Welcome to the community preservation committee meeting tonight. Uh we're at one uh government center uh city uh council hearing room. It's uh October 20th uh 6:00. Uh pursuant to the open meeting laws, any person 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, we'll start with roll call to my
left. Michael Faras here. Chris Benedit is here. >> Alexander Silva here. >> Kristen Canara Oliver here. >> John Brandt here. >> James Hornsby here. >> Rick Mancini here.
>> Uh, any citizen input tonight? >> No. >> No citizen input. Uh, did we finish up the meetings for September? >> Okay. soon. I have a motion to move uh that to o uh November's meeting. >> I'll make a motion to move the approval
of minutes from September 15th to the November meeting. >> I'll second that. >> Um favor >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. Uh next up is uh art association update.
Could you guys come down? Good evening. Nice to see you all again. Paul Clutier, Greater Fall River Art Association, 46 Stanford Street, Fall River, Mass. >> Ron Gagnon, president, Greater Fall River Art Association,
500 Swansea Mall Drive, Swansea, Mass. Okay. Now, uh I'm not sure. Did you get get the chance to look at the uh previous applications that we granted them? >> Yeah, it looked like that the wording
was more specific than what was said uh at the last meeting in regards to the accessibility. It wasn't just blanket accessibility um improvements. It was the specific uh scope that we had talked about. Um, so as we mentioned last
meeting, any change like anything outside of that scope can't be funded by the grant would have to be like a new application. >> Okay. But now the uh description was a lift to the back. >> Yeah. But anything
>> but a uh ramp is considered a lift too. Would you not consider that a lift or >> uh not off the top of my head, but maybe there's a technicality in the wording? I don't know. Rick, Rick, do you have
>> Yeah, what it does it and it in this it um it talks about also putting in a access to the rear door. So, the ramp in my opinion would be access. >> Okay. And I do know that being that
Kristen and I are watching this project, I have looked at it and the lift was going to seriously struck and damage the porch. From the historical commission perspective, that was not the best.
>> Yeah. >> Thing to do, not even would look best, and it' be very visible from the sidewalk. This ramp is going to be pretty much invisible. And uh am I correct that the building inspector has given you added instructions and what to do with the
back? >> Yeah, correct. >> So they've received good instructions and it does say accessibility of the back porch. So whether it's a lift or a ramp, I would think is pretty much common. >> Okay, thank you. >> That works for me. Just pay attention to
the language. Anything beyond like >> Yeah. No, I understand what you're believe me. I get I get what you're saying. you just you got to kind of follow the way the grant is if this is but yeah okay um and the other thing was in regards to the um uh the fire escape >> the fire escape we did have in there
that removal but we did have included in there paint uh trimming paint and repair so even though we're not removing it painting is isn't is included in the description so I think that would be we're going to save money even though
we're not removing it but we did include painting in the description description. So, >> to clarify, you're talking about painting the fire escape, >> correct? Yes. >> To match the >> metal structure. Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that that all vibes well. Yep. >> Okay. >> Great. >> So, the the board would like to make a
motion that uh proceed with the changes. >> Well, I I'll make the motion that we concede to the changes being made in the process of construction of uh 80 Belmont Street. Second.
>> I'll second it. >> Uh, roll call. Uh, yeah. Michael Ferris. Yes. No. Okay. >> No, we don't need a roll call. We're not on Zoom. >> Okay. >> All in favor? >> I I excel. Thank you all. >> Appreciate your time. >> Thank you.
>> Excellent. >> All righty. Next. >> And Saturday, you're all invited to come see the haunted house at 80 Belmont. Hey, >> what time? >> Um, >> Ricky, you won't have a choice. >> I think it's 6. I'll be in my backyard. >> Really? >> Yeah. The the inside's done. I'm
finishing up the outside. >> Pretty wild. >> Awesome. >> Yeah. >> Come by. >> You said six round. >> All right. >> What's that? >> Six. >> Six. >> Yeah. I'll be We'll be there anyway. >> There will be an hour. >> We have to dress up.
>> Huh? >> I mean, we're scary enough. >> No, we're going to have a witch. We're going to have a live witch on a porch. Oh, wonderful. >> Can we dress up? >> Sure. >> Absolutely. No candy for the adult, though. >> That's not dress up as a kid.
>> All righty. >> Uh, next up is emergency funding. Uh, before I get into this, I want to uh got a lot of new members. When we started CPC back in 2012, we started with zero paperwork.
So, our first year was coming up with all of our guidelines, >> restrictions, everything we wanted to do. And as we moved on, we've changed them. And our CPC board has been very active and and moving forward very
quickly. Uh when I was up at a meeting uh two years ago, Boston said that they just started uh assigning members to projects. We've been assigning members to projects for I don't know how many years
>> and that made me feel good even though I didn't say anything that we've been doing it but we've always been ahead of the curve as far as even uh >> Zoom Zoom another one uh we were the first uh
committees to start Zoom meetings during COVID uh when it came to uh putting out bonds for uh projects We were one of the first committees to use bonding as an extra way of getting extra funding. And as far
as uh handbooks, I can guarantee you we're the only committee that has a manual. So, we've always been ahead of what other CPC communities are doing. Which brings me to the point that uh we started doing emergency funding back
when the library needed to be funded for an emergency roof. And we did fund the roof and and you could look at it a couple different ways. Did we fund it because it's a cityowned building and it was
going to come out of city taxpayers money either way. Uh but it was an emergency and we did we did take care of that. Uh but looking forward now my perspective an emergency is a natural
cause which would be covered under your insurance. So it doesn't say in CPC we need to have an emergency funding mechanism. We have our guidelines that we set up.
