street West >> around toan street. Okay. He's going to write that in the description. Okay. >> So we we had the motion. We had a
second. >> Kristen. >> Okay. Roll call. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes. >> James Woodsby. Yes. >> Jack Brandt. Yes. >> Alex Oliver. Yes. >> Alexander Sylvia. Yes. >> Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Joey Bill.
>> Yes. >> So that motion passes. So that puts us somewhere around 1.263. >> What's the board's wish? Do >> 1636487. >> Yes. Go ahead. Miss over there. >> Sir. So, I I actually was going to make
a motion at this point that we um we stop funding and keep what we have in our reserves because we know that we have things that that do come up and I think this would probably a good be a good place to stop.
>> Okay. Do we have a second? Are you doing that? That will affect your answer. >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, we haveund we have $163,000. I I don't think it's I think we're good at one. That's really what you wanted.
Roughly 1.8. >> Oh, that's not what I wanted, but it's nice. >> No, no, no. Yeah. Yeah, >> who knows what next year project will be. So, >> and the other ones are very low rated anyway. So, >> probably shouldn't be any lower than 1.16. >> I second the motion uh from Kristen. >> Okay, roll call.
>> BJ McDonald, yes. >> Rick Manseni, yes. >> Jamesby, yes. John Brandt, yes. >> Kristen Kent Oliver, yes. >> Alexander Silva, yes. >> Michael Paris, yes. >> Yes. All right,
that concludes our voting this year. Um Sandy will get the contracts and everything will be included. >> Um what I'll do next, John, is I'll do the um letter and I'll draft the appropriation order for the auditor and for it to go to the mayor. So go down to
the city council. Okay, just one second before we just uh >> before we uh adjourn, uh we have another meeting uh the 23rd. >> Uh could we have a motion to because we just finished up everything here
>> project updates. >> Oh, all right. We'll take a 10 minute. >> No, no, we we're almost done. We got that >> and I don't I don't care what the rest of you the committee is fully capable of
of going for. We have to have you here. >> Is he coming back? >> He's coming back. Yeah, we'll wait. >> He'll take the right up. >> Yeah. Well, no, because if we take a vote, Higgins will uh
>> Yeah. >> So, we got to wait. >> We can adjourn without them though, can't we? >> But we still have a few things items. Oh, that's >> Well, we're on project updates. >> Uh, we could do project updates. >> Okay. Okay. Not involved with
>> uh project update. Um, the dery I'm sorry uh the dery block project. Um, the architect is in place. The contractor for the windows are in place. They are just waiting for their I believe it's
$1.9 million funding that should come through in April. Um but they're ready to go with the window projects uh as is. And then the second one was the children's museum. I do have um an ask or they do have an ask. Um they gave an
excellent uh overview. They gave us the three contractors that what their pricing was and their pricing on on public sector projects. You have your your base bid and then you have your ad alternates. The lowest bid, get all of
the ad alternates, which they were surprised, but pleasantly. What they're going to ask for is a need for an extension in July. That's when their funding is supposed to be done. Because they have all of the projects. If it was just the base bid, they'd be done with
it. But because they're doing all of them, they're going to ask for an extension. And I don't know how to handle that. I think >> yeah they can I can put that on um the next agenda. Yeah. Uh so I'll add this to the next agenda >> and Tammy will have to come in and do that. Will you send her an email about
that? >> Yep. >> Thank you very much. That's it. >> Alex, did you have anything to do? >> No, it was >> okay. I did have uh the fire museum has had the windows will be installed in April. So that's one good movement on that end. 10 years in a week
>> and the roof bids are coming in and that will be taking place this summer too. So that will be a nice touch done. >> Uh are they going to give a proposal on the window or >> the window we've already uh approved? Uh
because this was uh FY19. It's just been going through the bid process and hanged up at city hall. >> We can ask them to give the historic commission an update since it's been so long. >> Yes. After seven years, we should take >> you want uh give I'll call the and have
him send you over to spec. I don't have them handy. I would give them to you. But >> well, he we'll have to get him to send them to the historic commission and we can look at them as as board with the historic commission. >> I will I'll send him a letter >> and the board has to look at that. Not
just not just me but the board. >> All right. Uh quick question. your uh your meeting was postponed. Uh has a new date been >> the 17th should be new business >> next Tuesday. >> Yes. Uh I'll give you an update on