So as a board we can open this for discussion which we're going to do. Um, but I just wanted you to know my feelings on it that I'm kind of in the position cuz I've received a lot of calls on um the emergency funding we just did and
uh so we can discuss it. Uh I'm in the position that really emergency funding should be covered under your insurance. So why is CPC stepping in to cover a project that should be covered under
your insurance? I cannot think of an emergency that would be justified that wouldn't be that might be a hardship. So we we might not have a hard emergency funding application. We might have a hardship, but then a hardship
application opens up a lot more gates to interpretation. What is a hardship? you know, which takes away from what we're here to do is uh fund preservation, open space, recreation,
>> not to take care of emergencies that have been is or are our responsibility. So, with that said, we're going to open up a discussion for emergency funding. I do want to go through the the chair here. So, whoever wants to start it out,
just I want to keep it not talking over each other. So, I want everyone's opinion. So, we'll start with whoever wants to start the ball. >> Well, I I think I think this is kind of dictated towards and I'm not getting
don't uh misconceive what I'm about to say, but I think the little theater was the kind of contentious component of this. I'm sorry, you can't hear. Okay. I think the um the little theater was a bit of a contentious uh situation because they were having
leaks in their roofs and and I took it very similar to what the um the library was way back when when you had to make that you know you could you could point the finger at that's lack of maintenance there's something of this nature you know you should have known this
hindsight 2020 both these structures are valuable u buildings they're historical and at the end of the day, you needed to fix them. Now, if they did not do anything, they just dropped $7,000 to
try to um fix the roof situation, my approach to that is you still have a leak, you still have an issue, and you did spend some money on your own to do it. Um, at the end of the day, I look at it as if just like uh the Abby Grill, if
you didn't fix that steeple and that roof, that probably would have eventually deteriorated and have to come down alto together. So, that's kind of the pros and cons associated with it. Um, and that's why I had that's why I stood I thought it was a good um
opportunity to hopefully save that building. and they are someone who does a lot for our community I think um personally and it's just same thing with the arts association you know um that's kind of what I why I addressed it and I
thought it was important um about the emergency component of it for the insurance component of that having historical properties I know it is an arduous task to uh go in front of the insurance people and and dictate Like I
have special insurance that this is a historical property. It needs to be done historically. Yada da all these things. I had I personally have had one claim in 35 years and my my carrier just dropped
us and that was to do the farmer's porch. a farmer's porch that we redid per the historical review and somebody drove into it and I had them redo had to have it redone and they just dropped our
insurance. So there's only somebody who you know we're on mass uh insurance now for that and it's probably twice as much money. Now, if it's not a huge component to that, um that's why the insurance
kind of um pushed towards that. Most people don't want to put a a claim in there unless it's such a bad disaster, natural disaster. Um but that's just my two cents associated with it. And uh again whenever anybody in I on these
projects when somebody actually puts uh effort money into a project and they're doing the initial leg work to this I I think that's something that I I would I could easily back get back behind on the funding. That's why I I I did that. And
with that I yield. >> So I have a thought. So I I will agree to a certain extent, but my issue is with deferred maintenance when things need to be done and they should have
done something about it. they had several years knowing that this was happening that they could have put in an application the same as everybody else because realistically I think a lot of people look at their projects as emergencies even though one may be a little more
time-sensitive. I think in in some way they all feel like they're they're valid emergencies for them. But in this case, this when you're looking at deferred maintenance that gets pushed and pushed and then you decide last minute, well,
this is now an emergency that I have a problem with. I I I really I mean, if this were something that happened the month before and the roof blew off and they had there was nothing they could do about it, that's one
thing. But this has been this has been an issue. This has been an ongoing issue for years with their roof where they should have and could have come before us for other funding or looked at other possibilities, grants, whatever from
other places and none of that was done. So, I feel like even though you're saying they did put some money in, I really don't think they were doing the due diligence because they they did not >> Well, I I mean, again, they presented
what they said what they said. They they said they put in $7,000 to do um uh repair on the on not too long ago after a windstorm. And so, that's kind of why I was saying, you know, with the insurance component to it, well, wait a
minute. They went in spend the $7,000 after the windstorm and they're still having problems with that. You know, that wasn't that $7,000 came out of their pocket. It didn't come out of CPA funding or didn't come from other types of grants. They made that initial
component to it. So, that's kind of why >> but this is but this has been an ongoing issue for years. >> Keep going on this route. Uh >> yeah. Yeah. >> We're basically discussing future. We've already made these votes. So this is about the future of funding that we want
to either have or not have. >> Yeah. >> What we did in the past is the past. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> How moving forward, how do we want to handle it? That's what I want to hear tonight. >> Not >> Well, I continuing what I was saying,
>> I I think that a lot of people that come before us with an emergency are not actually emergencies. they are deferred maintenance >> and that to me does not qualify something as an emergency. >> Um,
>> can I can I make a recommendation? This is what I would suggest that you could avoid all of this. In the past when I sat on other committees like this, we would actually have them like you're supposed to have a a a written estimate from a professional either a licensed professional, architect, structural
engineer, whoever it might be. So they they should come in here and say, "Okay, here's your here's the minimum. Go get a go get a a report of what what the issue is." And I'll give you an example. Believe it's your church, your your church situation. There are two things
that are happening with the water damage. And so if you had a report saying this is what we need to do first and this is what we need to do second, that that would be then it would take out the onus of us and saying, "Okay, you had a professional look at this. this is how we correct this situation.
And is that an emergency? Is it is it really the the the the the brick that or the stone we're coming down or is it the roof where the water's coming in? Where is the real problem? And and again, there are a couple of things that are
really on you. uh especially a historical project is if for instance you didn't maintain your furnace and your furnace went out and all your pipes froze and the like for an insurance policy that would be one of them that's
on you. you didn't maintain it. And so like with the roof, you're right. Again, um you know, there's only a few things that are really would be an actual disaster, like a a natural disaster type of scenario. And so, but I would say
that if they're going to ask for an emergency that they have to come with prepared documents saying here's what's the emergency and then we can evaluate whether well is that neglect from is that neglect of maintenance. And I agree with you. If you didn't do the the simplest things,
>> you know, like clean out your gutters, you won't have backup of water in your walls. >> If you didn't do that, then shame on you. You know what I mean? So, I I I think that's kind of one of the things maybe we could we could request if it's an emergency,
you know? And I don't disagree. Like, everybody comes in here and just, oh, it's emergency. Well, your lack of preparation and planning is not constituted as an emergency. Yeah. >> So, I mean, that's just my thought.
>> So, Chris, I'm actually curious. Committee member Mancini, you had you were pretty um I don't know if vocal is the right word, but you you had some thoughts. I actually wanted to get your opinion after chairman chairman Brandt kind of gave his sort of synopsis. I I am
actually very curious to hear what you think as well since you've been on the committee quite for quite a bit of time. And the reason I asked that question is I I do want to address the document that we have in front of us as a as a segue into what to do in the future. I have some thoughts on that, but to help kind
of put everything into perspective. I think you had some good talking points last last meeting. So I'd be curious to hear your thoughts if you want to share those. By the way, I'm not putting you on the spot for that reason. I just thought you had some some good insight. >> Uh well, a number of things. one, uh,
we're dealing with taxpayer money. >> And if someone comes in, if it's taxpayer money to repair a situation and it's got to be done immediately, that's fine because as as the chairman had
mentioned, it's going to be paid by taxpayer money either way. M so that that that I can understand in a situation where it's deferred maintenance and majority of the cases
with things that we see here even some of the work that has to be done that people are requesting money for in the proper venue is deferred maintenance. So to emergencies in my opinion are really really negligible to come into a
committee such as this. One of the things that troubles me also is that on is that we have a process and you come in on there's a date that's the date that the process closes. You can come in
with that bid or your proposal a month ahead of time. That's fine. Mhm. >> But to come in a day after it closes and say it's an emergency, that troubled me at that time. And that was, I understand, not the first time that that had happened.
>> Happened in the past with with a given uh uh situation. >> Uh so those are those are things that yes really trouble me. And then there's a difference between a an organization that's income generating and one that's
not. And in if an income generating facility should be able to offset a lot of these costs. And it it just troubles me again uh you know we're here uh to to
utilize in the best possible manner the taxpayer money and put it to its best use. And in cases where you're generating a a sizable income to be coming in in in such a manner as an
emergency when it's deferred maintenance clearly defined deferred maintenance that that troubles me. >> Yeah. >> And I'm not going to go any deeper than that. >> That's fair. No, I think I think you said it very clearly. Um that's all very helpful. I think so. I reflected quite a bit after that meeting. Um, those are
the kinds of discussions that afterwards I'm kind of like, man, did I miss something? Like, you know, there was there was some strong feelings against the proposal. Um, and and while I had my thoughts on, you know, passing it on my end, I also was like, I need to do more
more due diligence on my side because I'm I'm clearly missing something. So, you know, in in sort of subsequent conversations with, you know, Chairman Brandt and others, um, I understood kind of the policies that had been in place prior to that, and I can see where some of the breakdown happens. I mean, I
didn't actually think that the original emergency funding outline was thorough enough, and and it's no one's fault. I just think it could have been more explicit as to at the intersection of deferred maintenance and natural disasters, what happens, right? How do
we actually um how do we sort of mitigate and legislate that across the committee? And does the is the public understanding of that? Like how clear is the public when they see this? And are we going to get enough push back where they say this is not clear? So, so I I I
sort of helped with the team to sort of put together, I think, some very, I hope, clear outlines in this document. So, if we haven't had a chance to read it, I would like to maybe go through it. Now, in hearing some of the feedback, I actually think 95% of what we're talking about actually falls within the category
of non non-emergencies. The only and let me just segue back to that point around delayed applications. The only push back I would say to that is if we actually felt as that that was a problem, we should not have accepted it. The fact that we accepted it is
admission that we're going to actually entertain the emergency application. Does that make sense? So in other words, in the future, for purposes of our committee, if we're going to be strict on that deadline, we're strict on that deadline. That's it. It's like there's nothing else that's going to move forward outside of it. If we decide that
we're going to allow it, we don't that's it. Like we don't have a leg to stand on once we say we're going to give you that opportunity. Does that make sense? Because we're telling them we're going to give them the opportunity. So once we tell them, it's like, well, we have to give you the opportunity now. So we did that and that's maybe that's on us. Does that make sense?
>> Just to kind of address that point. That makes sense. But now, >> do you want me to tell somebody that wants to submit something to the committee that No. >> If they submit it late to to member Mancini's point? Yeah. I mean, they're they're if there's a clear deadline that they need to submit it by and they miss
that that window. >> Well, I kind of don't want to take the whole responsibility of telling somebody no, you missed it and you can't put an emergency. I mean, that's a lot of >> We can leave it up to discussion then. So, I guess I'm just trying to I'm just
>> I don't mind saying that, but that's that's a big >> No, but emergency >> letting one person decide >> what what >> I see what you're saying. >> What u Mr. Mancini was saying is there's a deadline for the regular applications. So, sometimes people will miss the
regular application and then they decide, oh, I'm going to put this in as an emergency because there actually is no there is no deadline for emergencies. It's just rolling. >> Fair. Fair enough. And I think to that point then in that case that's that's good information for me. Right. So I didn't realize that. So I think in that case we would be able to determine
pretty quickly is this a real real emergency or not to your point >> the All right. So the emergencies what what is the emergency? So the the the actual emergency um in this document I'm just going to skip to page
I believe it's page three. No, this needs to >> Sorry, page page two. There there are two specific emergency areas at the intersection of critical repairs and what would be considered emergency
funding that I'd like the opinion of the committee. Okay. >> One is to threats of threats of safety. You can see towards the the bullet. >> Yeah. The second is the necessity to prevent shutdown or or major disruption of facility operations, especially for assets vital to an organization's
revenue streams. Both of those would need to constitute in light of even if we suspect there might be some level of deferred maintenance, but that some level of natural disaster exacerbated that level of deferred maintenance. So,
in other words, hypothetically speaking, an organization that's revenue producing was subject to a major windstorm, maybe there's some roof roof damage, but they're not seeing the the fault of that damage, right? They're not seeing leaks in the in the ceiling until a month
later when there's a heavy rainstorm, right? What happens? And then it gets worse over time and then there's another windstorm and then they actually can't keep up on it because there's a couple of months down the road and they realize, oh, shoot, we have a bigger problem. How do they handle that? So, so
ju just to finish that point worth the discussion and for us to actually debate okay what was the what were one-year timelines and how do we actually discuss as a committee does this fall under these two categories right and the reason I brought up the point facility operations especially as it's vital to
organizations with revenue streams is one I've noticed that we spend a lot of time asking about revenue streams to keep up with maintenance over time right it's is something that we keep asking about. So to cut off the needs of an organization whose revenue streams are
contingent on the building that they're supposed to make revenue on, it seems to me that that would be a good place to put money. That's just my opinion. Okay, that's why it's in there. Now, we can remove it if the committee feels like it, but I just wanted to put that out there. The second error that I think I've realized is that we only have so
much money and that it doesn't make sense to fund an entire operation. So on the back half of this in page three, I think something to the effect of a application amount approval, we only fund projects to the ability
that we can create what would be immediate action repairs patchwork that allow the organization to return to operations and stabilize the situation until a permanent solution can be planned and submitted for regular funding cycles. To me, I think the combination of these
two items helps with the ability for our committee to actually debate in with an enlightened view of someone's actual problems and our ability to clearly understand what guidelines we're moving forward with for the future. So,
that's the proposition that I that is in this um in this three-page document or possibly four-page document. It's guided by the work that the committee has already done and also the division of capital asset management and maintenance the DCAMM
of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. They have a lot of this structure already built. It doesn't make sense to to reinvent the wheel. It seems to make sense. And I think for our purposes, I think this gets us into a better spot. So, let me sort of pause there and I'd
be very curious to hear everyone's feedback if it makes sense. If it doesn't, um, I don't know what the next steps would be if we have to re like, you know, re retool this a little bit and then vote on it or go straight to vote. But anyways, I'll pause. >> Well, let me thank you for putting this together. You you took the time,
>> like I said here again, we are probably the only committee talking about emergency funding like this where we put our heart and soul into what we do. >> Now, you said revenue generating. Obviously, a food pantry is never going
to be >> revenue generated. So, >> yeah, >> we're not going to focus on the need of the community. >> I don't generating to keep it going is good, but we also got to look at the needs of >> food pantry doesn't generate money.