Little Theater. Little Theater has uh found a contractor that's at a more reasonable price is going to repair the slate shingles. Rather than replacing the roof with the synthetics, they're going to put in slate or put slate back
repair. So, um >> should lower the cost. >> It they were told by the contractor that the cost should be lowered. >> So, we should be getting funds back eventually. >> And yes, and they've uh they have a fund that they've raised money. Uh so, yes,
there should be something back. I do not know what the cost is yet. She hasn't called back, but she did call to let us know. Let BJ and I know that they they did secure a contract. Okay. Uh, new
business. The only thing I would have is uh we do have somebody's going to come in for an extension. But, uh, in in the future, I think our extension should be you have two years to finish the project >> because here where we have the fire
station and everything was approved. >> Yeah. >> Now we got to come back and get approved. >> It just makes it harder on us. >> Can't think it's >> I just I just have a question. And so on something like that, do they have a building permit in hand? Because there's a limit on a building permit. Once a
permit's been pulled, it has to be completed within a certain amount of time. >> They just pulled the building permit on the uh >> they did other work first >> under the same permit. >> I think I think under outside of our grant scope like they did they did the
bay doors now on Bedford Street side. Um which weren't part of our grant, you know, and like we're talking the fire. >> Oh, sorry. I thought you were Miss Central Fire Station. Sorry. >> That Yeah, that that's mis misordered.
>> Are any of those projects like a state organized because that this is going through um like a DKAM process which and I understand where why they had to extend it because of the base bid portion of it and because all the ad
alternates were added to it. the the fire museum had been on the private side, >> then the city took it back over because the city owns it. Yeah. >> So, the city took the project back over >> which fell into hands before Ala took
over DCM and his first year getting around and now he's finally >> getting things done. So it just puts us, you know, this is why I say shovel ready projects instead of >> Yeah. >> Well, I guess my comment is just I would
be careful as to how long of an extension >> because if they've got a building permit, I would I I like things to align. That's all. >> Yeah. >> I think it's always going to be a case byase basis depending on circumstances. So, um, like I know we I mean the last
couple times we've talked about as a committee with applicants and stuff, I think we've been growing more and more strict and I think that could continue. You know, it's at the leisure and preference of the committee. >> Okay. All right. So, uh, Mr. Hornsby's back.
Can I have a motion to adjurnn? >> You wanted to bring up into new business the next meeting of the historical society. Oh, I also wanted to make a uh >> to cancel the uh January 23 uh 3rd meeting since we already met today.
>> February 23rd. >> February 23rd. >> Make the motion to >> cancel and wait. Why? >> Well, we just did everything here. We won't have anything on top of >> still have outstanding matters outside of our schedule that need to be
resolved. >> All right. emergency funding process. >> Okay. >> Plan. >> I'll be away, but you guys can have the meeting. >> Oh, you're away. Don't forget, you should with that. >> So, I was going to say we still have
some things we could do. >> If you miss us that much, we just go out for beers. >> Who makes a second on cancel the February 23rd? >> Some people are waiting. Could I just make mention that the historical commission is has Roger Williams presenting uh from the waterfront
cultural district which is you know one of uh only 51 in the whole state. Um they did a proono work for us uh and they looked at approximately 18 historic sites homes
and landmarks of different sorts down there in the cultural district. It's a good presentation. It's going to be held at six o'clock in this room next Tuesday evening. It's opened up to the general public and anyone and bring your friends, family,
and acquaintances. >> Okay. >> I need a second on your motion to cancel the meeting. >> Do we have a second on the cancel the meeting? >> I'll second. >> Okay. >> Roll call. >> BJ McDonald. Yes. >> Rick Mancini. Yes. >> Yes. John Barrett. Yes.
>> Kristen Caner. Yes. >> Alexander Sylvia. Yes. >> Michael Paris. Yes. >> Yes. >> And last motion to adjourn. >> Motion to second it. >> Okay. Who seconded it? Who
>> competitive on this side? Yes, >> Kristen. >> What? Motion to adjurnn. >> Oh, yes. Yes. >> Well done. >> All right. >> Yeah. Alexander Sylvia. Yes.
>> Michael Ferris. Yes. >> Belly. Yes. All righty.