>> Yeah. >> It's a need for the community. >> Yeah. >> That is there. And so, >> operations. >> Yeah. That's facility operations >> as well. Not so like the operations of the facility. >> Yeah. the the consideration of revenue generating is more so
look if again if we only have finite resources and we and like and we have to sort of rank order certain things and we have to determine we do like I mean again unless unless I'm not hearing it correctly but I feel like we spend a lot of time asking even nonprofit organizations who do not have general
revenue you know facility or facilitating uh we ask how are you going to keep up with this what do you have in place and for B again, how do you connect that ROI? It it's very obvious to connect that ROI to money that we're spending to again
patchwork. This is the difference, right? We're not trying to say we're going to facilitate your entire operation. And then to to your to your point on like, okay, a food pantry, it's again consideration of the committee, maybe they get a little bit more because they need a little bit more help, whereas the patchwork of a revenue or
organization can get them by in order to catch up to the funding. does that again it's all within a parameter so to speak but it allows us to give us a little bit more structure on how to move forward >> and be able to clearly tell the people that we're working with these organizations here's our framework of
what we're trying to consider what's our decision-m criteria essentially >> that makes a point I mean whatever >> we decide as a board yeah >> is what we have to move forward with right >> so we have to look at every project the same way
>> right I agree from here on approach >> and I still would go with no emergency funding, but it's the board's choice and how you want to set forward how we're going to do this. So >> So can I ask a question? Is the idea of
emergency funding applications? Are we I guess are we trying not to do that? >> I I'm saying it's just not done normally with CPC commit, >> right? But we like I said in the past we've always been in the forefront of
doing different things. Well that's the thing. So that's I don't want to stifle the board how you guys want to do it. >> I feel like I feel like maybe that should be the first question or are we going to do it or not? And if we agree that we're going to how do we want to do it and this is more the how not if we're going to do it.
>> Somebody wants to make that motion. >> No I don't want to make motion yet. I'd like to talk to the issue first. >> Um if I can is I'd interrupted you. Would you if he had more to say? >> No, no, no. You're we're good. >> Okay. Um
uh I am now an expert in applying uh and from a different direction than some of you. Some of you also have done applications. Although BJ isn't here. Um I have several suggestions.
one on an emergency application make it clear that everything if we do it okay that it's both historical and construction and about the
construction of the thing. Um, it's possible to read this and think that you're only you're coming in for an emergency application and you only have to deal with the historical that night because there will be a second
step as there is with with the normal application just make it clear in the someplace in the process. I'm not >> I'm not criticizing the writing here. Uh
the second thing I would s suggest before I get to the um yes um and this is not related to the emergency but I'm really talking about the same thing kind of the same thing
the guidelines for the regular application. I know we're slightly off the track, but I didn't realize I thought we had to drop the material off only on that particular day that the
office was open and a leader was was was there. I did not get that you could come in a month earlier and that needs just to get cleared up. Mhm. >> All right. >> That's uh going back to the
um >> I don't think it says due on that day. I think it says do by. >> Yeah. >> Right. But if you can only go on that day, >> but it doesn't make it quite clear because there is no office. You see for
our place at at at Gov Center. There's no sign up. I'm just I'm talking I'm not complaining. I'm just saying this is >> proven that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm not arguing for special treatment. I never have here. Right, John? Ever?
>> You never have. Nope. >> Okay. Now, uh I think there is one I think we should have some emergency uh applications. is the one that comes to mind
most strongly outside of uh fire, crime, arson, or some of the buildings that when we had the flood, remember the flood about 10
years ago when the when the things popped out of the Columbia Street. Okay, those had real possibilities, but there was femur and and all that. Um, I
do think that buying land or acquiring properties as listed here is really important and it may take an emergency to do it.
>> I will give you one example. When we were trying to put together the bio reserve, there was about a $2 million shortage from the that need was needed to put the
whole four parcels together and we and green futures of which I'm secretary was if we're still functioning. I'm not that um just were really nervous and um what we needed was a $2 million
loan. I thought for a while and I made an appointment in Boston and I walked into the office of our bishop and the Episcopal City Mission and met
with the executive officer of the Episcopal City Mission and said Colt. Well, I came up because I'd like to borrow $2 million maybe for six months. Smile. Smile. He smiled.
He said, "Well, we can't approve it today." And we went through the whole story. >> Mhm. >> And um well, I'm sure listening and we will discuss it with the bishop
and if the money doesn't come through from the state and the and the seller and this was the Aushnet. This was the Aushnet properties. >> Mhm. Kushnet lumber properties. Um, let me know right away
from him. That's a yes. And you get these things when you're acquiring land in particular. And I just picked one that is could have been so important to Fall River. But fortunately
the state money came in just as we the owner was the owners were getting desperate and it it all worked out. So um include that. I also think that but
um I'm not u I'm not in love with with emergency as someone who has worked with a lot of churches um and other groups. I don't seem to work with any wealthy groups. That's the
problem. And um deferred maintenance, yes, but there's also the problem of just not having knowing it or not getting the right opinion, which is what happened in our case. We've been chasing to where is
the leak coming from for five years anyway. Um but that's uh those are my those those are the only major suggestions I have. Uh, I hope we don't finalize it tonight,
but rather approve it for further study, you know, just just or or keep it as as guidelines for the future, knowing that we can we can change them. We can add to them. >> We can always add and change. >> Yeah, that >> I'm wondering if there's some kind of
caveat associated with if it's really truly an emergency. you've got a hole in your roof and the water's coming in, that doesn't mean you have to go through a whole roof repair, like what you need to do right now so that the situation doesn't get any worse.
>> Kind of like with with the library, my understanding with the library, this is many years back, that it was deteriorating the walls on the inside. There was a fear of the books being mildew and all this stuff. So, you fixed the problem. So maybe that's a band-aid
solution until you can come and put your application in to fix the problem completely. And that's why I say the onus should be on the applicant asking for it. Here I have a report like with your church. You have pointing
issues but you have a water issue. Fix the water issue f first. That would be the band-aid and then the then the repointing would be the permanent structure. They got and that's the only reason I I just don't want to see like again the Abby Grill is a perfect
example. That's a beautiful skyline steeple that's out there but that was almost ready to come down. I mean there were tiles coming down and that's a perfect example if if they didn't do something about that. You know that that probably would have
had to come down. I mean and there are buildings here right now in the city that are going through that. They're just waiting for them to do. >> But the did that on its own. That was no CPA money. >> That was on on the Staples and the >> No, that was no CPA money. >> They had to they had to do some type of
an emergency thing. That was for the >> the block. Uh they they applied for funding which was to repair the roof on the >> Abbey which they >> reason we really don't look at them favorably now is because they misused
>> they repaired roof but they spot repaired all the roofs which >> serve no problem because now they're leaking again. So that's that's why I say like I think like and now they're supposed to be they're supposed to be on these like a professional licensed
professional architect structural engineer whoever it might be that they need you go and pay for them to go tell us what the problem is what's the quick solution to this and then come back later and if it makes sense then you do
the project >> because again Christ the Rock Church is an example of that so you're just going to keep on >> digging at this and and at what point >> let's stick with just the emergency funding >> part. How do we
>> Alex, you've been quiet? >> Not anymore. >> Um, so just generally I'm in favor of emergency funding. I think it'll be one of those things where if we didn't have it, the second we didn't, we would wish we did. You know, there's countless situations I can think of where someone
or the city or the community would want to have um emergency funding available in a really timely situation. Um I think if we were to keep it versus doing it, I think we should either keep it and keep it kind of loose and up open to our
interpretation to kind of reflect those everchanging parameters or do it not at all. although I would recommend doing it and kind of keeping uh it more open. Um just to respond to some specific situations that were mentioned like uh
the work that should be covered under insurance. So typically I believe like insurance would pay you know to to repair it but they might not necessarily pay to repair a historic building up to >> No, insurance companies don't always pay. We applied for the insurance. The
wind blew the shingles off and the insurance company said >> if if an insurance company to pay to pay to repair something, they might not necessarily do it up to historic preservation standards is the point I was trying to make. Um I'll additionally
uh say you know a group applies and you think that they or someone on the committee thinks that they should have had their you know stuff together a little bit better. Um perhaps they're an all volunteer board with, you know, no paid staff and they're just doing this in their free time. You know, it could
be a lack of experience. It could be turnover. There's just countless situations. Would you penalize that group because that's how they're forced to operate? Just one thing to consider. Um uh so
uh to your point uh coun member Ferious about you know doing patchwork repairs initially um if it was you know on a historic property under the historic preservation charact uh category that would have to be up to secretary of interior standards which patchwork
generally would not be like you know you would have to kind of at least you know mask it or something. So, so that's it's already a step beyond um just general kind of uh initial repairs. >> I would suggest moving forward and we could come up with this for the next meeting that based off of all the
parameters that we individually think would be acceptable perhaps we come up with a kind of grid evaluation uh format that we would use to evaluate every single emergency application. You know, perhaps it's a one to five voting
scale and we add it up and see what is the biggest emergency. You know, threat to like impact on the community, threat to the organization's operational standards, threat to a cultural or historic asset, um timeliness of a of a property sale, you know, perhaps someone
passed away and they're try some relative is trying to sell something really quickly. Are we going to ignore that because it doesn't fund fall into the funding schedule? There's just countless situations that you can think of where I think an you should have a mechanism for emergency funding. If we
wanted to close it off at the funding cycle and and that's, you know, a majority of the year, we can do that. But I think as worded right now, which I think is well done. Um it's at our discretion at all times, you know. So perhaps someone comes in, they think it's an emergency. We all don't think
it's emergency. We quickly v vote on our evaluation box. you know, the score has come in maybe below a general threshold that we establish or or maybe this the score is lower low and we vote on it and we don't think it's an an emergency. However, we kind of want to do it. That
would be my suggestions for uh how to move forward. Um >> yeah, like like typical of how any municipality will evaluate responses to RF requests for proposals and requests for qualifications. All the evaluation committees have evaluation factors that
are established beforehand and then you know they vote on it and then there's a scoring rubric to it. So this could all be predetermined, included on the website, included in emergency applications. Right now on the website there really isn't anything talking about emergency applications. So I don't
think we can hold it against people for not necessarily knowing the process currently. >> Um so just my thoughts. >> Yeah, I had a similar thought >> and I would someplace in there I said we
got to say that we pretty much what we're all most of us are saying at least tonight we do not approve emergency applications lightly. It's a serious just so that isn't clear
there. It it just you know and we have a way of defining it that something like that or some other system. >> Okay, >> Rick. All good points. Excellent. Excellent points. And you were talking
about some facilities being strictly uh nonincome generating. Well, also they have most have donors of sorts and that's how they survive. So there is some revenue being generated in that
fashion. Um the in in my opinion when I look at all of this and we participate in historic restoration we we should keep bear in mind that if it's
a church building if whatever the building is it's historic and it should be maintained by the owners of the property. We're not a bank. What we are though is taking taxpayer money, putting it into a
historic property for the benefit of the taxpayer. It maintains the city. It maintains a historic nature. It's pleasant and pleasing to look at. It draws in tourism. So, it's all the pluses. But what it is is that extra
that money that we're putting in is maybe to cover the extra cost as was so well mentioned here to perform historic work is more costly. So this what we're doing is we're just adding to the historic portion or that extra cost
portion. So that's great. And I'm not going to go on and ramble because all of these points were made once. But what I'd like to do is that if you look at any laws that are written, whether they be federal, state, or local, the bottom
line always states or the authority enforcing the code. It leaves that final judgment to the authority enforcing the code. We could look at this and I would like to make a motion later that we table this to the next meeting. gives us
a little time to review all of us and make notes. But in there we could have in bold letters it's the authority you know the authority of the awarding committee or commission. So
>> after we go through all these rules and regulations and I really like u uh the idea commissioner silver of the matrix a matrix is is great. you just, you know, you put the matrix together and that bottom line tells it all. So, I I think
that's great. Um, but again, I'm I'm not going to pursue this any longer. There were so many well point well-made points, but again, I would put a little bottom line after we develop all of this that the authority is still
it the commission allocating the expenditures would still be the authority. So even if we went through it all and we felt no then the committee would say no and that would be end of story and it would be written and to someone's comment I forget exactly who
it was made the comment about it's it's not written in there well it most of these items are written for the due date we have phone numbers and it is the commission here that makes the final
decision that's pretty much implied with all of our writing if you if you read it. >> So, >> and with that, I would like to make a motion that we table that. That doesn't end the conversation. It just means that there's a motion out there.
>> Just table this till the next meeting. >> Have a motion to second. Uh all in favor? >> I I >> Jim. >> Okay. >> I think that's a good thing. We had good discussion. Chairman Frank, can I make one more motion? Um,
>> well, before before I make the motion, >> can we decide uh based on committee vote that we do want to move forward with with um committee with emergency funding in and of itself because what what I feel like we just tabled was the how we're going
to do it. Correct. This is the >> we can make a motion to table. >> We want to table the actual vote of emergency funding in and of itself. I I would like to amend then my motion that yes, we also >> it's on the floor, Rick. You can we should it belongs to the floor.
>> Well, it doesn't belong to you. >> I haven't made the motion. I want to clarify because what I thought I just heard was that we're tableabling the the document itself for >> further discussion the document, >> right? But we haven't decided if we want to pursue emergency funding as a body. >> That's what I'm asking. So, do we want
to vote on that? >> We accept the document. I'm just just doing >> I'm just saying do we want to vote on emergency funding tonight? >> Do you want to vote on that tonight? >> I'm asking. >> Oh, no. I I would not want to do that because of >> Okay.
>> Um a negative vote would mean that we couldn't um >> Well, a negative vote >> purchase any land in the bio reserve on an emergency basis. >> Right. A negative vote would mean we don't have to waste any more time on this. >> I'm right. So, we have a step one. Do we want to do it? Step two is then we then
to member Mancini's point, we actually get into the words and how and and the the the matrix and the the additional points following the yes vote or no vote. >> So if we want to do that tonight, we can then spend time on this is what I'm
saying. So all right, I'll make a motion. >> Can I just go ahead? >> So I don't like the general acceptance of emergency funding isn't necessarily on the agenda. only the guidelines is which is what was on the table for being
um or on on the table for being tabled. Um I would suggest so so I I don't think we should change anything this current funding cycle regarding emergency funding since you know someone's already been approved someone's already applied.
So in the aspect of fairness, it should just kind of stay the same for this fiscal year and then we start over with the guidelines, you know, in the next grant cycle is kind of what I would think would be the most >> Well, that would be Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Like no no votes on emergency funding as
it is right now because it's it's not on the agenda and it's currently in the m like >> Yeah. >> It would be just >> Well, emergency funding doesn't really have a particular cycle. It's just ongoing. >> No, that's what I'm saying. rather than voting to not do it anymore now, you know, in the middle of a a cycle. >> No, but what I'm saying is it's not in
the middle of a cycle because there is no actual cycle to emergency funding. So, we can decide our fiscal year of our year cycle. >> Yeah. Yeah. But emergency could be anytime. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So, we just leave everything alone right now. >> When's our when's our fiscal year?
>> I understand both points. Um >> Yeah, I I I understand. >> Made sense, I guess. No, no, it makes sense, but I understand both points. It it the fiscal cycle actually should not apply to the emergency funding is what they're saying. >> So, it doesn't matter if we vote tonight or later or never.
>> So, in other words, you're saying we should wait until we vote. They're saying it doesn't matter when we vote >> because it doesn't apply. It's not >> Well, part of the the logic for oops, sorry, for rescending it was because it was unfair doing it in the grant cycle. So, so that that was that was stated. So
just keeping keeping everything as it is for the current grant cycle is what I was saying. >> Well, our votes are already done for that current but future emergencies are going to pop up >> tomorrow. Who knows? >> That's I think we're saying the same
thing. >> Yeah, but what Yeah, we but we >> but are we going to like pursue them or are we going to say like we do not have >> currently as we're doing at our discretion? You know, we just don't have a matrix right now. Okay, >> that that's what I mean. Like it's it's all at our discretion right now still.
>> Can I just recommend something? So you all have emergency funding as part of the committee. You already have that. It's already there. >> Yes. >> So basically what I would what I'm hearing
you're saying is to table a vote to approve emergency funding guidelines. >> Yes. >> Correct. I think Rick, if you amend your motion to table a vote
on the emergency funding guidelines because you already you already have emergency funding that you do. >> Okay. You just need to come up with some guidelines for emergency funding. >> No, but John wants to do away with emergency funding period is what he's
saying. >> Until the next meeting, >> right? So, how about we go with his motion to table everything till >> next month? >> That's that's perfectly fine. >> And then on the and on the agenda, put a vote first before the discussion, a vote
on the emergency funding period, whether we want to continue with it or not. And then if we decide to continue with emergency funding, then we discuss the guidelines. >> Correct. That's right. >> Yes. >> So, give me your wording for the motion so I can get it. >> Wait, you want to put that back in? >> Yeah. the the motion at this point.
>> He can't. It's been voted. >> He's just rewriting. No, we didn't vote yet. He's just going to >> Wait a minute. We voted to table it next month. >> No, we didn't vote. >> We just got to first say it back to the record. >> The motion was made and seconded.
There's still discussion to be made. We haven't voted yet. >> So, he's going to reay the motion and then you can rescend it. Y >> Okay. He's just going to read it back. >> Make another motion. Sure. He's just going to read it back into the >> We're going to rewrite the motion or
reward the motion that we put this table this motion until our next meeting. This gives us a chance to reign all the guidelines. End of story. >> Do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Roll call vote. >> Yes. Michael Fus. >> Chris Benabites. Yes. Alexander Silva, yes. >> Kristen Canara Oliver, yes. >> John Brand, yes. >> Jess, James, >> Rick Manceni, yes. >> Okay, good conversation.
>> Thank you. That was that was a good conversation. Thank you. >> Well, it's not going to happen. >> Okay. >> Um, >> let's see. Uh, funding application. What is required for an application to complete? Uh,
>> all right. Back to the agenda. So I I do have something to say about this one. >> You do good because I forgot everything that I just was thinking about. >> Okay. So, so one of one of my things is
I know in the past and and this is one of those areas where I think we really need to be firm in what we decide and how we hold people to those decisions is we have always said by the time the
application is submitted for um what's what's the deadline? Uh December 2nd. So funding applications are due December 2nd, Tuesday before noon. And people know this well in advance. Everything is posted so that they're well aware.
They come in with an application that is not complete. Either they don't have their letters of support, they don't have um the financials, whatever we have told them that they need to have based on what's on the application. I think if
an application comes in incomplete, they don't have their letter, they don't have whatever we say your application is invalid, it is not a complete application where sometimes that's like
people have kind of let that slide and it shouldn't be. Everybody should be held to the same standard. This is due on that date. This is everything you need. You need to make sure that you set yourself up so that you have all of this on time. If not, your application is
considered invalid and we are not going to consider you for funding. >> Okay. Well, I think that's great. I I know Alex and I write proposals where it's very strict on what you're supposed to submit and if you meet it 5 minutes
past the deadline, it gets rejected. Right. And I will say that um they do open up bids on Fred TV and they go through the thing. Do I have this form, this form, this form? They just check down. If you do, then we'll we'll put the qualifications aside and then we'll
look the price later on. But I think you're absolutely right. Like this is a lot of money. I mean, >> it is something that has to be taken seriously. And if you can't do the minimum requirement, >> right? >> And >> and again, we've run through this several times with with good projects,
really solid projects, but no financials, no none of the things that are required, you know, and again, >> um this is not our money. It's the taxpayers's money. And I agree with you wholeheartedly. If it doesn't meet the minimum requirements, then do we really
want to be dealing with that later on? So, >> yeah, I don't think it's right to give people another chance. Well, oh well, as long as you have it by the next meeting, if it was due in the application, if this is something that we decide as a committee that we want extra on top of
whatever they've asked for in the first place, that's that's a little different. But the to have like if you don't have your letters of support from like say you need it from the park board, you need it from the historical commission, the conservation commission. If you don't have that by the time your application's due, that's on you. You've
had all of this time knowing that you're going to need those things to go before whatever committee they should be there. If they're not there, your application is not >> valid things like that's how I feel like that right there. Absolute standard. I I
did get an email on a question of uh we asked for operation budget which I think if somebody's putting in a project the operation budget should be uh geared towards how you're maintaining the project you're doing not necessarily
your in depth of your corporation or your company the bottom line we just need to know how you're going to fund to maintain the uh project that you're going to do. So when you're looking at the operation budget, it's just geared to that project that you're sustainable
in continuing it after we fund you. Uh so if that answers the questions that were emailed, hopefully that will. Um but uh that did have that cuz they were wondering, do I need to send in our corporate budget? you know, I'm like, we
really don't need >> just the the basic guidelines to how you're going to maintain this project is sufficient to us. H >> Alex just in line of that uh thinking the one benefit and perhaps it's just with you
know emergency applications or something but the one benefit of getting you know the whole budget of an organization is we could actually look to see if there is money or has been money spent towards maintenance for something that is claimed to be deferred maintenance. So
if that would be pertinent and useful uh during the normal application process, that's the only thing I would say for why you would ask for it. Um but you know it it's on a case by case basis in terms of value I guess. >> Well, we can include that in the email
just to cuz they they wanted to know what but that would be good that the maintenance part of their company would be to our benefit. Are you putting money back into your maintenance? That's where >> payroll that stuff we really don't care about. But your maintenance into your
company, that's >> just out of curiosity, how often do we get questions or do you get questions on the application process in and of itself from applicants? Does that happen quite often? >> Yeah, I probably take about uh 10 calls a week on CPC projects.
>> Okay. So, you're the you're the point of contact for these. Okay. And it happens quite often. Okay. So, >> I mean, in the past, we've been uh Yeah, I get quite a few. >> Okay. So there's no reason I my thinking was is you know are applications coming in incorrect because they're just too confusing and there's no way to
>> get clarification on it or No. Right. But but it sounds like it you know you you're readily available for communication. So if they if there are any confusing terms or questions that maybe an expert's not aware of >> they can get to someone who can help them. And so it sounds like you're
consulting them throughout that process anyways. So there's no I guess to the to the point there's there's really no need not to submit things on time or have things incomplete. >> Yeah. And they also know that Sandy's available her name and and extension everything is on there as well. So >> can tell you she probably gets quite a
few calls. It's pretty >> people are just >> want a second opinion I guess before they submit you know and they call for reassurance. Totally like what do and I'm like you're doing it right. You can just put it through and that's Yep. That's what you're supposed to do.
>> Do I need this? Yes. I said the more like we had uh St. John's the church came in tonight >> and I said you don't have to stick around for the meeting. >> Yeah. >> Uh because I had sent him an email and I said uh my view which I was I voted no on his
project and I said the reason I voted no is because in the past we voted no on interior work >> to an organization like yours. >> Yeah. I said, "You do outstanding work. If you if everybody followed the way you do our CBC projects would be great."
>> Yeah. >> I said, "You don't have to stick around. We approved it. >> See you in January. I'm sure your application will be down to a tea." >> Y, >> but that's the questions I get, you know, and it and then it's it >> y, >> you know, my opinion and you know, I
help them out. So, it's I guess when you're chairman, you get those uh you know, cuz I used to get calls. I don't know if you get these calls because you're not the chairman. I'm like, well, no, I do hear about it cuz Jim Souza, we've talked plenty of times and we've always had an open board. So,
>> you know, that's just how I work. >> I've had one email so far from someone. Yeah. So, we, you know, >> I get frequent calls. >> Got it. >> Need assistance and guidance and stuff. just yeah there's no lack of >> the comment on this I don't know if
someone's talking but I can is it needs to be clearly laid out what's needed >> yes >> it is it is >> it is clearly laid out >> I just did an application and I looked through the book again
and I did not see anywhere just in five minutes while the discussion was going um that I should have a letter from the historic commission. >> Oh yeah, that's >> it's in the application and we tell them
very specifically at the eligibility. >> No, I'm not saying we don't need it. >> Yeah, >> I'm just saying. >> But no, it is in there. >> It's in the application and we tell them at their eligibility hearings. >> I I'll keep looking. But what I'm really
saying is that some of if you would ask if this were an application in the area of green space. Yeah, I know how to do that. Um historic stuff. No, I'm learning. >> Okay. You know, and I'm just a poor
reverend here that is in a church and I don't don't understand all of this. And I've got a I've got a booklet this big that Jim loaned me and That's that's what I'm saying. Okay. >> May I just make one recommendation
because I do sit on a a a board for another city that sees RFP, sees all of the questions. We don't we just review it, give it to the the city department and then we go out to bid with it. I'd be very careful of of these things
because if you have an application, right, and your application's pretty good. Like I mean, it does its job. It defines what you're supposed to put in. So, when you make a phone call, what you're supposed to get is a written
communication from an applicant for say whatever it might they're they're submitting. That way, everybody that's applying for it, it doesn't tarnish any of their submissions. So, if somebody knows you, calls you and says, "Should I do X, Y, and Z?" Well, you just need to
follow what the application is. If it says, "I want to see more historical, whatever it might be, or more maintenance to it." Well, then it gives them a distinct advantage to that. And so we always require if you got have a
question you have to put it into writing and it needs to go to anybody else that's applying especially for a project or something that nature and again I think it's great to be helpful but it could help it could hurt you and like there have been people who have gone
after projects and said wait a minute they had some inside knowledge to this and why didn't my application get approved that's that's the only thing I would I would say that. But I think what you have there for an application is enough information to get what they
want or what they need. And giving them any side insider information to that could be detrimental. >> Well, I don't call it insider information. I mean, >> yeah, >> they're asking what they need to do, what makes their application I, you
know, and I always end with I'm only one of nine votes. I I >> so I am not >> I mean I agree with you that that you know but talking to me is not going to guarantee you that uh >> because I have plenty of friends that applied or plenty of people I know I
mean being when you're on a board for 20 years you you know almost everybody and everybody says they know you so it's >> and if I didn't answer phone calls that called me I'm like you know it's it's just one of those things I just
answer questions that are like within my realm that >> you know there's nothing I can guarantee anybody you know that is never a >> and not to not to belver the point I mean we can probably move on from this very quickly but the application process is >> is like the first step of of a
>> proxy for trust it's like if you can't get that correct how can we give you money >> right >> so you know the fact that you're eager to get this right shows us you're eager probably for on behalf of your organization and your >> you know your your the people that you work with etc. So it's like
>> but even on our application we've gone through it like each year we've gone through it to look and see is there an issue here what can we do better what do we need to so we've really gotten everything >> pretty much to the point where it really
is self-explanatory. People may have a question here or there, but they're very well aware if they read that application, they're very well aware of what they need, how they need to get it, and there there's really not any gray
area anymore on those applications. Like we went through it with a fine tooth comb. So, >> I mean, I think this year, like we've always said, put 10 to 20% continuence cost, right? But you go to any other grant
and you say, "I want 20,000, you get 20,000." You don't come back and say, "I need 22." >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> We need to start holding our ground saying, "No, we gave you 20." >> Y >> you didn't do you do digital. >> Yeah. >> You're only getting 20. You come up with
the 2,000 or you don't do the project, >> right? >> I mean, those are things that we ought to start to look hard at. You know, >> Mike, on your point, I did make a note on that. operations budget that I made a note that I would be sending every
applicant an email to let them know that in the application they need to submit >> a full organization budget so that you can see so I did make a note and I will be sending every applicant an email to let them know and define
>> number six on operation budget so >> all right >> very good okay so on the funding application Any further discussion or Okay. Uh project update. >> That's going to be back next month, isn't it? >> Yeah, we we'll have that. Yeah. Okay.
>> Uh project updates. >> Um >> I I just made some phone calls um today. So, the children's uh museum project um the the drawings have already been
issued. the specs and the uh bids will be opened on October 30th, 2025. And so one of the things that uh it may throw a little bit of a wrench into these is that the DAM um requirements and that is
a state requirement for um uh state buildings. And so they're they're kind of changing right now because of some of the federal aids associated with it, but they do have they had four contractors at least go there. Um and hopefully of
the four they're all qualified because they're DAM certified. But what they're noticing and what um I believe it was Tammy that I spoke with uh she had mentioned that um there are less and less of those folks that you can get to
do that type of work, especially historical construction and of a certain price um because there's requirements of DAM certification. DAM's not quite sure if the federal funding's coming in yet. So we might see some stuff that takes a
little bit more time. um to get figured out. But right now they're moving forward in October 30th. We should we should should know something. Uh and then the other one was uh Chris and I um I just gave a call to um Dery Block
Project and Monty Ferris uh kind of ran into the same scenario. He thinks January, December, January that they'll be ordering the windows that they asked for and they think shovel ready by
April, May and um but again some of their funding is also linked into federal funding and uh it's still kind of he hasn't got a definitive answer. That's what I have on those two. >> Okay.
Uh I'll ask a question afterwards. Sure. Um, I sent some photos over of the historical society and Christ the Rock Church. I think historical society has a tour available. I don't know if that already happened. Actually, >> it happened and uh before uh you uh the
tour was great. I mean, if you didn't get a chance to get in there, >> the money spent there, what they're doing is unbelievable. Mhm. >> The art gallery. >> Unbelievable. >> So, I'm sorry to cut in on >> you.
Outstanding. >> They they would explain it far better than I can, but if there's any questions, um I just went over there again a week or two ago. Uh and there's just been more progress on the C on the cupula at the roof. I think it's just been painted and stuff and they're
they're moving they're moving along. So, yeah. Um >> are they open to the public yet or not? Just the gift shop. Just the gift shop. Not right now. Are they looking for uh a reopening for the Christmas the holiday season? >> Not this year.
>> Spring, I think they said is that what they're aiming for? >> You said spring. >> I believe they they're aiming for spring. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The Hoopil is lit now, right? >> They're going if it's not I think it is. Yeah. They they put the light bulbs in. They clean the windows and everything and it it looks great. Um the view from
the roof of the city is one of a kind. It's uh >> Yeah. I don't think you're going to see like the Christmases that you used to see there because they're going in the direction of the art. I mean, when you go in and see it, you're going to realize that >> it is.
>> The gallery they added, I think, was one of the rooms that Christmas. >> I saw the I saw the present. I apologize for not being able to make it. I had another commitment, but I I did see some of the photos and stuff like that. And that's great. I mean, that's great for an organization to basically reinvent
themselves. And again, >> the the historical commission is going to be having a tour coming up shortly. Uh I can notify Sandy and and you could all attend that same tour for those of you who missed. >> Perfect.
>> It's a terrific tour. >> Okay. You were there. >> Yeah. >> Absolutely terrific. And the gallery alone is worth a couple hours. But I we only had half an hour there probably. >> The only update I have on my project is
the uh fire museum uh they accepted the bids for the windows. So they should be being installed. But then I just got a call from Mike Leage at the fire museum that his roof was leaking. And uh he
said, "I I we we talked about that." And he goes, "I know I can't put in a uh another round of funding." And I said, I go, "Mike, you got to have the city start putting in money since it is a city-owned property and you're writing it." So, it's you've got to go different
routes. So, because he's has two projects out. I think they're both uh I know one's 500. I mean, they're almost over a million dollars with two projects. >> So, it's like he know he can apply for more. So, at least he realizes, but the
city's got to start investing back in its properties. We cannot be the sole supplier of >> keeping them going, you know. So, that just to let you know that in case somebody says they're leaking roof, it's leaking, but the windows are being that
this city is uh I sent uh Ala an email. He's looking into seeing how the roof is because we do have funding for the roof to see how that process is going, but as of now, I don't know anything on that yet. So, >> thank you. >> That's my updates. >> So, I just I just have one thing and
mine is a question actually for Sandy. >> Um, preservation design guidelines is still listed as red in progress, but those are done. >> Okay, that that's feedback from me, so I can just update this. Okay, Rick. Rick,
those are already >> Oh, yeah. Those are those are completed. Printed. >> Yeah. Y >> It's on the first page. >> So, that's complet >> toward the bottom. Yeah, that one's completed. >> I think that's the new I think that's
the I think it's old information. So, >> are you sure that >> because the district expansion projects nowhere else. So, I think it's that. Oh, but that's one of the new ones that I don't think we assigned to anybody yet. >> Which one?
>> The district expansion project. >> Sure. That if that is the guidelines that it is done. Yeah. >> Yeah, that's the guidelines. The district >> I believe it was taken off already. That's why I think it might be. If you see anything that you think needs to be added or just
>> Well, he Yeah, he's saying the district expansion project, but that's cuz I don't see no form B's historical commission. >> Oh, that's a different one. >> That's a different one. >> Okay. Then the district expansion project.
>> That's hasn't even I I don't know if it should be on here or if that's misnamed is what I'm saying. >> That was FY2. because I I thought the ones from last year haven't been >> check
>> because I don't remember getting any new ones >> I'll check on that >> okay then uh moving on to new business any new business >> you already kind of said it but just
could you just go over so the Ukrainian Baptist church that's that you told them that was eligible Did we get the opinion from Steuart and everything eligibility round? Yeah. >> Okay. I just wanted to clear because it was supposed to be decided. >> Yeah. They I told them they were okay. They didn't have to stick around. Uh I
do just want to remind that uh December uh 2nd is the uh cut off date for applications being due. That's Tuesday before noon. Uh so the public knows that uh December 2nd is the cut off date for putting in your funding. Then uh funding
hearings we have right now scheduled for they don't have it open yet because uh >> they can't yeah they >> right. So we have the 21st and the 26th slated but we have to wait from the uh clerk's office to make sure those dates
are available for us. Um >> did you want to add a third date funding hearings or not? >> Let's see how we'll wait till Janu December and then we'll >> see when they come. Okay. Yeah. Uh so do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Uh one one m if I could have a moment.
Uh these form B that's on here that's that we've been working on digital diligently been working on for months and is uh coming to a fruition. It's all completed. Uh they're documenting putting it into a PowerPoint and there's going to be a presentation. You're all
invited November the 18th 6 p.m. in this room. We're going to have a presentation from PAL uh on the bio. It should be a half threequarters of an hour presentation be all PowerPoint and discussion. Uh it's very interesting.
There's uh at this point 80 sites that have been located and examined and researched uh up in up in the bio reserve area. And there are uh
41 more sites being applied for at CPC for 40 for the evaluation of 401 other sites. And that will then take in the whole buyer reserve if if it is funded. But um I'm
I'm just making the invite at the historical commission for November 18th at 6 PM here in this room. >> All right. Good. >> Invite friends. Uh, it's it's going to be an interesting presentation. >> It sounds good. So, do I have a motion
to adjurnn? So, move. >> Second. >> I second the motion. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Thank you, folks. >> Getting bigger and bigger every time they come.